Introduction: This is the second volume in the series St Helena Records, which summarises the proceedings of official meetings held by the island’s Governor and Council, during which matters of government, defence, supplies, justice and discipline were discussed and recorded.
Source: Images of the original records can be viewed on the British Library’s website: https://eap.bl.uk/archive-file/EAP1364-1-1-2.
Text Transcription This transcription was produced by AI from handwritten document images held on the British Library's website, at about thirty pages per hour. Given the limitations described below, the text should be regarded as unreliable and used only as a search-and-find shortcut: once a relevant section has been located, it must always be checked against the source image via the hyperlinked Film Numbers listed in the main transcription table below.
Three specific problems affected the work. First, AI tends to prioritise meaning and readability at the expense of fidelity to the original, with a strong disposition to normalise spellings, expand abbreviations, and adjust grammar. It is particularly weak with unfamiliar surnames, and scrawled signatures often resist accurate transcription entirely. Transcriptions by eye of documents spanning four centuries have also shown that a single surname could be written in a wide variety of ways: the Crowie family name appears under six different spellings, and the Isaacs family name under sixteen. Searches for surnames are therefore hindered both by genuine variations in the originals and by mistranscriptions introduced by AI, and for this reason are best run phonetically. Second, the AI struggled with the late secretary hand, the script commonly used from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, in which the letter S appears in a form closely resembling a trailing L. Third, occasional passages in these volumes are written in a hand so obscure or poorly formed as to be difficult to read even by eye, sometimes compounded by heavy ink bleed-through from the reverse side or by the loss of sections of pages.
To mitigate these difficulties, a strict protocol was applied to each image, requiring the AI to rely solely on clearly visible ink strokes and to flag any uncertain reading, thereby reducing the risk of inferred or invented text. Two conventions are used. [...] marks text that could not be read with confidence; this may represent a single unreadable word, a full sentence, or occasionally an entire paragraph. Square brackets around letters or words indicate a conjectural reading supplied by the transcriber: brackets around a whole word, for example [Bazett], mean the entire word was unclear and a probable reading has been supplied, while brackets around individual letters within an otherwise readable word, for example B[a]z[e]tt, mean only those specific letters were unclear in the source and the unbracketed letters were legibly present.
Modern Summary and Analysis Each section of text was submitted for AI analysis in order to explain the archaic language in clear, modern UK English. These are not direct sentence by sentence replacements, but explanatory interpretations intended to clarify meaning while preserving the substance of the original. Where a specific individual is named within a section of the original text, that person will generally also be identified within the explanatory interpretation. However, where the original consists largely of lists of names, these are not usually repeated in the explanatory text.
Each text modern summary is followed by two forms of AI-generated analysis. The first, an Interpretations section, draws on wider information located on the internet to provide additional commentary on the material. The second, a Speculations section, offers one or more possible reflections on what the document might further suggest. The value of these notes ranges from the profound to the trivial or self-evident; time did not permit deletion of the latter.
Text Loss: Some tattered edges have resulted in the loss of text. The legibility of several pages in this volume is among the worst within the full set of endangered St Helena archives, so errors in transcription are more than usually probable.
Referencing Text Locations: A dual numbering system has been adopted, combining the British Library film number with the manuscript’s original page number. These are presented in the format: British Library Film No. / Document Page No.
Pagination: The first marked document page number is 3, which appears on film No. 12. It is therefore assumed that page numbering begins at film No. 10. A dual page-numbering system starts at 42/33, which is marked with two page numbers, 33 and 25. This dual numbering continues through to film No. 76, which is marked as pages 67 and 59. Thereafter the new numbering takes precedence, continuing as 77/60, 78/61 and 79/62, and so on. A small single leaf is inserted immediately after 187/170. Its two sides are assigned 188/171 and 189/172, so the sequence appears to jump backwards by two, after which it continues 190/171, 191/172 and so forth. Later there is a jump from 218/199 to 219/202. Finally, a blank page causes the sequence to fall back from 248/231 to 249/231.
Dates: During the period covered by this volume, England and its colonies followed the Old-Style Julian calendar, under which the legal new year began on 25 March (Lady Day). When creating the modern interpretations of these texts, the AI has automatically adjusted the dates. For any date quoted in these early St Helena records falling in the period between January and 25 March, the year has been moved forward to the modern equivalent. Month names were frequently rendered using Roman calendar abbreviations such as 7ber, 8ber, 9ber and 10ber, in which September through to December were counted as the seventh to tenth months.
The earliest date recorded in this volume is 3 January 1683 (1684 in the modern calendar) and the latest is 12 December 1687. All the Council meetings were held during the administration of Major John Blackmore (1683-1689).
AI Generated Summary
Introduction
The material covered in this second volume of St Helena Records begins with a Council held at Fort James on 8 Jan 1684, four days after the arrival of the ship Charles the Second under Sir Thomas Grantham, and ends in late Nov 1687 with the trial of an enslaved man named Peter for incitement to poison and a quarrel on board the ship Margueritte between Andrew Rooker and the councillor Nathaniel Coxe. Across these four years St Helena was a small, fortified plantation island held by the Honourable Company of English Merchants trading to the East Indies as Lords Proprietors, governed by John Blackmore as Governor, by a varying Council of two or three principal officers, and by a small garrison of soldiers paid in goods rather than coin. The record presents itself as a series of administrative orders, judicial determinations, complaints by free planters, examinations of soldiers and slaves, and proclamations issued by sound of drum or pinned to the doors of the Court of Judicature and the Sessions House. It must therefore be read as the voice of authority, with the perspectives of soldiers, planters, women, and the enslaved appearing only when reported, sworn, or punished. The narrative which follows reconstructs events thematically, drawing on the file throughout from the earliest entries to the latest.
Governance and administration
At the opening of the period the Council met at Fort James on 8 Jan 1684 with John Blackmore as Governor, Captain Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, and Captain Gregory Feild as Ensign. The arrival of Sir Thomas Grantham in the ship Charles the Second on 3 Jan 1684 had brought fresh orders and instructions for the government of the island, together with reinforcements of officers and soldiers, and these documents shaped governance throughout the years that followed. The minutes recorded that the Honourable Company was the sole lord and proprietor of the island, language repeated frequently thereafter as a reminder both to the inhabitants and to anyone reading the books. [Film No. 10]
The Council's composition shifted gradually over the four years. Blackmore remained Governor throughout, and Gregory Field is found at almost every meeting until late 1687. Robert Holden served as Deputy Governor through 1684 and into 1685. From 1685 Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas Goffe (also written Gosse and Groves) were sworn in as additional councillors and signed orders alongside the Governor. By April 1687 the body that signed warrants typically consisted of Blackmore, Field, Coxe, and Goffe. The presence of multiple variant spellings for what appear to be the same individuals is itself a useful reminder that the records were produced at speed by writers in a small administration, and the historian must not assume that every distinction in spelling implies a distinct person. [Film No. 73, 132, 142, 191, 207, 280, 333, 348]
The administrative structure was layered. At the top stood the Lords Proprietors in London, whose written instructions, sealed deeds, and printed orders were treated as the ultimate constitutional source. Beneath them stood the Governor and Council on the island, who were both magistrates and a court. Beneath the Council stood writers (junior clerks who kept the books), the storekeeper (who held custody of all Company goods and money), churchwardens and surveyors of highways drawn annually from the free planters, an armourer and a marshal, and, after the rebellion of 1684, a reeve specifically appointed to collect duties on land and cattle. The system depended on regular communication: the Council Book was copied at intervals and dispatched to England, with named ships and dates of departure recorded so that the Company could trace what had happened on the island. Successive entries note the dispatch of the book aboard Caroline under Captain John Harding (covering 11 Apr 1684 to 8 Sep 1684), Royall James under Captain Marriner (Oct to Dec 1684), Honour under Captain George Robinson (Dec 1684 to Jan 1685), Williamson under Captain Warner (Jan to Apr 1686), Almory March under Captain John Spencer (Nov to Dec 1685), and finally HMS Phoenix in May 1687. [Film No. 112, 151, 156, 252, 279, 349]
A persistent tension between the Governor and Council on the one hand and the storekeeper on the other ran through the period and finally exploded in the autumn of 1687. The storekeeper occupied the financial choke point of the island: the wages of soldiers and labourers were paid in goods drawn from his warehouses, customs and duties on land and cattle were received by him, and the bills of exchange drawn by ship commanders for provisions passed through his books. So long as Holden worked under direction, the system functioned. By 1687, however, Captain Holden was claiming that his commission as Receiver General came directly from the Lords Proprietors and that the Governor and Council had no authority over its execution. The collision is described below under the heading of finance, but constitutionally it raised a fundamental question about whether St Helena was governed by a single executive Council or by two parallel offices answerable separately to London. [Film No. 333, 348, 366, 400]
A second jurisdictional irruption occurred briefly in late 1685. On 2 Dec 1685 a Court and Council was held at Fort James whose membership now included Sir George Wyborne and Captain Joseph Eaton, who had arrived with what the records call the "new London men" aboard a flotilla of ships then in the road. Their presence enlarged the Council temporarily and produced an unusual ruling: a clerk named Robert Butler was committed for celebrating a marriage at nine o'clock at night, was made to submit publicly aboard New London before the whole company, and was forbidden to return ashore without leave from Wyborne and his lady. The episode demonstrates that the island's authorities adapted readily when a senior Company figure was on the spot, and equally that personal hierarchies and household authority interpenetrated the formal Council. [Film No. 249, 250, 252]
The Council also acted as a court of inquiry into its own constitutional procedure. On 10 Aug 1685, when Robert Holden proposed bringing an indictment by jury against Jasper Jay and Thomas Barton for supporting an action already determined, the Council reviewed the first paragraph of the Lords Proprietors' instructions of 1 Aug 1683 brought by Sir Thomas Grantham, and resolved that proceeding by indictment and jury was not "convenient or practical" for ordinary disputes on the island. The earlier and customary summary method, approved by the Proprietors, was retained. This decision is significant: it was an explicit refusal to import a particular form of English judicial practice on grounds both of practicality (insufficient qualified jurors) and, the file allows us to read between the lines, of political control. The point is reinforced in 1686, when the Council faced the prosecution of an enslaved man called Frank for burglary and murder. After noting that there was "no clear legal provision" for such a case, the Council unanimously agreed that all black persons accused of similar crimes would be tried by Governor and Council without a jury, until the Lords Proprietors should provide further instructions. The proceduralism of English law was therefore reserved selectively, and the colour line was made into a procedural one. [Film No. 226, 280, 281]
Throughout the four years there was a steady tightening of administrative oversight: a comprehensive land deed registration scheme in 1684; a census of households, families, slaves, cattle, and land in May 1685; an order in 1685 imposing a three-month limitation period on civil complaints to prevent stale claims; an annual cycle of churchwardens and surveyors of highways elected by the inhabitants and approved by the Council; and proclamations of all major decisions read by sound of drum or affixed to the Sessions House and country church door. The administrative archive was self-consciously building itself into a system. [Film No. 93, 94, 186, 187, 226, 274, 333]
Military affairs and defence
On 8 Jan 1684 Sir Thomas Grantham landed reinforcements that included Thomas Spencer as chirurgeon (surgeon), Mr Sault as minister, Richard Keeling as writer, and a long list of common soldiers. The list continued onto the next folio with serjeant Richard Floyd and forty more men named individually, and the formal contracts began on 3 Jan 1684 according to each man's rank. Discipline was an immediate concern: in the first weeks of January three soldiers from the new draft were involved in incidents serious enough to come before the Council. Richard Honywood was punished by riding the wooden horse for half an hour for assaulting a man named Hayes at the house of John Cannady, a free planter in Chappell Valley. Days later, a group of soldiers including William Wells, Thomas Heath, George Sutton, and Ralph Spicer climbed over the fort wall after the taptoe (the closing signal of the day), forced their way into private houses to obtain drink, broke tiles on the market house, and threw burning material onto a thatched building, an act that endangered the whole town with fire. [Film No. 10, 11, 12, 15]
Garrison life rested on a strict daily routine. The taptoe marked the closure of movement; sentries were posted at the lookouts and outposts, including Lemon Valley Fort, Sandy Bay, Springs, Friar's Valley, Breakneck Valley, and the upper and lower mounts above Fort James. After the rebellion of October 1684 a great many additional sentries were posted, particularly at night, and the burden on the soldiers was heavy. The Council acknowledged that the recent unrest had imposed unusual labour upon the guard. By 26 Jan 1685 the sentencing register was again recording new recruits drawn from the families of older planters - George Browne, son of Thomas Browne, formerly a blacksmith in England, was admitted as a soldier with the standard clothing and pay. [Film No. 73, 161, 162]
The fort itself was not a single defensible structure but a complex of works: Fort James above the harbour, the Crane Battery, the timber bridge between them, the upper and lower storeyards, an upper and lower guard, the prison known as "the hole", a guardhouse, a flagstaff, and a sally port. Carpenters and masons - notably Doddatus Barker and Andrew Reader - were repeatedly paid for repairing or extending these works. In late 1684 Barker was paid £3 for building a cook room, a watch house, and additional stores. In 1685 William Boor was paid £3 5s for repairing the burial ground square in Chapel Valley and constructing walls in the lower fort yards. In June 1685 a market house was ordered for Chapel Valley measuring 60 feet by 32 feet under the supervision of Deodatus Baker, with £31 from the Company's treasury allocated to it. [Film No. 111, 129, 136, 200]
The most dramatic military episode of the period was the conspiracy and attempted seizure of Fort James on 21 Oct 1684. The plot united many free planters with a substantial body of soldiers, with William Bowyer, a corporal, marching at the van of an armed party of soldiers and townsmen down to the sally port, where he was seen to strike at the door with his musket. Joseph Clarke Junior, Joseph Owerman, and Robert Moore were among the principal followers. Sergeant Maurice Hunt fired on them as they tried to force Bowyer's house. The attempt failed. The Council's response was layered: prisoners were held at 6d a week subsistence (commenced from 4 Nov 1684, fourteen days after the outbreak); the entire garrison and Council were required on 5 Nov 1684 to swear afresh the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and to subscribe a declaration binding them to the Company; arms held by named individuals were collected and lodged in the magazine at Fort James; and certain free planters' boats were drawn up onto the beach in front of the fort to prevent their use for further mischief. [Film No. 125, 126, 127, 130, 131]
The trial of the four principal mutineers in late December 1684 brought a special jury composed of officers from the visiting ship Royall James under Captain James Marriner combined with six garrison officers, with Marriner as foreman. Bowyer, Clarke, and Owerman refused to plead, instead appealing to the King's Bench in England; Moore pleaded not guilty and placed himself upon his country. All four were convicted of mutiny and rebellion and sentenced to death. The use of an outside jury underlined the Council's desire to give the proceedings legitimacy; the prisoners' appeal to the Crown represented the only legal challenge they could mount, but no such appeal was practical from the south Atlantic. [Film No. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153]
In an unusual sequel, the four sentences were suspended on 5 Jan 1685 after the Governor's wife was reported to be near death. On 15 Jan 1685 it was decided that Owerman and Moore should be banished to Barbados aboard Jonat and Mary, joined by Allan Dawson, identified as the principal instigator of the conspiracy. Bowyer and Clarke were ordered for execution on 31 Jan 1685; the order was renewed on 26 Jan 1685, and the same day Council noted the strain on the garrison from heavy guard duties. A second tier of conspirators - James Johnson, Thomas Browne, and Samuel Callis - was tried on 19 Jan 1685 and convicted on confession. They too were eventually banished to Barbados aboard John and Mary under Captain John Brett, joined by Allan Dennison, who had verbally challenged the jurisdiction of the island's government. By the use of banishment in place of execution the Council displayed both pragmatism and a calibrated severity. [Film No. 152, 153, 154, 155, 159]
After the rebellion the relationship between garrison and visiting ships was placed under a tight regime. Orders of 18 Nov 1684 instructed that on the arrival of any English ship returning to England, the Governor was to send an officer aboard at once to inform the commander of the recent unrest and to limit shore leave to ten or twelve men at a time, none to remain ashore overnight without joint permission of commander and Governor. Trade in arms or ammunition between ship's company and inhabitants was forbidden. No man was to be received aboard ship for England without a written order from Governor and Council. The system was reinforced periodically thereafter: in 1687 a string of cases is recorded against planters such as John Petygrane, John Bowman, George Brian, Henry Landy, William Bowman, Samuel Wrangham, James Nichol, John Smith, Joseph Wills, John Coward, and Steven Gordon for going aboard ships without licence or remaining on board overnight, drawing fines of one dollar to the poor or to the Proprietors. [Film No. 128, 129, 352, 354, 355]
Discipline within the garrison itself remained an ongoing struggle. On the night of 11 Jul 1687, John Cannady and his namesake (probably his son), with William Collins and a soldier named John Montus, abandoned their watch and patrol duties to drink arrack and punch at the house of Joseph Charlesworth. Cannady accidentally - or, others said, deliberately - discharged his musket at midnight and caused a general alarm. The case is unusually detailed because the men's own statements record how, having entered Captain Holden's storehouse, they had cajoled an officer into authorising a gallon of arrack, which they then mixed into punch. Cannady and Collins were committed to prison and further punished within the garrison. The episode shows that even after the 1684 rebellion the line between fort, town, and country was permeable, and that alcohol remained a recurrent solvent of military discipline. [Film No. 376, 377]
Capital cases involving soldiers continued to occur. On the evening of 21 Jun 1687 a soldier named Charles Spiers was wounded in the belly and died on the following Sunday, 26 Jun 1687. A coroner's inquest was empanelled under Orlando Bagley, with twelve jurors including the deceased's son Joseph Spiers, and on 27 Jun 1687 it returned a verdict of wilful murder against another soldier, John Miller. Miller was tried before a separate jury of life and death, convicted, sentenced to death and reprieved temporarily. After lengthy proceedings, in which Miller appealed to the twenty-third paragraph of the Lords Proprietors' instructions to argue that the procedure had been irregular, his execution was set for 11 Jul 1687, with the whole garrison required to attend. [Film No. 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 374]
A general order of 12 Feb 1686 had earlier required all inhabitants and soldiers fit to bear arms to bring their weapons into the storehouse, with a £5 penalty divided between the Governor and the informer for any unauthorised buying or selling of arms thereafter. The disarmament was made on the express orders of the Lords Proprietors, recorded only briefly in the file but indicating their continuing anxiety about a still-armed planter population two years after the conspiracy. [Film No. 267]
Settlement, land and agriculture
The free planters were the principal civilian inhabitants. They held land granted originally by order and instruction of the Lords Proprietors, either in return for service or as a condition of residence. Each family had received two or three parcels and each single man one. The pattern of holdings ran across the island's identifiable valleys and ridges - Sandy Bay, Lemon Valley, Chapel Valley, Castle Valley, Bishop's Valley, Friar Valley, Breakneck Valley, Rupert's Valley, the high ground above Peak Hill, the Rust Plains, and the windward side near Prosperous Bay. Soldiers were strictly forbidden by Company rule from holding land while in pay. The principle was tested in January 1684 when Samuel Lesly, who had been granted land but had then enlisted in England, was refused readmission as a soldier on the island while keeping his land. He was required to repay the £10 cost of his transport at the rate of 40s per quarter, deducted from his son's wages. The case is the earliest illustration of the line the Company tried to maintain between soldier-tenant and free-planter-tenant, a line which was repeatedly blurred by individuals trying to enjoy the security of both. [Film No. 16]
The Lords Proprietors directed in 1683 that all existing landholders should take out formal deeds under their seal, paying a small registry fee. The directive was published, but by mid-1684 most planters had failed to comply. On 14 Aug 1684 and 20 Aug 1684 final days were appointed for taking out deeds at the Court of Judicature, with non-compliance to be punished by forfeiture or by a £10 fine. A further day was set in November 1684. By February 1685 the Council was forced to acknowledge that uncertainty over land had become endemic: planters had not only delayed taking deeds but had been freely buying, selling, exchanging and transferring parcels of land among themselves "as if they were their own property" without any reference to the Company. The Council reasserted control by an order of 23 Feb 1685 forbidding any such transactions for one year and threatening seizure for breaches. The order was displayed at the Court of Judicature and at the upper storehouse in Rupert's Valley. [Film No. 93, 123, 172, 173]
The free planters' refusal to accept deeds is one of the more telling features of the period. The instructions were perceived as imposing new conditions, fees, and obligations, and acceptance was therefore evaded as long as possible. The official record presents this resistance as administrative laziness; a less generous reading is that the planters preferred a customary form of tenure, and only formalised their rights when the alternative was forfeiture. The Council's attempt to halt all internal land transactions for a year in 1685 should be read as an effort to freeze a market that had escaped its control while it caught up with the registration of titles. [Film No. 173]
Cattle were the principal index of wealth among the planters and the most contentious form of property. They roamed widely between holdings and consumed the produce of any unfenced ground. The Lords Proprietors had directed that cattle on the Company's waste lands be branded annually on 1 May, and a duty paid for each. By February 1685 the Council had to admit that the marking and the duty had not been observed, and a fresh proclamation was issued. The duty was to be 1d per head; cattle found unmarked after 1 May 1685 were to be seized as the Company's goods and chattels. Sales of cattle were not to take place without entering the transaction before the Governor. In May 1685 the duty was raised: a charge of 2d per head on each cattle sale was now to be paid to Richard Lee. By 1686 a further levy of 12s per head for cattle grazing on waste land beyond the first beast was applied to all planters. The cumulative weight of these duties on the principal economic asset was substantial. [Film No. 174, 175, 187, 252]
The disputes that came to Council overwhelmingly concerned trespass and damage by livestock. John Matthews against Jennie Quinny over hogs that had been driven from his enclosed plantation in 1684 set the pattern: Matthews recovered 40s damages plus 20s costs after producing witnesses who could swear ownership of the swine. The principle that emerged was that liability for damage by stray animals turned on whether the complainant had maintained "a good and lawful fence". Where the fence was found to be inadequate, the action failed. In Sutton Isaack against William Hayes (December 1687), the Council ordered Isaack to pay £1 for damage to Hayes's ground, but in John Draper against the same Sutton Isaack (also December 1687), Draper's claim was dismissed because his fence was old, rotten, and decayed. The shared responsibility - planter to fence, owner to restrain - was applied repeatedly. [Film No. 76, 77, 379, 382]
A second pattern of dispute concerned damage caused by dogs and slaves under masters' supervision. Richard Parham's slave, who had been loose in the woods, killed numerous hogs belonging to four neighbours in September 1684, and Parham was made to pay £4 in compensation. Andrew Wilson recovered against Edward Bleft (and others) for damage caused by his master's instruction to a slave to drive a calf, which then miscarried. In John Mudge's case in 1687, the same questions of livestock control were applied to John Mudge's draught oxen and the dogs of John Honour. The doctrine that masters were liable for the actions of slaves and beasts under their authority is consistent throughout the file. [Film No. 107, 118, 376]
Yams - planted in holes and counted by them - emerge as the staple agricultural produce. A typical case is John Cannady's digging of yams from a widow's ground: she had agreed for 1,000, he claimed to have dug 550 before being stopped, dug a further 350 without permission, and was held by the Council's appointed neighbour-witnesses (Sarah Charl... and John Nichol...) to have removed at least 1,100 by counting the holes left and the spacing of the standing plants. He was made to pay damages and costs. Other agreements - for boards, for shoes, for repair of garments, for medical treatment - reveal a contractual culture in which deferred performance and partial delivery were common, and the Council was repeatedly called on to enforce the residue. [Film No. 50, 274]
Beyond the planters and Company stood the Company's own plantation, where slaves were employed and from which provisions and stock were drawn for Company use. By 1685 it was supplemented by additional lands forfeited from the rebels, including a house and ten acres at Peak Hill which had belonged to one Bowman, who had departed for England without licence and had been involved in the mutiny. These were leased on 9 Feb 1685 to a poor man with a wife and two children for five years and three quarters at 40s per annum. The administration was using forfeiture both to punish disloyalty and to provide for needy settlers. [Film No. 163]
In 1686 the Council also began a deliberate programme of breeding stock. On 10 Feb 1686 it was ordered that two rams and six ewe goats be appraised from the Company's cattle, with one half sent to the hills and the other kept in the valley, in order to begin a breeding stock for the use of the Honourable Company. The arrangement is small but revealing: the Council was thinking in terms of long-term resource management and risk diversification, separating the breeding population geographically against the loss of either group. [Film No. 268]
Supply and provisioning
Provisions on St Helena moved through three channels: locally produced goods (yams, fowls, hogs, cattle, fresh fish, butter, bacon), imported staples drawn from the Company's stores (bread at 2d a pound, flour at 3d a pound, beef at the rate of 20 pounds per month, brandy in pipes), and goods carried out from England, India and Madagascar by Company and other ships. The Council's books reflect the constant work of valuing, allocating, and accounting for these flows. In June 1684 Captain Holden recorded an expenditure of 10s on the care of plants brought in boxes aboard Charles the Second, an item suggestive of an active ongoing programme of botanical introductions. The same entry recorded the loss of 30 gallons of brandy through leakage from three pipes after landing - a recognised risk of cargo handling in the period and one that was explicitly accounted for in the Company's books. [Film No. 70]
The supply of bread and flour was rationed by entitlement: where a man had not yet received his quota under the division book, he could be granted 100 weight of bread and 60 weight of flour worth £2 15s in lieu, as in the case of Ralph...... in 1684. Soldiers and others engaged in fort works, like Andrew Reader, could be allotted 20 lb of bread and 20 lb of beef per month as supplementary rations from 11 Sep 1684. The Company's stores were therefore both a treasury and a kitchen. [Film No. 84, 110]
The most ambitious episode of the period was Captain Robert Knox's voyage to Madagascar to procure goods for the Company. In May 1685 his ship Tonqudome Merchant departed unexpectedly from the road on the evening of Friday 29 May 1685, carrying away all of his goods and effects. Mathew Pouncey, who had been aboard, was examined on oath and described in detail the disorderly behaviour of the ship's officers, the consumption of large bowls of punch, the swearing against Captain Knox, the raising of the topmast, and Pouncey's eventual being put ashore against his will. Knox himself returned to St Helena later in 1685, having recovered some part of his cargo from Madagascar. The goods he brought - two parcels of broadcloth, three chests of fowling pieces and pistols, one cask of flints, one box of looking glasses, one bag of handkerchiefs, one cask of knives and combs, one chest of damask cloth, and one cask of shackles - were to be assessed for whether they should serve the island or be returned to England by the next ship. The presence of shackles among trade goods is a reminder that the Company's commerce in human bodies was as much a matter of stores and inventory as its trade in cloth. [Film No. 188, 190, 194, 195, 196, 197]
Bills of exchange written by ship commanders to be drawn on the Company in London were a routine instrument by which provisions and supplies were paid for. In December 1684 Captain Robert Holden was directed to enter to the Company's account £4 19s 16½d for a bill of exchange drawn for Captain Dobson, commander of the ship Carolina; £3 7s 9d on a bill from Captain Harding of the same ship; and £7 5s on a bill from Captain Spooner for goods delivered into the stores. The minute fractions in these accounts (the half pence) and the precise dating of every transaction reveal a serious effort at central bookkeeping. The use of bills of exchange, drawn by men who had departed long since, depended on the Company's ability to settle them at distance, an exercise in trust that connected the island to the Company's wider Indian Ocean and Atlantic networks. [Film No. 70, 141]
At the lower end of supply, the surveyors of highways were also responsible for keeping the roads passable for transport. Henry Coales and Robert De......cey were chastised in January 1686 for failing to begin repair work in their respective districts. The maintenance of the roads, of the timber bridge between Fort James and the Crane Battery (much decayed by mid-1684 and ordered to be rebuilt by Barker), of the prison "the hole", and of the cook room and watch house, all required diligent management of small sums of money and equally small parties of carpenters, masons, and lime-burners drawn from the planter population. [Film No. 111, 254]
Trade and shipping
The Honourable Company guarded its monopoly on trade with the East Indies. Any unauthorised vessel was an "interloper" and any commerce with such a vessel was forbidden. The most fully recorded interloper episode was that of Captain Allay, master of an unauthorised ship that lay in the road in early July 1684. Free planters Gabriell Powell and Richard Gunsling were drawn into transactions with him, and the Company's soldiers Thomas Goodwyn and Gerard Hale, posted at Lemon Valley, witnessed the comings and goings of his pinnaces and his men collecting fresh water from holes dug on the beach. Powell had earlier paid the captain in part for a slave woman to be delivered. When she was put ashore at Breakneck Valley, the transaction was completed. Powell also engaged in barter at Friar's Valley, exchanging cut timber for cloth or canvas. After examination, Powell was disfranchised, fined £10 to the Lords Proprietors, ordered to pay £5 representing the value of the slave woman, and required to pay a further £15 to take possession of one of the boats used at Friar's Valley. Gunsling was fined £10. The Council's reasoning underlined the seriousness of unauthorised trade: it threatened both the Company's revenues and the integrity of administrative control of contact with outsiders. [Film No. 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92]
After the rebellion of 1684 the regulation of contact with all visiting ships was tightened by orders of November 1684 (described above under military affairs). The market house mandated by the Lords Proprietors was the institutional answer: by directing all transactions to a public space, the Company hoped to displace the trading that took place on board ship and in country plantations. The market house was repeatedly ordered to be built. In June 1685 a market house was begun at Chapel Valley, 60 feet long and 32 feet broad. By October 1685 the building was either completed or substantially advanced and a market was to be held there as soon as the next ship arrived. Cattle, sheep, goats and other provisions were to be purchased there or at the Old Market House serving as the Court of Judicature, never on shipboard. [Film No. 129, 200, 243]
Customs were levied at the lower guard at the bridge by the Crane Battery. In May 1685 a soldier named Samuel Taylor was caught attempting to smuggle a bag of sugar ashore from the ship Beaufort without paying the customs; he pleaded he had been drunk on board, was committed to prison, and at the next review day was made to ride the wooden horse for an hour with a culverin shot at his heels. In 1687 a customs writer named Brabourne attempted to search the master of the ship Margueritte without proper authority and was repulsed and threatened; the Council ruled that the search had been improper and dismissed the matter, with both parties cautioned. The episode reflects the Council's difficulty in giving its officers sufficient legal warrant to act in fast-moving maritime situations. [Film No. 191, 409]
Foreign ships were a special concern. In 1687 a Dutch man came ashore from a French ship after the ship had departed and stayed at the house of Francis Deeger; Deeger was cleared of contempt because he had reported the man to the Governor as soon as practicable, but was admonished against any future receipt of strangers from foreign ships without licence. The Council's administrative effort to control all contact with foreign vessels was substantial, and rooted in commercial as much as security concerns. [Film No. 355]
The disagreements between the Council and Captain Holden over customs collection erupted in 1687 and dominated the autumn of that year. From late April Holden refused to receive customs and duties; the Governor sent successive messengers (Mr Keeling, Mr Barbowne, Mr Levinge) to him to obtain his answer. Holden's reply, in successive variants, was that he held a separate commission from the Lords Proprietors as Receiver General; that the collection of customs "belonged wholly" to him; that the Governor and Council had no authority to question him on its timing or to appoint anyone else; that any person collecting customs under the Council's authority would be proceeded against on his bond in England; and that he refused obedience to the Council in this respect. By July 1687 the Council had appointed a new collector, John Smith, with assistants Lovell Bayle as sergeant and William Wells and John Grover as constables, and a proclamation went out on Saturday 2 Jul 1687. By August 1687 Holden was tendering written proposals to make coffee beans current as money up to £0 3s 0d, valued at £0 2s 3d per unit, with anything over ten dollars to be paid no more than half in coffee. The Council read the paper coolly, observed that they had not contested the legality of coffee in payments and saw "no extraordinary or emergent danger" of mutiny in current arrangements, and effectively rejected the proposal. By November 1687 Holden was still refusing to deliver goods to the master of Herbert (Captain Thomas Cale) without payment of a barrel of powder. He told Cale to his face that there were two governors on the island and that in this matter he was above the Governor. Days later he was reported to have called the Governor and Council "rebels" before a public audience in the warehouse. The Council judged that he should be secured but suspended action because a Company ship was expected daily. He was warned that if he persisted, he would be sent to England on the next opportunity. [Film No. 333, 348, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 372, 385, 386, 387, 399, 400, 401]
The Holden affair illustrates the structural weakness of an executive divided between two officers each claiming to derive authority directly from the same proprietors in London. It is also instructive that the Council, conscious of its own dependence on commerce, did not solve the dispute by force. Captain Field and Mr Goffe themselves had not received their quarterly salaries for two quarters by November 1687 because Holden refused to pay them. The Council eventually paid Field directly out of money in the Governor's hands and the funds collected for the 1686 cattle and land tax. The dispute was in effect a slow squeeze on liquidity, and the Council managed it by waiting for London to arbitrate. [Film No. 402, 403]
The judiciary
The Governor and Council combined administrative and judicial functions. They sat almost weekly to hear and determine causes brought by inhabitants, and at adjournments to consult on matters of state. Their procedure was largely summary, modelled on the Quarter Sessions of England but adapted. Complainants brought actions for debt, trespass, defamation, assault, theft, contempt, and breach of contract. The defendant answered, witnesses were sworn, and the Council gave its order. Costs of suit were routinely awarded to the prevailing party. Where the Council was unable to determine the matter, it referred it to two appointed arbitrators, often respected free planters such as Charles Bagley, Thomas Sherwin, or Orlando Bagley, with their report to be brought back within twenty days and entered on the record. [Film No. 73, 121, 217]
A handful of formally serious offences were tried before specially summoned juries. The four mutineers of 1684 were so tried, with the foreman drawn from the captain of Royall James. Coroners' inquests were summoned for sudden deaths: in January 1685 the body of a six-year-old child, William H..., found dead in the woods at Pa..., was examined by surgeon Henry Manning and a panel of fourteen named men who concluded that he had been crushed by a log of timber sliding from a bank. In September 1685 Sergeant Maurice Hunt was found dead in the brook between Cannady's house and the new market house in Chapel Valley about seven o'clock in the evening on 28 Sep 1685; Captain Joshua Johnson was appointed coroner and a jury of twelve found that Richard Honywood had killed him - the same Richard Honywood whose drunken assault in 1684 had begun this narrative. In June 1687 the inquest into the death of Charles Spiers found John Miller guilty of wilful murder. [Film No. 152, 160, 237, 238, 239, 360, 361]
The Council's reluctance to extend formal jury procedure to ordinary disputes - articulated in the rejection of indictment by jury in August 1685 - was matched by its readiness to extend exemplary punishment to enslaved people without any jury whatever. In June 1686 a Council session debated whether the privileges of an English subject should be extended to a black man named Frank, who was accused of burglary at Thomas F...'s house and the murder of a black slave named Amino on the night of 1 May 1686. The Council judged that there was no clear legal provision for the case, that to extend such privileges might have "ill consequences", and unanimously agreed to try him along with any accomplices summarily. The decision was then formalised as a general rule: all black persons accused of similar crimes would be tried by Governor and Council without a jury, until further instructions came from the Lords Proprietors. The procedural choice expressed and entrenched a racial hierarchy in the law. [Film No. 280, 281]
A central feature of the Council's civil procedure was the recognisance, a formal financial bond by which an individual and named sureties guaranteed future good behaviour. Recognisances of £20 to £50 with sureties of half that amount were used routinely. In August 1685 James Wakefield, having spoken "dangerous and disparaging words" against the Governor, was bound to good behaviour for three months in £20, with John Johnson, merchant, and Richard Glading bound for £10 each. Conniers, considered prone to disorderly conduct, was forbidden in April 1685 to carry any sword or weapon other than a musket without leave. Martha Bolton was bound to good behaviour after speaking against the Governor in February 1685, and was discharged from her recognisance in March 1686. The system rested on the social pressure of sureties and on the disciplinary value of public submission. [Film No. 167, 168, 184, 220, 271]
The Council was also a court of probate. Wills were proved by witness testimony, as in the will of Henry Francis brought before the Council on 29 May 1684 by his widow Anne, the testimony of soldiers Thomas Quiliam and Robert Warne, and the will of Hugh Simons. Estates of deceased persons - particularly those involving land, slaves and cattle - were administered through executors, with trustees appointed for orphans. The estate of Captain Anthony Bealle, a substantial figure on the island, occupied the Council on and off from his death in 1685 to a major sale by outcry of his cattle on 30 Mar 1687, in which a row of named planters bought beasts for £1 17s to £3 5s each, totalling £27 5s. The Council both protected estates against pillage and used them to satisfy outstanding obligations to the Company. [Film No. 71, 234, 235, 337]
The arrival of an outside legal officer in late 1685 - Mr Solomon, secretary to Sir John Wyborne - prompted the Council to award him a £5 gratuity for his "diligent and industrious assistance" at the Court Martial. This is the only direct reference in the file to an external legal sensibility being brought to bear, and it underlines how isolated the Council's ordinary practice was from the formal Westminster apparatus from which it nominally derived. [Film No. 252]
Crime and punishment
The repertoire of punishment available to the Council was elaborate and graded. At the milder end were fines of small sums (often 1 dollar = 6s, or 5s, or 10s), recognisances, public admonitions to live "more Christianly" and "more neighbourly", and confinement to the fort. In the middle range were lashes (frequently 21, 23, 31, 39, or 40), the wooden horse (sometimes with culverin shot or weights at the heels), the stocks (Edward Dammond was sentenced to seven days in the stocks for insolent language), and short terms of imprisonment. The grim end of the range comprised branding on the hand or forehead with the letter R for rogue, ear-cropping, banishment to Barbados, and execution by hanging. [Film No. 72, 80, 88, 211, 212]
A 1684 case offers the fullest dramatic example. John Rowland and Thomas Eastings, runaway servants, having admitted multiple thefts including a sow valued at six dollars, were sentenced to be confined for eight days on yams and water; to receive 21 lashes at the flagstaff and have the tips of their right ears cut off on Friday 30 May 1684; to receive a further 21 lashes on Monday 2 Jun 1684 and to be branded on the forehead or cheek with R; and on Thursday 6 Jun 1684 to be taken along a circuit through the country and given six lashes at five separate points along the road, and to wear iron neck shackles thereafter. The graduated and theatrical character of the sentence - punishment as procession - is striking. The intent was to mark the body permanently as a rogue, to inscribe the punishment on the geography, and to deter the country at large. [Film No. 72]
Banishment to Barbados, frequently used after the 1684 rebellion, was both a punishment and a labour exchange. Joseph Owerman, Robert Moore, Allan Dawson, Joseph Clarke Junior, James Johnson, Thomas Browne, Samuel Callis, and Allan Dennison were all banished there in January 1685. The use of Barbados is significant: it placed banished men into a colony already absorbing convict and indentured labour, and it also placed them where return to St Helena could be detected by ships passing through. [Film No. 155, 159]
The most exemplary punishments fell on enslaved people. The trial of Frank in June 1686 ended with a sentence to be hanged on a gibbet erected for the purpose near Thomas F...'s house by Fort James, his bowels burned, his head cut off and set up, and his body quartered, with one quarter placed on the gibbet and the other three on poles at C... Hill, James at Lemon Valley head, and the Rust Plains. Antony Sherwin, a second slave whose involvement could not be proven but who had run from his master, was ordered to act as executioner and to carry two of the quarters through the country. Captain Johnston's black man and woman, who had received the stolen buttons and linen, were each given 40 lashes and branded on the left shoulder with R, and were each made to carry one quarter to its appointed place. The punishment was thus carried out in part by other slaves, who became living instruments of the spectacle. [Film No. 285, 286, 287]
In December 1687 the Council tried the slave Peter, who had been heard urging other slaves to poison their masters and mistresses by mixing crushed glass with grave earth and similar substances. Multiple slave witnesses (Woola, Toby, Hannah, Gabriel Brown, Thomas, Thomas Borets) and several free witnesses described his attempts. Peter never confessed to actually poisoning anyone, and many of those who claimed to have received poison from him said they had thrown it away. The Council unanimously judged him to deserve death and ordered that he be burned to death on Friday 29 Dec 1687, that all slaves except young children be required to attend the execution, and that each person bring a bundle of wood. The owner whose slave failed to attend would be liable to forfeiture in proportion to the number of his slaves aged fifteen and over. The decision to execute despite the absence of completed acts of poisoning is striking; the Council was explicit that the public execution was intended to deter others. The reading of these episodes against the wider Caribbean and Indian Ocean record of slave poisoning trials in the period is sobering: the case shows the readiness of small white populations to apply maximum violence on the basis of suspected conspiracy among enslaved people, and to ritualise that violence into communal participation. [Film No. 407, 408]
The same logic produced a collective compensation scheme for the loss of executed slaves. At the time of Peter's execution the Council declared that, since the loss of slaves to capital punishment fell unequally on owners, all slaveholders should contribute to compensate the owner. By a decision of 5 Aug 1686, taken in the Frank case, owners would receive compensation set by Council from a contribution levied on all slaveholders by reference to the number of slaves aged fifteen and above. The scheme was applied in the case of Ellen Griffith, whose slave (formerly her husband Richard Griffith's) had been convicted on 24 Nov 1687 and executed. About 250 enslaved persons aged 15 and above were on the island, including those owned by the Company, and a fixed sum per head was assessed accordingly. The scheme is a precise expression of the way that slaves were treated as economic assets in a closed pool of risk: just as the planters had argued that the Company should bear the cost of the soldiers' rebellion, so slaveholders agreed that they would collectively bear the cost of capital punishment of slaves. [Film No. 412, 413]
Several smaller crime-and-punishment episodes from 1687 illustrate the calibration with which the Council ordinarily handled white offenders. Alarom Kirkpatrick, who had attempted to break into the doctor's house in December 1687 and to assault his wife, was sentenced to be committed to prison, to ride the wooden horse for one hour, and to stand in a public place for set periods each day, with further punishment threatened if he again troubled the doctor's household. The wooden horse, branding, and exposure to public gaze were all forms of shaming. By contrast, the violence visited on slaves was bodily destruction. The disparity is one of the most consistent features of the legal regime in the file. [Film No. 410, 411, 412]
Economy, currencies, bartering and accounting
Money on St Helena was a hybrid system. English sterling was the unit of account in the Council's books, and bills of exchange and rents were stated in £ s d. The principal coin in circulation, however, was the Spanish dollar, valued at 5s for accounting purposes (the file rate of "dollars at 20s" appearing in 1684 and "Spanish dollars at 5s" in 1687 reflects different conventions of expression). Copper coin circulated in small quantities; in August 1687 the collectors Bayliss, Wells, and Smith brought in over £1 in copper money, which the Council ordered the Governor to retain in his custody until further order, suggesting that copper required separate handling. [Film No. 142, 384, 403]
Coin was, however, perpetually short on the island. The administration repeatedly devised commodity moneys to fill the gap. The most striking example is the Japan pepper episode of October 1684. Several chests of Japan pepper had recently arrived from the Company. The Council ordered that the barrels be weighed, marked with their respective weights, and issued at 1d per pound to officers, soldiers, and inhabitants, and on 13 Oct 1684 it ordered, by proclamation read by sound of drum, that the pepper "should circulate and be accepted as current money within the island". Wages of soldiers were partly paid in it. Disputes about its issue were the immediate trigger for the Domison case, in which a soldier objecting to receipt of pepper instead of money was provoked into language about authority that ended with his being sent to England on charges of calumny. The pepper currency illustrates both the inventiveness and the fragility of monetary administration on the island. [Film No. 110, 111, 113, 114, 116]
In August 1687 Captain Holden proposed coffee beans as a parallel circulating medium, valued at 2s 3d per unit, with strict limits on what proportion of any payment could be in coffee. The Council declined to enact the proposal, observing that the legality of coffee payments had never been contested, and that the question was one of "convenience and inconvenience" rather than of authority. The proposal nevertheless reflects the same problem as the pepper of 1684, namely that wages had to be paid in something whose value was both stable and accepted, and that the available coin and stores were not sufficient. [Film No. 385, 386, 387]
Below the level of currency proper, payment in kind was ubiquitous. Cattle were appraised against debts in 1684 (William Hayes, Henry Horry, Samuel Joffy and others offered cows to be valued in part-payment of debts to the Company); butter and fowls were used to discharge a fine in 1687 (Thomas Leckis paid 3 dollars to Thomas Box for assault by 1 March in butter and fowls); fowls and bacon were tendered by Thomas Swallowe in April 1687 to discharge a 21s 3d debt to Martha Bolton; sugar was valued; tobacco was used both as a unit of account and as a means of supplementary payment for soldiers; boards from the Company's timber-yard were sometimes substituted for cash; goods from the stores - cloth, knives, combs, looking glasses - were issued in lieu of pay. The economy was therefore both monetised and flexibly barter-based. [Film No. 100, 101, 245, 340]
Bills of exchange were the principal instrument of long-distance debt. Captain Robert Holden held bills from Captain Knox in 1685 for £25 6s. The 1684 bond between Robert Holden (acting as attorney for Mr Juston of London) and Thomas Smout and Thomas Shorwyn for £300 was enforced on the island in December 1684, with Shorwyn's estate distrained by warrant under the King's name. Letters of attorney were essential to such enforcement, since absent creditors in London relied on Company officials to act on their behalf in St Helena. The instrument bound the island into a long-distance financial network reaching from London to India. [Film No. 70, 143, 144]
Voluntary subscriptions were an additional source of public revenue. In 1685 the building of a chapel had been funded partly by voluntary contributions raised at the time of arrivals of ships. By August 1685 it was clear that several persons had not paid the sums they had subscribed, and the churchwardens were authorised to demand and receive the sums from named individuals, with default reportable to the Council. By 1685 and 1686 a regular cycle of capitation and acreage levies was established: 5s per person above 16, both white and black, in May 1685; 6d per person for the maintenance of a minister; 2d per cattle on every transfer; 12s per head on cattle grazing on waste land beyond the first; and a parish rate of 2s per ten acres assessed by the churchwardens. The system was elaborate and much of the entries on file are taken up with its enforcement. [Film No. 187, 188, 190, 213, 252, 276]
Records were kept obsessively. Every payment from stores was made by warrant under the Governor's and Council's hands, directed to the storekeeper. Each transaction was entered into the Company's accounts. Where coin was deficient, the warrant indicated payment in goods. Where wages were partly deducted (for absence, imprisonment, or misconduct), the deduction was recorded in the wage roll, as in the December 1684 schedule which carefully recorded one week's pay deducted from Christopher Jones, two weeks from William Finch, one month from William Chappell for time spent in confinement, and so on. The system's thoroughness depended on writers like Edward Steeling, Doctor Barber, and Richard Keigwin, who repeatedly appear keeping books, attesting documents, and carrying messages. [Film No. 70, 137, 138, 139]
Slavery and coerced labour
Slavery on St Helena involved both Company-owned and privately owned enslaved people. The Company's plantation employed slaves in cattle-keeping, in plantation work, and as drummers in the garrison (a Nathaniel served as a drummer in 1687). Slaves were brought to the island principally from India and Madagascar, and occasionally - as the records indicate in passing - in connection with West Africa: the African Company is mentioned in a complaint by Elizabeth Potts, a widow, about a black man "belonging to the African Company" who had run away with her boy. In May 1687 Captain Robert Adair brought ten slaves from India aboard Providence, citing an order under the Company's seal sent to him at Madras; they were received and employed on the Company's plantation despite the existence of a contrary instruction from Sir Thomas Grantham's twenty-fourth paragraph. [Film No. 245, 350]
The principal vehicle for the legal definition of enslaved persons in the file is property law. Slaves were inventoried with cattle and houses in estates, were valued at sale, were assigned for years of labour, were leased on weekly hire, and were occasionally exchanged for debt. In August 1684 a group of slaves - Sambo, young Peter, Tom and his son, and a slave woman in the possession of the widow Simons - were assigned for one year from 1 Aug 1684 to the executors of the Greenwood orphans in compensation for losses caused by the slaves' involvement in a robbery of the Greenwood house. The order required the executors to feed and clothe them and to keep them under close supervision. In March 1685 Job Jowster was permitted to keep and employ Mr Bennet Delves's slave at 2s 6d per week from the date of the order until further direction, with bond. Both arrangements demonstrate that ownership and use could be separated, and that slave labour was rented out by the week. [Film No. 80, 81, 179]
Slave sales by the Company were regular and accounted for. The summary recorded under Film 396 covers three sale dates - 27 Mar 1686 (£170 6s), 20 Aug 1686 (£117 9s), and 19 Oct 1687 (£367 7s) - producing a total of £655 2s for slave sales alone, with a further £27 5s from cattle sales of comparable date. Prices for individual people typically ranged from £16 to £25, with two outliers - £33 12s to Mr Cannady in 1686, possibly a sale of more than one person, and £25 3s to John Rice in 1687. Repeat purchasers - Thomas Goodwin and Mr Matthews each bought two on 19 Oct 1687 - point to a pattern of accumulation by the wealthier planters. The framing of slaves alongside cattle and goods in a single accounting summary captures the legal status of the enslaved with a clarity nothing else in the file can match. [Film No. 396]
Yet enslaved people are not only objects in the file. They appear as witnesses, as agents, and, on at least two occasions, as decisive narrators. In February 1685, in the case of Lester Sexton (who was punished for swearing he did not care for the Company), a "principal black" of the Company - one of its head herdsmen - swore evidence that confirmed Sexton's defiant words. In June 1686 multiple enslaved witnesses gave evidence against the slave Frank, including Annea (who had received the buttons), Captain Johnston's black man and woman, Peter Williams (who provided Antony's alibi), and Andrew Loder. In December 1687 the case against the slave Peter rested on the testimony of Woola, Toby, Hannah, Gabriel Brown, and others, all enslaved. Their evidence was sometimes accepted, sometimes weighed against alibis, and sometimes used against other slaves. The fact that the Council recorded their statements in detail, and acted on them, complicates any simple picture of the enslaved as silenced in the legal record. They could speak, but only at moments when authority required them to. [Film No. 169, 282, 283, 284, 285, 407]
A persistent administrative problem was the relationship between slaveholding and military duty. By an order recorded in the "5000 paper" of 1685, those who held five slaves were required to provide one white man for alarm duty or to pay 2 yearly per group; those holding fewer slaves paid yearly per slave. The arrangement linked slaveholding to defence and provided a way of taxing it for collective security. Free planters who failed to bring in slaves to the storehouse on proclamation, like Isaack Leact in March 1686, were fined. The administration was thus simultaneously regulating slaves as labour, as taxable wealth, and as a security risk. [Film No. 270, 335]
The treatment of unfree non-slave labour - including indentured servants, apprentices, and Portuguese men - is also worth attention. Three-year-old Martha Hunt was placed by the Council with John Draper in May 1684 to live with him until she was sixteen, with sufficient food and clothing and two suits of servant's clothes at the end of her time. Eight-year-old Leonard Hunt was bound to Thomas Box for three years from 25 Mar 1684, with reading, writing, training in a trade, and clothing at the end. Sarah Fox's son John Bartlow, apprenticed to John Hemon, was beaten and starved badly enough that the Council in August 1685 ordered the indentures cancelled, his return to the family, and the repayment of 45s. In February 1686 a fourteen-year-old orphan was bound to John Mathews until he was 21, on conditions that included care, food, clothing and the payment of duties on the orphan's two slaves. In December 1685 a Portuguese man who had lived with Richard Peach for some months was declared free of any claim by Peach and free to depart from the island. The Council's practice in apprenticeship was to combine compulsion with welfare oversight, and to enforce in equal measure. [Film No. 78, 79, 219, 220, 263, 266]
Religion and education
The minister Mr Thomas Sault arrived with Sir Thomas Grantham on 3 Jan 1684 and was identified in the original list of personnel. He was succeeded in tension and dispute. By 4 Aug 1684 Sault was found to be travelling about the island gathering signatures to a written paper. When confronted in Council on 15 Aug 1684 he interrupted the Governor and Captain Holden and declared "with strong language" that he would compel settlement of the island "by force of arms", then turned, put on his hat, and left the chamber in a contemptuous manner. His resignation was accepted; he was ordered to depart the island with his household, to deliver his keys, and to surrender all goods belonging to the Company including the country church. His two slaves were to be transferred to the Company's plantation. In the same month Mr Samuel Cowle, identified as another chaplain figure, also resigned in writing, complaining that he had been refused recognition in matters of "orders of the Church" and prevented from boarding Captain Yates's ship. Mr Thomas Moss likewise submitted a written declaration of intent to leave, complaining of the Governor's actions in respect of his ditched, watered, and walled improved land. The simultaneous loss of multiple ministers and chaplains in the summer of 1684 left a vacuum in religious provision. [Film No. 10, 98, 99, 104]
No regular minister served the island for the next two years. The earlier minister Joseph Quech (also written Church) had died in May 1683, and the records of marriages, baptisms, and burials had ceased thereafter. By October 1685 the Council was forced to issue a proclamation requiring all householders to submit lists of vital events that had taken place in their households since 1 May 1683 to the churchwardens (Michael Morris in the West Division, Sutton Jack in the East), who were to compile them into three folios for marriages, christenings, and deaths or burials. The collection was completed and delivered to the Council on 5 Oct 1685, and entered as a supplement to the register of the late minister. The reconstruction of the parish register from household memory is one of the most striking pieces of administrative archaeology in the file. It also shows how, in the absence of regular ministry, civil administration assumed direct responsibility for vital records. [Film No. 234, 240]
Funding for ministry continued to be levied. By order of 4 May 1685 a poll-rate of 6s per person above 16 in each household, both white and black, was to be paid annually for repair of the church, maintenance of a minister, and associated expenses. By order of an undated 1685 entry, 6d per person above 16 was to be paid for a year in which a minister had served. The records of these levies and of the chapel-building subscription suggest that the building of a chapel in Chapel Valley remained a continuing project. The fabric of the chapel, the parish accounts, and the receipts from voluntary subscriptions were repeatedly reviewed by the Council, churchwardens being summoned to account for arrears and embezzled goods. [Film No. 187, 190, 213, 254]
Marriage was tightly regulated. In December 1685 Mr Robert Butler, clerk to the "new London men" under Captain Joseph Eaton, was disciplined for having married Jasper Jay and Hannah ... at nine o'clock at night on 27 Nov 1685, an unlawful time. He was required to provide a catalogue of all christenings, burials, and marriages performed by him on the island and was confined to ship. In January 1686 Anne Bowens brought a claim against Thomas Darke for a private promise of marriage; on hearing that no public promise had been made before witnesses and no banns published, the Council ruled her free to marry Richard Landring instead. In December 1687 Samuel Maxwell was permitted to marry the widow Elizabeth Howard provided he understood that her land and cattle, which she had assigned to William Groves for the use of her children, would not pass to him. The Council acted as a court of marriage as well as of equity. [Film No. 249, 265, 339, 381]
Education appears in the file mainly as a contractual matter under apprenticeship indentures. Leonard Hunt was to be taught to read and write English in addition to a trade. The orphan apprenticed to John Mathews was to be employed and given food and clothing, but no schooling is specified. The implication is that a small body of literacy was being maintained on the island - sufficient to keep the writers, the ministers, and the storekeeper functioning - but that no formal schooling system existed. [Film No. 78, 79, 263]
Social order
Beneath the rebellion of 1684 and the great administrative themes runs a steady current of small-community disputes that show how the planters lived together. The Council's ordinary docket included assault and battery (Cannibals against Wilson, 1684, with Cannibals fined 3s to the Company, 2s to Wilson, and 1 dollar to Thomas Cale); defamation (the dispute between the wives of John Carman and George Shearine in 1687, in which Anne Shearine called Anne Carman a whore and was called a thief in return); refusal to perform agreements (Sutton Isaack v Thomas Spenser over yams in March 1684); and minor theft (the lignum vitae bowl in Susan Snook's house, decided on probability of loss). Many cases ended with admonitions to "live more peaceably and neighbourly". The Council was conscious of itself as a forum for keeping a small community together and not only as a court of justice. [Film No. 106, 342, 345]
Defamation cases in the file repeatedly involved sexual reputation. Henry Cole's daughter Mary Coales, the subject of the Isaac Leach case in early 1685, had her sexual reputation publicly contested, with Leach asserting in several houses that he had had relations with her. Leach was sentenced to 39 lashes and a £20 bond for good behaviour. In 1685 Lester Sexton's wife Margrett gave evidence in a complicated case involving a shift found on the body of Sarah Bartlow that touched on the reputation of Sarah Fox and her daughter; Fox was made to pay 5 dollars in damages and costs. The cases reflect the social stakes of reputation in a small community where rumour could circulate quickly and damage standing irreparably. [Film No. 166, 167, 224, 225]
Domestic violence appears intermittently. The most disturbing single case in the file is Martha Bolton's treatment of one of her slaves, who died after being severely punished and starved in 1687. Henry Case and John Draper, planters appointed to view the body, found that the slave appeared to have been thrown down at the back of the premises but could not say that this had caused her death. Bolton was strictly admonished and her surety bound to ensure she did not subject her remaining slaves to "excessive punishment, overwork, or the withholding of necessary food and clothing, particularly where such treatment might endanger their lives". The fact that the Council intervened at all is significant; the fact that it imposed only an admonition, leaving Bolton to continue running her household, is also significant. The institutional sympathies of the Council in such cases lay close to the property interest of the master. [Film No. 356]
The treatment of women in the record varies. Wives appear to act on behalf of absent husbands (the wife of Thomas Sherwin in early 1686 brought a complaint while her husband was at sea), can be bound by recognisance independently (Martha Bolton in February 1685), and can hold property and challenge inheritance arrangements (Sam Johnson's wife Elizabeth Gates in March 1687, whose pre-marital settlement to her former husband's children was upheld by the Council). At the same time the Council asserted patriarchal norms: in the apprenticeship dispute, Sarah Fox's claim that she could not contract without her husband's consent was implicitly accepted, and in property cases involving widows there is repeated emphasis on protection of the widow's and the children's interests against new husbands. The Council's practice was therefore neither simply patriarchal nor egalitarian, but pragmatic and case-sensitive. [Film No. 167, 219, 277, 339, 340, 381]
Charity was small but visible. In December 1687 Katharine Ishy, "being very poor", petitioned for leave to carry about the island a paper to receive charitable contributions from well-disposed persons; the Council granted her request. Fines for breaches of regulation were sometimes directed to the poor: a series of one-dollar fines for unauthorised boarding of ships in June 1687 went to the poor. The system of overseers of the poor, which existed in parallel to the churchwardens, is referenced more often than detailed; its operation appears to have been cyclical and very small in scale. [Film No. 198, 354, 394]
A final feature of the social fabric is the constant presence of named neighbours acting as witnesses, appraisers, and arbitrators. Names like Charles Bagley, Thomas Sherwin, Orlando Bagley, John Draper, Henry Case, William Bowman, Sutton Jack, Thomas Bolton, John Carman, and others recur many times in different roles - sometimes as principals in disputes, sometimes as appraisers of cattle for debt, sometimes as inquest jurors, sometimes as sureties for a recognisance. They were the human infrastructure of the legal system. [Film No. 100, 132, 217, 220, 358]
Personalities
John Blackmore, the Governor through this entire period, comes through the records as a careful and persistent administrator. He chairs almost every Council; he writes his own family into the rolls (his namesake John Blackmore Junior is paid as deputy in the wage schedule of 4 Dec 1684, at £6 0s 10d); he negotiates patiently through messengers with Holden in 1687 rather than confronting him; and he has on at least one occasion to suspend executions because his own wife is reported to be near death (5 Jan 1685). He is firm against rebels, alert to verbal disrespect, and content with his own authority being framed in the Crown's name. [Film No. 137, 154]
Captain Robert Holden, Deputy Governor through 1684, holding the storekeeper's office and later acting as Receiver General of customs by virtue of a separate commission, is the most divisive figure in the record. In 1684 Holden serves the Governor diligently, taking an active part in the trial of the mutineers and in the reorganisation of the garrison. By the autumn of 1687, however, Holden as Receiver General is openly defying the Council, refusing to pay senior officers their salaries for two quarters, refusing to deliver goods to ship masters, calling the Governor and Council "rebels", and asserting publicly that there are two governors on the island. He is willing to accept commitment to prison rather than to apologise to a Council member. The arc from loyal officer to insubordinate functionary is the most striking personal transformation in the file, and it should probably be read both as a clash of personalities and as a structural problem in the Company's split executive. [Film No. 366, 367, 400, 401, 406]
Captain Gregory Field, Ensign and later Engineer, is the most consistent presence on the Council other than Blackmore. His name appears as signatory on almost every order, including the orders against Holden in 1687. By November 1687 his own salary was twelve months in arrears because Holden refused to pay him, and the Council had to pay him £7 10s in a mixture of Spanish dollars and money from the Governor's cash. He is functional, undramatic, and indispensable. [Film No. 402, 403]
Sir Thomas Grantham, who arrives in January 1684 with the Charles the Second carrying the Lords Proprietors' instructions, is by 1685 cited in the record as the source of authority for the present orders. The instructions he brought, particularly the first paragraph of those of 1 Aug 1683, became the constitutional reference point for refusals to extend jury procedure beyond serious cases. He was also the conduit through which the rule against further importation of slaves from India arrived, a rule which was later set aside in May 1687 when Captain Adair brought ten slaves anyway. [Film No. 10, 226, 350]
Captain Robert Knox, who arrives in mid-1685 from Madagascar and whose ship Tonqudome Merchant absconded from the road on 29 May 1685, is one of the more vivid maritime personalities. After his ship's crew sailed without him, he was left dependent on the Council's charity for a passage to England and his carpenter was maintained at the Company's table until further opportunity. The substantial cargo he had brought (broadcloth, fowling pieces, flints, looking glasses, knives, combs, damask, shackles) was assessed by the Council and most of it sent on to England in the next returning ship. He is briefly seated on the Council in May 1685 but vanishes from the record after that. [Film No. 188, 190, 194, 195]
William Bowyer, the corporal who led the rebellion of 21 Oct 1684, is the most fully described rebel. His personal grievances - he had attempted to marry the widow Simons before the time allowed under his contract with the Company in July 1684, was demoted from corporal and made to ride the wooden horse with culverin shot at his legs, and his house had been searched - put him within the system of Company discipline before the rebellion erupted. His refusal to plead at his trial, his appeal to the King's Bench, his cry that the King's officers were "all traitors" if Captain Holden was not delivered up - all reveal a soldier who had concluded that the Company's authority was illegitimate. He was executed on 31 Jan 1685. [Film No. 88, 145, 147, 153, 161]
William Domison, the soldier sent to England as a calumniator in October 1684, is interesting because his offence was not action but speech: he had reported that Captain Holden had said "We are not his Majesty's subjects but the Company's" at the storehouse, while Holden had refused him a pound of tobacco. The phrase he claimed to have heard captures, with a directness no other entry achieves, the constitutional ambiguity of the island - was its allegiance to Crown or to Company? - and the case is therefore far larger than the simple matter of a soldier's grievance over rations. [Film No. 113, 114, 115, 116, 117]
Andrew Rooker, who appears throughout the record first as a soldier, then as armourer and marshal, then in 1687 as commander on board Margueritte, is a distinctively assertive personality. In July 1684 he was demoted from marshal for going aboard Society on a Sunday and remaining there overnight, and made to ride the wooden horse for two hours with culverin shot. In April 1685 he was committed to prison for assaulting Thomas Sherwin and ordered to pay £3 for surgical treatment. By November 1687 he was defying the councillor Nathaniel Coxe on board Margueritte, telling him that on shore he would prove himself "as good a man" although Rooker was a blacksmith and Coxe a gentleman, that he valued Coxe no more than dirt under his feet, and that he would seize any boat coming on board without Captain Holden's order even if it had the Governor's authority. He was committed to prison and replied that he would live as well in prison as Coxe would elsewhere. The Rooker case in 1687 is fascinating both for its alignment with Holden's side of the constitutional dispute and for its explicit rejection of the social hierarchy. [Film No. 88, 184, 404, 405, 406, 414]
Alarom Kirkpatrick, who appears in December 1687, is the most violent of the personalities recorded in the late period. He attempted to force entry into the doctor's house to assault his wife, threatened to cut off her nose to leave her with "the mark of a whore", said he would lie in wait and kill the doctor on the road, and rejected the Council's warnings on the grounds that twenty lashes was a punishment he could endure. His sentence to the wooden horse and to public exposure for set periods illustrates the Council's sense of how to manage a man too dangerous to release and too entrenched in the community to expel. [Film No. 410, 411, 412]
Two enslaved figures, Frank and Peter, dominate the late record. The slave Frank, Richard Goe...'s, who broke into Thomas F...'s house on the night of 1 May 1686, killed the slave Amino with a knife and a stick, and threw the white boy Jonathan Young to the ground three times, gave a confession that shifted between his testimony at the second and the first hearings. He attempted to shield Antony, his fellow slave, but witness testimony placed Antony elsewhere on the night. The slave Peter, Robinson's, who in late 1687 was accused of attempting to organise poisoning of masters using crushed glass mixed with grave earth and his own blood and sweat, never confessed. The cumulative testimony of multiple enslaved witnesses (Woola, Toby, Hannah, Gabriel Brown, Thomas, Thomas Borets) was sufficient to convict him. The two cases describe a community of enslaved people that was, at moments, capable of acting collectively and capable of being made to give testimony - whether voluntarily or not - against one of their own. [Film No. 282, 283, 284, 285, 407, 408]
Finally, a category of women emerges who are not principals but persistent presences. Anne Cannady, wife of John Cannady, gives evidence in the interloper case of 1684; Margrett, wife of Lester Sexton, gives evidence in the cloth-shift case of 1685; Sarah, the wife of Widow Browne, residing at the Etheridges', gives evidence against Kirkpatrick; Eleanor, wife of Richard Leach, gives testimony in the Hemon apprenticeship case; Mary, the wife of Thomas Freeman, gives evidence in the Wilson-Wosly debt. Their words are not their own narratives, but the Council records them, and they constitute a network of female witnesses indispensable to the running of the legal system. [Film No. 86, 219, 220, 273, 411]
Conclusion
The four years from January 1684 to November 1687 reveal St Helena as a small island society held together by a Company administration whose authority was not always quite sufficient for what was demanded of it. The 1684 rebellion of soldiers and free planters was the largest crisis of the period; the dispute with Captain Holden in 1687 over revenue collection was the most prolonged constitutional one; and the gradual installation of a parish administration, a market house, a regular cycle of land and cattle taxes, and an annual census of households was the slow administrative undercurrent that ran beneath both. Across this period the Council demonstrated both flexibility (using pepper as currency, accepting payment in cattle, banishing instead of executing) and severity (the gibbet and quartering of Frank, the burning of Peter, the long catalogue of lashes, brandings, and ear-croppings that mark the punishment of soldiers and slaves alike). Wider events that intersected with St Helena - the East India Company's monopoly disputes with interlopers like Captain Allay, the wider Atlantic slave trade through the African Company, Spanish dollars circulating from the Americas, attacks by Barbary ships in the early 1680s recalled in the Greenwood case - leave traces in the file. But these are traces, not narratives. The dominant story is administrative, judicial, and disciplinary, and it is told with a certain cold thoroughness by men whose principal interest was maintaining the Company's effective authority over a small, fragile, and inhabited island halfway to India.
Film No | Page No. | OCR Transcription | Modern Summary with Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date St Helena Records 1683 - 1687 Photographer Shelley Date photographed 14 Oct 2021 Additional comments | |||
Book Cover | |||
VOLUME 2d, 1683 to 1687. Arrival of the Ship Charles 2d. with Troops, &c. (1.) 28 January, Elizabeth. Starling to be whipped and ducked 3 times. Licenses, 3d each for women to go aboard. At- tempt at murder by a black, 30.* Severe punishment of 2 runaway apprentices. Iron pothooks about the neck &c. 55. Trading with a Ship, an Inferiour - a grave offence. 59. Black woman smuggled on shore, 2 beasts driven to Friar Valley for shipment from the beach 72. Interloper obliged to get water by stealth from Friar Valley beach, 74. Gurling and Powell fined £10 each for trading with an Interloper (a ship of the Rival E. I. Company !) Mr. Smith and the Minister, (in consequence of the Minister’s going home in dudgeon on being placed in a list of de- faulters) are both suspended by Proclamation. They re- sign them in consequence of the Govr. and his man strik- ing the bell. Refusal to ring in his place; resignation accepted. 81. Mention of the Church or Chapel in Town, Mr. Sault and the Council, 87. Ten acres of land above the Waterfall described as well wooded (93.) Japan Copper has in past years current money, used for 1d. 2 | |||
Blank page | |||
Blank page | |||
Highly decorative flourishes, apparently calligraphic or penmanship practice sheet | |||
Highly decorative flourishes | |||
Faint decorative flourishes | |||
Faint decorative flourishes | |||
1 | St Helena At a Councill held at Present John Blackmore Governor Whereas it hath pleased the Hono: Company Capᵗ Robᵗ Holden | A Council was held at Fort James on 8 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Sir Thomas Grantham, Commander of the ship Charles the Second, Captain Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Feild, Ensign, and others. It was recorded that the Honourable Company of English Merchants trading to the East Indies, being the sole lord and proprietor of the island of St Helena, had sent the ship Charles the Second, commanded by Sir Thomas Grantham, to the island. Arrival had taken place on 3 January 1684. By this ship, several orders and instructions for the government of the island had been delivered. Additional officers and soldiers had also been sent to reinforce the garrison. A list of these persons, together with their roles, was then set out. Captain Robert Holden was named. Ensign Gregory Feild was included. Thomas Spencer was described as chirurgeon. Mr Sault was identified as minister. Richard Keeling was recorded as writer. Interpretations The term “chirurgeon” was an archaic form of “surgeon”, referring to a medical practitioner responsible for both surgical procedures and general treatment. Such a role would have been particularly important in a remote settlement where access to medical care was limited. The term “writer” referred to a junior Company official responsible for clerical duties, including record-keeping and correspondence. This position often formed the entry point into the Company’s administrative service and could lead to advancement over time. Speculations The dispatch of additional officers and soldiers, along with formal instructions, was perhaps intended to strengthen control over the island and improve administrative order, possibly in response to earlier concerns regarding discipline or defence. The arrival of a Company ship under the command of Sir Thomas Grantham probably reflected the continued importance of St Helena as a strategic stop for vessels engaged in long-distance trade routes. | |
2 | Richard Floyd Serj[t] : John Garlick Philip Boavian Martua
Will[iam] Cordiall Which Officers and Sold[ie]rs are in the Hono[ura]ble Compa[ny] | A list of additional personnel sent to St Helena was continued. Richard Floyd was recorded as serjeant. John Garlick, Thomas Shacker, John Messenger, Robert Addis, Philip Boavian, Hugh Counter, Edward Blest, Henry Maning, George Drought, John Martua, John Talby, Thomas Yorke, Samuel Maxwell, Matthew Basset, John Brothers, Allen Glanvile, Andrew Rooker, Samuel Fynne, John Booker, William Cordiall, William Conyers, John Feild, Samuel Haslebury, Thomas Dixon, John Cumberland, Edward Roberts, January Lukerana, Samuel Matthews, Stephen Marsh, Erasmus Burling, William French, Thomas Cull, John Worrell, Richard Honywood, John Jelley, Ezekiel Taylor, William Boyer, William D[?]sbury, Morris Hunt, Henry Jackson, and Thomas Willis were also listed. These officers and soldiers were stated to be in the service and pay of the Honourable Company. Salaries were to be received according to their respective rank and the terms of their contracts. Interpretations The phrase “in the Company’s pay” indicated that these individuals were formally employed and salaried by the Company, rather than serving on an informal or temporary basis. Speculations The large number of soldiers listed probably indicated a deliberate effort to strengthen the island’s defences, perhaps in response to concerns about external threats or internal security. The inclusion of clearly defined contractual pay arrangements perhaps reflected an attempt to regularise military service on the island and ensure discipline through formal employment structures. | |
3 | [...] [...] That all the said Officers and Sold[ie]rs have [...] Complaints being made by M[r] Sam [...] one of the Honywood confessed he did strike the said Hayes [...] It is Ordered That Richard Honywood doe ride | All the officers and soldiers listed were employed by the Honourable Company from 3 January 1684, in line with the individual agreements each had made. Service was to continue for as long as they remained in the Company’s employment, and each person was to serve in the same role, rank, and position as at present. A complaint was made by Mr Sam [...] , described as one of the gentlemen belonging to the ship Charles the Second, against Richard Honywood, a soldier who had recently come ashore from that vessel. It was alleged that Honywood had behaved abusively towards Hayes at the house of John Cannady, a free planter in Chappell Valley. The accusations included the use of insulting and offensive language, followed by physical violence in which Hayes’s head was struck and injured. During the struggle, a sword was also broken. William Bowyer gave evidence that Honywood had admitted striking Hayes, although it was claimed that the blow had been delivered deliberately in response to something Hayes had said about him while on board the ship. An order was made that Richard Honywood should be punished by riding the wooden horse for half an hour with [...] Interpretations The term “free planter” referred to a settler who held land independently rather than as a Company servant. Such individuals occupied a distinct position on St Helena, combining agricultural activity with a degree of independence from Company employment. The punishment known as “riding the wooden horse” referred to a form of military discipline in which the offender was required to sit astride a narrow wooden structure, often with weights attached to increase discomfort. The aim was to impose pain and public humiliation rather than cause permanent injury. Speculations The dispute probably arose from tensions carried over from the voyage, where confined conditions and personal grievances could have led to conflict once the individuals came ashore. The imposition of a visible and physically uncomfortable punishment perhaps served to reinforce discipline among newly arrived soldiers and to demonstrate the authority of the island’s administration. | |
4 | [...] at each [...] for [...] the [...] Further That the said Honywood doe forthwith The said Honywood compla[i]n[e]th of Cap:t Oglet[h]orpe Cap:t Oglethorp answers that he did Enter Upon the whole it is Ordered Tho: Grantham | Further punishment was ordered against Richard Honywood, including additional [...] for [...] the [...] of the [...] and maliciously [...] of [...]. Honywood was also required to pay Hayes the sum of 2 dollars as compensation for breaking his sword. A complaint was then made by Honywood against Captain Oglethorpe, an officer aboard the ship Charles the Second, for keeping back his chest on board after his arrival, despite his remaining on St Helena as a soldier. In response, Captain Oglethorpe stated that Honywood had originally been entered as a serjeant among a group of soldiers intended for the Company’s service at Bombay. It was further stated that payment had been made to Honywood, described as an advance from the Company. However, as Honywood had chosen to remain on St Helena as a private soldier rather than proceed to Bombay, it was argued that it was unreasonable for him to retain [...] and that he should instead receive [...] to be reassigned to another soldier. It was also claimed by Captain Oglethorpe that Honywood owed him a debt, which Honywood acknowledged. After consideration, an order was made that Honywood should immediately pay or otherwise settle the debt owed to Captain Oglethorpe. In return, Captain Oglethorpe was required to deliver, or cause to be delivered, Honywood’s chest to him. The record was subscribed by Sir Thomas Grantham, Robert Holden, and Gregory Feild. Interpretations The reference to an “advance” indicated a sum of money paid to a soldier before or at the start of service, often recoverable through future pay or conditional upon completing agreed service. Such arrangements were commonly used to secure enlistment for distant postings such as Bombay. Speculations The dispute between Honywood and Captain Oglethorpe probably arose from changes in Honywood’s intended destination, which altered the terms under which he had originally been engaged and paid. The decision to require repayment of the debt while ordering the return of the chest perhaps reflected an attempt to resolve competing claims fairly, ensuring that both financial obligations and personal property were addressed. | |
5 | Mr Watts upon coming and declaring his resolution not to go in the And it was Ordered That when it shall appeare yt the said Watts doth really intend 20 in [...][...] now in hand, and out of the Hon[o][u]rable Comp[an]y if he doth not go for England then that this payment be taken [...] Robt Holden | Mr Watts appeared before the Council and declared that he no longer intended to enter the Honourable Company’s service at Bombay. He requested that part of his wages should be allowed to him, so that he might obtain the necessary provisions for a planned voyage to England at the first available opportunity. Consideration was given to whether such a large sum should be paid to him on the island, as he had declined the Company’s service at Bombay despite his earlier agreement. An order was made that, once it was confirmed that Watts genuinely intended to travel to England, he should be paid 32 rupees and 10 st[?], representing three quarters of a year’s salary. Payment was to be made in stages, with 20 [...] to be provided immediately from funds already in hand and from the Company’s stock and plantation, provided that sufficient resources remained for the Company’s use. The remaining balance was to be paid according to the Company’s will and decision. It was further directed that, if Watts did not proceed to England, the matter of this payment should be reconsidered. The record was subscribed by Robert Holden and John [...][n][t]on. Interpretations The reference to “Company’s stock and plantation” indicated the combined resources of the island’s agricultural production and stored goods, which were managed for the benefit of the Company and used to support both its operations and its personnel. Speculations The hesitation to pay the full sum immediately perhaps reflected concerns about misuse of Company funds if Watts failed to leave the island as stated. The conditional nature of the payment probably served as a safeguard, ensuring that financial support was only provided if Watts followed through with his declared intention to return to England. | |
6 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Munday the 9th of Janry 168[3/4] Present: Jo: Blackmore Governo[r] [...] being made of Tho Heath, Will Wells, Gunner mate, George Sutton [...] that the s[a]i[d] Wm Wells did go over the first wall this Night after Wm Wells confessed to great[est] part of what was laid to his Leister Sutton saith that being asleep in his bed on Saturday night | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday, 9 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain John Harding, and Ensign Richard [...]. Complaints were made against Thomas Heath, William Wells, gunner’s mate, George Sutton, cockswain, Ralph Spicer, corporal, and John Tacky, soldier. It was alleged that at about three or four o’clock that morning they had caused a serious disturbance in the fort town. Tiles had been broken on the Company’s market house, and stones had been thrown. A child’s stock in Henry [...]’s balcony had been set on fire and thrown onto a nearby thatched house, together with other acts of disorder. Evidence was given that William Wells had climbed over the first wall during the night after the taptoe and had persuaded Thomas Heath, a young man newly sent by the Company as a soldier, to accompany him. They had then gone into the fort town, where they moved from house to house, waking inhabitants to obtain drink. This behaviour had continued in the streets and at the market house throughout the night. William Wells admitted to most of the accusations. He stated that after he and Heath had crossed the fort wall, they went to Richard Curling’s house, where they obtained a bowl of lunch, which they carried to the market house and drank there. They then obtained another bowl of lunch at John Pur[c]ling’s house, which they also consumed at the market house. Afterwards, they entered Henry [...]’s balcony, forced open the door, and took some beer. George Sutton, Ralph Spicer, and John Tacky later joined them. Stones were then thrown at the market house in order to break the tiles, although Wells claimed no knowledge of any intention to set fire to the stock that had been thrown onto the thatched house. Leister Sutton stated that while asleep in his bed on Saturday night, he had been awakened by a loud disturbance in his balcony. On rising and going to his chamber door, he saw the door forced open by those outside. He identified William Wells, Thomas Heath, and a seaman, who demanded beer. Three quarts were obtained [...] Interpretations The term “taptoe” referred to the evening signal marking the closing of the day’s activities within a garrison, after which soldiers were expected to remain within their quarters. Movement beyond the fort walls after this time would have been considered a breach of discipline. The word “lunch” in this context referred not to a midday meal but to a drink, often an alcoholic mixture such as punch. Such beverages were commonly shared socially and could contribute to disorderly behaviour when consumed in excess. Speculations The behaviour described probably reflected a breakdown of discipline among recently arrived or lower-ranking personnel, possibly influenced by alcohol and the relative lack of supervision during the night. The repeated movement between houses and the forcing of entry into private spaces perhaps indicates a level of disorder that concerned the authorities, particularly given the risk of fire posed by the burning material thrown onto a thatched building. | |
7 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday the 23 Present John Blackmore Gover[nor] Sam[ue]l Lesly haveing formerly without Lycence gotten off the But he haveing had Land formerly allotted him as a Plan Therefore It is concluded That the said Sam Lesly cannot be entertained a Sold[ie]r in the It is Ordered That he pay the sume of Ten pounds to be deducted out of his Rich[ard] Griffin who had Lycence to go for England & ha | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday, 23 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Samuel Lesly had previously left the island without permission and travelled to England, where he enlisted as a soldier in the service of the Honourable Company. On his return, a request was made that he should now be admitted into the Company’s pay and service on St Helena. Consideration was given to the fact that Lesly had earlier been granted land as a planter, from which he, his wife, and his family had lived. They remained in possession of and continued to occupy this land. It was also noted that the Company had expressly forbidden any soldier in its service from holding land. A decision was made that Samuel Lesly could not be accepted as a soldier in the Company’s service on the island under these conditions. However, in view of the expense incurred by the Company in transporting him back, an order was made that he should repay the sum of £10. This amount was to be deducted from the pay of his son at a rate of 40s every three months, beginning on 14 June, and continuing until the full sum had been paid. Lesly agreed to these terms. Richard Griffin, who had been granted permission to travel to England and had there enlisted as a soldier in the Company’s service, made a similar request to be admitted into service on the island. It was noted that he also possessed land and cattle, which he wished to retain while entering into service. Interpretations The restriction preventing soldiers from holding land reflected a Company policy designed to separate military service from private economic activity. This aimed to ensure that soldiers remained fully available for duty and did not become divided in their obligations between defence and personal farming interests. Speculations The refusal to admit Lesly as a soldier while he retained land perhaps demonstrated the Company’s effort to enforce clearer distinctions between settlers and military personnel, reducing conflicts of interest. The requirement that repayment be made through deductions from his son’s wages probably indicates that his son was already in Company service, and that this arrangement was considered a practical means of recovering costs without immediate hardship. | |
8 | It is Concluded That he may not be entertained as a Sold[ie]r: But in It is Ordered That he pay the sume of Ten pounds upon or before the Rich[ard] Gurling, Leivt Seaton, & Hen[ry] Cauley plaint[iffs] It is Ordered That the pr[e]sent have Lycence to retaile Liq[uor] but every Rob[t] Holden | A decision was made that Richard Griffin could not be accepted as a soldier. However, in view of the expense incurred by the Honourable Company in transporting him to the island, an order was made that he should repay the sum of £10 by 1 June. He was required to provide a formal obligation as security for this payment. Richard Gurlin, Lieutenant Seaton, and Henry Cauley submitted a petition requesting permission to retail liquor and tobacco. Permission was granted for them to sell liquor. Each was required to enter into a bond of £40, supported by sufficient sureties. This bond required that they should sell only such liquor and tobacco as were supplied from the Company’s stores, and from no other source. They were also required to follow any regulations set by the Governor and Council concerning the price and measure of the drink they sold. In addition, they were to maintain proper order and observe the lawful times and conditions under which such retailing was permitted. The record was subscribed by Robert Holden. Interpretations The term “obligation” referred to a formal written agreement binding a person to fulfil a financial or legal commitment, often enforceable by penalty if the terms were not met. The requirement to enter into a “bond” of £40 with sureties meant that each retailer had to provide financial guarantees, backed by other individuals, to ensure compliance with Company regulations. If conditions were broken, the bond could be forfeited. Speculations The strict conditions placed on the sale of liquor and tobacco perhaps reflected concerns about disorder and the need to control both supply and behaviour within the settlement. The insistence that all goods be sourced from Company stores probably aimed to protect the Company’s monopoly and prevent unauthorised trade on the island. | |
9 | They all acknowledge the greatness of what is alleadged ag[ain]st them Upon very Mature consideration of the whole, & the severall Ey[e] wittnesses It is Ordered That John Wells be laid in hold 48 hours, & Corporall [...] Robt Holden John Harding | The accused acknowledged the seriousness of the charges made against them. It was stated in their defence that they had been overcome by drink, while parts of the allegations were denied. After careful consideration of the matter, including the accounts of several eyewitnesses, orders were issued regarding punishment. John Wells was to be placed in confinement for 48 hours. Corporal Jones was to be confined for 24 hours following the next muster, which was to take place the following day. It was further directed that, if they repaired the damage caused to the market house, [...] . George Sutton was ordered to ride the wooden horse for one hour, with [...] buckering shot placed at each heel. Young Heath was to receive [...] and was to be strictly warned against committing such offences again. The record was subscribed by Robert Holden and John Harding. Interpretations The term “laid in hold” referred to confinement, usually in a secure place such as a guardroom or cell, used as a short-term military punishment. The phrase “buckering shot” referred to weights, often musket balls or similar heavy objects, attached to the legs during the punishment of riding the wooden horse in order to increase discomfort. Speculations The range of punishments imposed perhaps reflected differing levels of responsibility among those involved, with some receiving confinement while others were subjected to more physically painful penalties. The allowance for repairing the damage to the market house may have been intended both to restore property and to reduce the severity of punishment through restitution. | |
10 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on fryday the 12 of Jan[ua]ry The Rt Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y having lately ad[...]ed by the Loya[...] Merch[an]ts among other Therefore It is Ordered That no goods or m[er]chandize shall be sold unto the Inhabitants of the Island [...] Rob[t] Holden John Harding | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Friday, 12 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Robert Holden, Lieutenant John Harding, and Ensign Richard Keeling. Recent advice received from the ship Loyal Merchant was considered, together with the general service and condition of the island. It was judged to be in the Company’s interest to address a growing concern that many able seamen then resident on the island were either unfit through illness or, being free and capable, might soon run away. A shortage of replacements was anticipated, which could result in significant loss to the Company if no timely remedy were provided. An order was therefore made that no goods or merchandise should be sold to the inhabitants of the island in connection with brandy, arrack, and sugar from the Company’s stores. Any person engaging in such trade, whether buyer or seller, was to be fined for each cask or quantity of brandy involved, until further order. It was further directed that this order should be posted at the Company’s warehouse, so that all persons might take notice of it. The record was subscribed by Robert Holden and John Harding. Interpretations The term “arrack” referred to a strong distilled spirit commonly produced in Asia, often from palm sap or rice, and widely traded by the Company. It was frequently consumed by sailors and inhabitants, and could contribute to disorder when used excessively. Speculations The restriction on the sale of alcohol and related goods was perhaps intended to discourage disorderly behaviour among seamen and reduce the incentive for them to abscond. The concern about seamen running away probably reflected the island’s role as a stopping point for ships, where skilled sailors might attempt to leave Company service if alternative opportunities or freedoms appeared available. | |
11 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on thursday the 26th of Jan Sam[ue]l Lesly & Sam Taylor Plant[ers] having petic[i]oned that It is Ordered That their petic[i]ons be granted upon Condic[i]ons Thom[as] Road who lately went to England for Lycence & It is Ordered That he be entertained as a soldier, & if he do enter into Rob[t] Holden | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday, 26 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Samuel Lesly and Samuel Taylor, both planters, submitted petitions requesting permission to retail liquor and tobacco. Their requests were granted, subject to certain conditions. Thomas Road, who had previously travelled to England with permission and had there enlisted to serve the Honourable Company as a soldier, requested that he be admitted into service on the island. He stated that he had formerly held land before leaving St Helena, but had given power of attorney to his cousin to lease it in his absence. The cousin had leased the land for 99 years to John Graves. Road declared that he would confirm this arrangement and permanently transfer the land to Graves. On this basis, it was asserted that he was no longer in possession of land or cattle. An order was made that Thomas Road should be accepted as a soldier. He was to be entered into pay and placed on duty from that same day. The record was subscribed by Robert Holden. Interpretations The term “power of attorney” referred to a legal authority granted by one person to another, allowing them to act on their behalf in managing property or other affairs. In this case, it enabled Road’s cousin to lease out his land during his absence. Speculations The acceptance of Road as a soldier despite his previous landholding perhaps reflected a strict adherence to the rule that soldiers should not possess land, with his transfer of the property resolving any conflict. The granting of retail licences to Lesly and Taylor, following earlier similar permissions, probably indicates a controlled expansion of licensed trade under regulated conditions. | |
12 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday the 12th of March Jn[o] Blackmore Gover[nor] The arrears of the Rt Hon[oura]ble Lords Pro[prie]tors revenues were taken into Vizt The arrears of Back rent now rated & stand yearely for 4 yeares And the arrears for Blacks & cattle at 6 s p head yearely for all above And the duties for Land and cattle for this yeare ending the 25th It is Agreed & Ordered That the severall persons having and detaining of all the foresd acct and Also It is Agreed & thereupon Ordered That all & every Planter in the sd Island who are indebted to ye said | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday, 12 March 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Council, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Outstanding revenues due to the Right Honourable Lords Proprietors were taken into consideration, with a view to their immediate collection. Arrears of back rent were identified, having been assessed annually over four years up to 25 March 1684, and remained unpaid. It was also noted that some inhabitants had failed to maintain the required stock of cattle, namely one full stock for every four slaves within a household, without proper allowance and contrary to the orders of the Lords Proprietors. Further arrears were recorded for slaves and cattle, charged at a rate of 6s per head yearly for all persons aged 16 years and above, covering five years due at the Feast of St Michael the Archangel next following. Duties for land and cattle for the current year, ending 25 March 1684, were also due. In addition, customs owed by several inhabitants for goods imported and exported during the year were included among the outstanding sums. An order was made that all persons holding or owing any part of these arrears should be required, by public proclamation, to attend in person at the Sessions House near Fort James on Monday, 26 March 1684. They were then to show cause on Tuesday, 27 March 1684, so that all such accounts might be examined and settled. A further order required that all planters indebted to the Lords Proprietors should pay their arrears either in cash or in good bills. If payment was not made in this manner, it was to be made instead in kind, either as good saleable beef, ready killed, at 10s per head, or as dry beans at 5s per bushel, to be delivered to Fort James whenever demanded. Each debtor was also required to provide sufficient security for the payment agreed. Interpretations The term “back rent” referred to unpaid rent owed for the use of land held under the authority of the Lords Proprietors, accumulated over previous years and now formally assessed for collection. The “Feast of St Michael the Archangel” referred to Michaelmas, observed on 29 September, a traditional quarter day used in England and its territories for the payment of rents and settlement of accounts. The term “bushel” referred to a standard unit of dry measure used for goods such as beans, indicating a fixed quantity rather than a weight, commonly used in agricultural transactions. Speculations The emphasis on collecting multiple forms of arrears at once perhaps indicates mounting concern over unpaid revenues and the financial stability of the island’s administration. The option to pay in goods rather than cash probably reflects limited availability of coin on the island, with agricultural produce serving as a practical alternative for settling debts. | |
13 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday the 17th of March At a Councell held ye 1st Jno Blackmore Governor Upon serious consideration of the Hon[o]ble Comp[a] It is Ordered That the number of Souldiers in the said That [Isr]aell Hale came to the said Island in [ye] That Ralph Simms and those of his that That in regard there are two Souldiers more now in att Fort James Present Jn[o] Blackmore Gover[nor] The arrears of the Rt Hon[oura]ble Lords Pro[prie]tors revenues were taken into Vizt The arrears of Back rent are rated & stand yearely for 4 yeares And the arrears for Blacks & cattle at 6 s p head yearely for all above And the duties for Land and cattle for this yeare ending the 25th It is Agreed & Ordered That the severall persons having and detaining of all the foresd acct and Also It is Agreed & thereupon Ordered That all & every Planter in the sd Island who are indebted to ye said | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday, 17 March 1684. Reference was made to an earlier Council held on 1 January 1684 at Fort James. Those present on that earlier occasion were John Blackmore, Governor, Sir Thomas Grant Baronet, Captain Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Captain Gregory Ford, Ensign. Consideration had been given to the Honourable Company’s recent orders and instructions concerning the government of the island, together with the military officers they had appointed. Attention had also been paid to the number of posts where officers had previously been stationed to command soldiers during alarms. It was recognised that none of these positions could be left unattended without danger. An order had therefore been made that the number of soldiers in the Company’s service on the island should be maintained according to its original establishment. Israel Hale, who had come to the island at the time it was retaken from the Dutch and had served for many years as both soldier and ensign, was to continue in the position of soldier, which he had accepted. Ralph Simms, who had also been present at the recovery of the island and had served for several years as a soldier, was to remain in his position. It was further noted that two additional soldiers were then in pay, namely William Sclater, who had arrived on the Josamiah in 1678 and had served since that time, and Hugh Simms [...] A further Consultation was then recorded as having taken place at Fort James, with John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Council, and Richard Keeling, Ensign present. Outstanding revenues due to the Right Honourable Lords Proprietors were examined with the intention of immediate recovery. Arrears of back rent were identified, assessed annually over four years up to 25 March 1684, and required to be paid without delay. It was also noted that some inhabitants had failed to maintain the required stock of cattle, namely one full stock for every four slaves within a household, contrary to the orders of the Lords Proprietors. Additional arrears were due for slaves and cattle at a rate of 6s per head yearly for all persons aged 16 and above, covering five years and payable at the Feast of St Michael the Archangel. Duties for land and cattle for the current year, ending 25 March 1684, were also due, along with customs owed by several inhabitants for goods imported and exported during that year. An order was made that all persons owing any part of these sums should be summoned by public proclamation to attend in person at the Sessions House near Fort James on Monday, 27 March 1684. They were then to appear again on Tuesday, 28 March 1684 to explain their accounts so that they might be examined and settled. A further order required that all planters in arrears should pay their debts either in cash or in acceptable bills. If payment was not made in this way, it was to be made instead in kind, either as good merchantable beef, ready killed, at 10s per head, or as dry beans at 5s per bushel, to be delivered to Fort James when required. Each debtor was also required to provide sufficient security for the agreed payment. Interpretations The reference to the island being “retaken from the Dutch” referred to the Recapture of St Helena (1673), during which English forces regained control of St Helena after a period of Dutch occupation. Individuals associated with this event were often recognised for long service. The term “original establishment” referred to the authorised strength and organisation of the island’s military force as previously determined by the Company, including the number of soldiers and their distribution across defensive posts. The “Feast of St Michael the Archangel” referred to Michaelmas, observed on 29 September, a traditional quarter day used for the payment of rents and settlement of accounts. The term “bushel” referred to a standard unit of dry measure used for goods such as beans, indicating a fixed quantity commonly used in agricultural trade. Speculations The emphasis on maintaining the original number of soldiers and retaining experienced individuals perhaps reflected concern about the island’s vulnerability and the need for a stable defensive force. The renewed effort to collect arrears probably indicates increasing pressure to secure revenue, possibly due to rising costs of maintaining the garrison and administration. The option to accept payment in goods rather than cash likely reflects limited circulation of money on the island, making agricultural produce a practical alternative for settling debts. | |
14 | Souldiers some yeares past, the latter being one of those It is Ordered That they shall cast Lotts w[hi]ch of them that Further That Richard Loyd one of ye sd Souldiers Whereas Charles Orley one of the sd Souldiers, hath It is Ordered That the said Orley do continue in the | It was further recorded that William Sclater and Hugh Simms had both served as soldiers for several years. Hugh Simms was noted as having come with Sir Richard Munden at the time of the retaking of the island, and had continued in military service since that time. An order was made that they should draw lots to determine which of them would retain a halberd and hold the position of third soldier. The other was to remain in the Company’s service as a private soldier. It was also ordered that Richard Loyd, one of the soldiers enlisted by Sir Thomas Grant Baronet, should be appointed as the fourth soldier upon his nomination. All of these soldiers were to receive credit from the Honourable Company at a rate of 30s per month. Payment was to commence from 3 January 1684, being the date of arrival of the ship Charles the Second. Charles Orley, one of the same soldiers, had arrived on the island in 1678 and had for several years been employed as a drummer. He had attained a degree of skill in that role and had regularly attended at the fort during general assemblies, musters, military exercises, and alarms. Duties had included mounting and dismounting guards, as well as sounding signals such as tattoo and travail. Despite this, he had only received the pay of a private soldier, although he had made repeated requests for an increase. An order was made that Orley should continue in the Company’s service on the same rate of pay. Interpretations The term “halberd” referred to a type of pole weapon carried by certain soldiers, often signifying a position of responsibility or rank within a unit rather than serving purely as a weapon. The term “tattoo” referred to a drum signal given in the evening to mark the end of the day’s duties and the return of soldiers to their quarters. The term “travail” in this context referred to a military drum signal, likely used to regulate daily routines or movements within the garrison. Speculations The use of drawing lots to assign rank perhaps reflects an attempt to resolve competing claims fairly between two equally qualified soldiers without favouritism. The decision to retain Orley on the same pay despite his additional duties and experience may indicate either financial restraint or a reluctance to establish a precedent for increased wages based on specialised roles. | |
15 | Asland as Drummer, and that he have Whereas Wm Wells one of the Sould[ie]rs It is Ordered That the said Wm Wells be established Further Whereas the Hon[o]ble Comp[any] in a 89 paragraph It is Ordered That the said John Blackmore | Charles Orley was to continue serving as drummer, and an increase was to be added to his pay beyond that of a private soldier. This additional amount was to be credited to him by the Honourable Company. William Wells, one of the soldiers who had arrived in 1678, had recently been chosen and appointed as marshal or prison keeper on the island. As this office was considered necessary for maintaining order and discipline, especially with the increased number of soldiers, an order was made confirming him in this role. He was to receive the pay and salary of a private soldier, together with such allowances of food from prisoners as had previously been established. Reference was made to the Honourable Company’s instructions, specifically the eighty-ninth paragraph dated August of the previous year, which directed that John Blackmore junior should continue to receive the pay of an ensign. He was also to serve as register clerk, keeping accounts of the island’s revenue and performing related duties under the direction of his father. An order was made that John Blackmore junior should receive credit from the Honourable Company for the pay of [...] Interpretations The role of “marshal or prison keeper” referred to an official responsible for the custody of prisoners and the enforcement of discipline. On a small settlement such as St Helena, this position combined elements of law enforcement and gaol administration. The term “register clerk” referred to an administrative officer responsible for maintaining official records, particularly financial accounts relating to revenue. This role was essential for tracking income and expenditure on behalf of the Company. Speculations The decision to increase Orley’s pay perhaps reflects recognition of the importance of his duties as drummer, which were central to regulating military routine and communication. The formal establishment of a marshal or prison keeper probably indicates a growing need for structured discipline as the population of soldiers on the island increased. The appointment of John Blackmore junior to a paid administrative role under his father’s direction may suggest the influence of family connections within the island’s governance, alongside the Company’s reliance on trusted individuals for financial oversight. | |
16 | an Ensign[e] vizᵗ 2 li p[er] month and [...] Tho: Grantham | John Blackmore junior was to receive the pay of an ensign, set at £2 per month, and was also to be provided with diet at one table. The record was subscribed by Sir Thomas Grantham, Robert Holden, and Gregory Fields. Interpretations The phrase “diet at one table” referred to the provision of meals at a common or official table, typically shared with other officers. This formed part of the individual’s allowance and status, indicating inclusion within the officer class rather than requiring them to provide their own subsistence. Speculations The inclusion of both salary and table allowance for John Blackmore junior perhaps reflects an intention to maintain the social and professional standing associated with the rank of ensign, in addition to his administrative duties. | |
17 | Att A Councill held att Fort Present John Blackmore Gover[nor] Thomas Horsman son to Capt Horsman belong[ing] not long after the said Tho: Horsman, coming where All which abuses both in words & deeds were Eliza: Starling confesseth that she had the plates But it was Evidenced that she called him Rogue Being demanded to make that good | A Council was held at Fort James on 28 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Sir Thomas Grantham, and Robert Holden, Deputy Governor. Thomas Horsman, son of Captain Horsman and belonging to the ship Charles the Second, gave information concerning Elizabeth, the wife of John Starling. While at her house on the island, he had seen several plates and porringers, which he had been told belonged to Sir Thomas Grantham. He reported this, and a warrant was issued to search the house of the Starlings. Two plates and two porringers were found there, seized, and brought away, and were recognised as belonging to Sir Thomas Grantham. Soon afterwards, when Thomas Horsman encountered Elizabeth Starling, he was called a rogue by her and was struck with a stick. He was wounded in the face, including an injury to his eye, and was subjected to further verbal abuse. These actions were supported by the evidence of Mr Cook, a seaman belonging to the same ship. Elizabeth Starling admitted that the plates and porringers had been brought ashore among her goods. She also admitted that she had called Horsman a rogue and had struck him, stating that she had done so because he had called her a whore. Evidence was given, however, that she had first used the word rogue and had claimed she could prove it. When required to support this claim, she stated that her accusation was based on Horsman having left her house and informed against her regarding the plates and porringers, together with other irrelevant and insignificant matters that had occurred between them while on board ship, which were not considered relevant to the present case. Interpretations The term “porringer” referred to a small metal bowl, often with a handle, used for eating or serving food. Such items were personal property and could be of some value, particularly if made of pewter or similar materials. The issuing of a “warrant” referred to a formal authorisation permitting the search of a person’s property. In this context, it demonstrated the exercise of legal authority by the island’s administration in investigating suspected theft. Speculations The dispute probably arose from suspicion of theft or improper possession of valuable household items belonging to a senior figure, which would have been treated seriously within the small community. The escalation to physical violence perhaps reflects personal tensions between the individuals involved, possibly intensified by prior interactions during the voyage aboard the ship. | |
18 | Upon the Whole, It is Ordered. That the said Eliz: Starling have made and to Duck 3 tymes for her notorious [...] Tho: Grantham | After full consideration of the matter, an order was made concerning Elizabeth Starling. She was to receive 15 lashes on her naked body at the [...] as punishment for the assault and battery committed against Thomas Horsman, which had been supported by evidence. She was also to be ducked three times as punishment for persistent lying and for making scandalous statements about several individuals, in particular Sir Thomas Grantham. The record was subscribed by Sir Thomas Grantham and Robert Holden. Interpretations The punishment of “ducking” referred to a public disciplinary measure in which the offender was repeatedly submerged in water, often using a ducking stool or similar device. This was intended both as punishment and as a form of public humiliation, commonly applied in cases involving disorderly conduct or defamation. Speculations The severity and public nature of the punishments perhaps indicate the authorities’ intention to make an example of the offence, particularly where both physical violence and accusations against prominent individuals were involved. The inclusion of punishment for defamatory speech, especially concerning a senior figure such as Sir Thomas Grantham, probably reflects the importance placed on maintaining social order and respect for authority within the small island community. | |
19 | Att A Coun[c]ill held att Fort Ja[...] John Blackmore Gov:r Upon a Petition of Eliz: the wife of John Starling It is Ordered That the Ducking of the said Elizabeth bee Complaint being made that the said John Starling did not Which accusation being proved, the said Starling not It is Ordered That the said Starling be bound to the good And accordingly. The said Starling entred into a Recognizance And Andrew Phillips Gunner entred into a Recognizance for the said Starlings being of the good behaviour | A Council was held at Fort James on 31 January 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Sir Thomas Grantham, and Robert Holden, Deputy Governor. A petition was submitted by Elizabeth Starling, wife of John Starling, in which she admitted her misconduct for which she had previously been sentenced on 28 January 1684 to be whipped and ducked. She requested that the latter part of her punishment be remitted. An order was made that the punishment of ducking should be cancelled. She was to be immediately discharged and set at liberty. A complaint was then made that John Starling had not only supported and encouraged his wife in her abuse of Thomas Horsman, but had also threatened to beat him if he encountered him, and had declared that he would make him suffer through another person. This accusation was proved, and Starling did not deny it. An order was made that John Starling should be bound to good behaviour for six months, with two sureties. In accordance with this order, Starling entered into a recognizance of £20. Andrew Phillips, gunner, and Thomas Roe, a free planter, each entered into a recognizance of £10 as sureties for Starling’s good behaviour for six months from that date. Interpretations The term “bound to good behaviour” referred to a legal requirement that a person refrain from misconduct for a specified period, enforced through financial guarantees that could be forfeited if the condition was broken. The term “recognizance” referred to a formal legal obligation, recorded before an authority, in which a person pledged a sum of money as a guarantee of compliance with certain conditions, such as maintaining good behaviour. Speculations The remission of the ducking punishment perhaps reflects a degree of leniency following the admission of wrongdoing and submission of a petition. The requirement for financial sureties to guarantee John Starling’s conduct probably indicates concern that the dispute might continue or escalate, and that preventative measures were considered necessary to maintain order. | |
20 | John Coleson Free Plant[...] shewing that Ma[...] It is Ordered, That Lycence be granted to [...] purpose Richard Parum Free Plant[...] [...] Whereupon The Councill book was searchd, and it was found It is Ordered That since the said 3 £ 4 [...] for the said 6 Bushells Ordered The Free Plan[...] to pay 6 £ for their dispatch That none of the Clerks under the Governor & Councill | John Coleson, a free planter, submitted a request that his two daughters might be granted permission to go aboard the ship Charles the Second together with their eldest sister, who had recently been married to Captain Oglo[...] , an officer belonging to that ship. An order was made granting this permission. Richard Parum, also a free planter, raised a matter concerning a debt recorded against him to the Honourable Company, amounting to £3 4 [...] for six bushels of rye said to have been issued to him as provisions when he was admitted to become a free planter. The Council book was examined, and it was found in the entry dated 21 June 1680, page 121, that Parum had been allowed only one bushel of rye as provision at the time he became free. It was further noted that Johnson, identified as the husband, had supplied the six bushels of rye to Parum at a rate of 10s per bushel, which had been incorrectly entered as a debt owed by Parum to the Company. An order was made that the sum of £3 4 [...] should be removed from Parum’s account with the Company and instead credited appropriately [...] Johnson. This adjustment was to be carried out by Holden, the storekeeper, to whom a copy of the order was to be provided by the clerk of the Council. A further order required that free planters should pay £6 for their dispatch, and 3 [...] for licences permitting women to go aboard ships. It was also ordered that none of the clerks under the Governor and Council were to demand or take fees at their own discretion, nor to charge excessive or arbitrary amounts from the free planters and inhabitants of the island. Interpretations The term “turne free” referred to a change in status whereby an individual ceased to be a Company servant and became an independent settler or free planter, often with certain entitlements such as land or provisions. The phrase “dispatch” in this context referred to the administrative processing or formal approval of a matter, for which a fixed fee was charged. Speculations The correction of Parum’s account perhaps reflects ongoing efforts to ensure accuracy in Company records, especially where debts and provisions were concerned. The regulation of clerks’ fees probably indicates concern about abuses of authority or informal charges being imposed on inhabitants, leading to the need for clearer control over administrative practices. | |
21 | It is Ordered That besides what Fees have bin [...] Those further are now established For every discharge in full under the hand For every Lycence granted by the Gov[...] Whereas severall Blacks have lately committed againe Therefore It is Ordered. That noe White person Man or Woman on the It is hereby declared lawfull for the said persons Shall wilfully faile in the due performance hereof | An order was made establishing additional fees, beyond those already published in the Book of Judicature [...]. These included a charge for every discharge in full issued under the hand and seal of the Governor for a person’s debt to the Honourable Company, and a fee for every licence granted by the Governor permitting a woman to go aboard any ship. Attention was then given to recent incidents in which several slaves had committed burglary and robbery at the house formerly belonging to Mr [...], taking a considerable sum of money and various buttons. Some of those involved had confessed, while others remained at large. Concern was expressed that the stolen money might be passed on, either among other slaves, to white inhabitants, or to persons on board ships. An order was made that no white person on the island, whether man or woman, was to accept any money, coin, silver, or gold from any slave, unless this was done in the presence of that slave’s master or mistress, or with written authorisation from them. If any slave attempted to offer money to any person, whether white or slave, it was declared lawful for that person to seize both the money and the individual, and to deliver them to the slave’s master or mistress. Prompt notice of such actions was to be given to the Governor. Failure to comply with this order would result in a fine, to be imposed according to the seriousness of the offence, for the benefit of the Honourable Company, as punishment for disobedience of authority. Interpretations The “Book of Judicature” referred to an official record in which legal decisions, established fees, and judicial procedures were recorded for reference and enforcement by the island’s authorities. Speculations The strict controls placed on the handling of money by slaves perhaps reflect fears of theft, informal trade, or the circulation of stolen goods within the island’s small and closely monitored economy. The authority granted to seize both money and individuals probably indicates an effort to involve the wider population in enforcing order, particularly where official resources for policing may have been limited. | |
22 | For as much as it is notorious & by experience that severall For prevention whereof It is Ordered. That noe person or persons dwelling or being on this Island Further All Commanders Officers and Mariners of shipps yt And Further. That they would take especiall care not to carry away any [signature] | It was recognised from experience that several slaves had run away from their masters, causing considerable loss and expense. Some had managed to board ships bound for England, where they had been hidden and concealed, often with the assistance or neglect of certain mariners. They had remained undiscovered until the ships were well at sea, making it impossible to return them to the island. As a result, significant harm and financial loss had been suffered by their owners and their families. In order to prevent such occurrences, an order was made that no person on the island was to send any slave, whether their own or belonging to another, on board any ship arriving at St Helena. No one was to permit or assist, whether for favour or reward, in placing any slave on board a ship. If any person boarded a ship with a slave without proper licence or authorisation for that slave to remain on board, the slave was to be brought back ashore with them. Any person failing to comply with this order, or found to be concealing a slave in such circumstances, was to be fined at the discretion of the Honourable Company, as determined by the Governor and Council. Commanders, officers, and mariners of ships arriving at the island were also required not to admit, permit, or knowingly allow any slave to come aboard their vessels, whether by day or night, and whether alone or in company with others. It was further directed that no inhabitant of the island was to be taken away by any ship without written permission from the Governor and Council. The record was subscribed by Sir Thomas Grantham and Robert Holden. Interpretations The term “connivance” referred to the deliberate or negligent allowance of wrongdoing, particularly where individuals in positions of responsibility, such as mariners, failed to prevent or actively enabled the concealment of runaway slaves. Speculations The detailed restrictions imposed on both inhabitants and ship crews perhaps indicate that the problem of runaway slaves boarding ships had become frequent and difficult to control. The involvement of mariners in concealing individuals may suggest informal arrangements or incentives that conflicted with the Company’s interests, prompting stricter enforcement measures. | |
23 | Att A Con[s]ultac[i]on held att Fort S[...] Present John Blackmore Governor Captn Daniell Commander of the good Shipp now John Miles & Thomas Toones two of the said Mr Captn Daniell replys that he hath witne[s]se[s] to prove John Tichborne planter & Sheriffe of the said | A Consultation was held at Fort [...] on Saturday, 9 February 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Sir Thomas Grantham, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Ensign Field, and Captain Daniell, commander of a ship then lying in the roads and preparing for voyage. A complaint was made by Captain Daniell against John Greenwood’s executors for withholding a slave boy named Balasore. The boy had been left on the island in January 1684 in the care of Greenwood so that he might be treated for a sore or illness. John Miles and Thomas Toones, acting as executors of Greenwood, replied that the boy had been bequeathed in Greenwood’s last will and testament to Mary, the youngest of his children. They also stated that the boy had required considerable expense for his maintenance and treatment, and requested that he should remain for the use of Greenwood’s child. Captain Daniell responded that he could produce witnesses to prove that the boy was his property. He stated that he had neither sold nor given the boy to Greenwood, but had only left him in his care for treatment. John Tichborne, a planter and sheriff of the island, gave evidence that about two years earlier he had been present at Greenwood’s house when Captain Daniell had stated that he intended to leave the boy with Greenwood so that he might be cured of a running sore. Payment for the treatment had been promised, and Greenwood had agreed to return the boy to Captain Daniell upon his next arrival at the island. It was also stated that Captain Daniell had refused to sell the boy to Greenwood at that time. Interpretations The term “executor” referred to a person appointed to carry out the provisions of a will, including the distribution of property according to the deceased’s instructions. In this case, the executors were responsible for administering Greenwood’s estate and defending its claims. The reference to a slave being “bequeathed” indicated that the individual was treated as transferable property within a will, reflecting the legal and economic framework in which enslaved persons were regarded as assets. The term “roads” referred to an anchorage area near the shore where ships could lie at anchor, rather than a constructed roadway. Speculations The dispute probably arose from conflicting interpretations of ownership, with Greenwood’s executors relying on the terms of the will, while Captain Daniell asserted prior ownership and a temporary arrangement. The mention of the cost of maintaining and treating the boy perhaps indicates an attempt by the executors to justify their claim, either as compensation or as grounds for retaining possession. | |
24 | Jo[...] Green[...][...] Free Plant[...] being sworn saith that Elizab[...] the wife of W[...] Roade Free plant[...] saith that Further that Mr Greenwood left some an agreem[...] Upon serious Consideracon of the whole busines It is Ordered That Mr Greenwood Executor doe deliver unto A small shipp wearing English Colours came into | John [...] Greenwood, a free planter, gave sworn evidence that shortly before his death Mr Greenwood had stated that Captain Daniell had left the slave boy Balasore with him to be cured, and that the boy did not belong to him but to Captain Daniell, although he had hoped to retain him upon the captain’s return. Elizabeth, the wife of William Roade, a free planter, also testified that Mr Greenwood had declared on his deathbed that the boy was not his property but belonged to Captain Daniell. Further evidence was given that an agreement had been made for payment of about 4[...] for curing the boy. It was stated that if the cure was not completed, only half the amount, being 40[...], was to be paid. Elizabeth Roade declared that she had already received 35[...] from Greenwood’s account towards this sum, and that she had incurred further expense while treating the boy during a severe stage of his illness. After full consideration of the matter, an order was made that Greenwood’s executors should deliver the boy Balasore to Captain Daniell, as the evidence showed him to be the captain’s property. It was also ordered that Captain Daniell should immediately pay the agreed sum of 4[...] to the executors, for the benefit of Elizabeth Roade’s claim. A small ship flying English colours then arrived in the roads and anchored without saluting the fort. The commander, William Doo[...], came ashore and was met at the landing place by the Governor and Deputy Governor. He reported that his ship was named the John and Ma[...], of about 80 tons burthen. He stated that he had been at M[...] to obtain slaves and had about 80 on board, along with eight [...] boats and several men. He had then been compelled to proceed to Surat, where he had remained for nearly six weeks. Upon leaving Surat, he had received a letter from a President there for the Honourable East India Company in London. He had been instructed to carry the letter safely to England unless he encountered an English ship bound homeward, in which case it was to be transferred for quicker delivery. Interpretations The term “President” referred to the chief official of an East India Company factory or settlement, such as at Surat, who exercised authority over trade, administration, and correspondence in that region. The phrase “burthen” referred to the carrying capacity or tonnage of a ship, indicating its size and the volume of cargo it could transport. The requirement to “salute the Fort” referred to a customary naval practice in which a ship entering harbour would fire guns as a mark of respect and acknowledgement of authority. Failure to do so could be regarded as a breach of protocol. Speculations The consistent testimony that the boy belonged to Captain Daniell perhaps made the Council’s decision straightforward, despite the competing claim based on Greenwood’s will. The payment ordered to cover the cost of treatment likely reflects an attempt to balance recognition of ownership with compensation for expenses incurred. The arrival of a ship carrying slaves and correspondence from Surat probably highlights the island’s role as a key point in wider trading and communication networks, linking different parts of the Company’s operations. | |
25 | That he had watered and refreshed at the Cape, and was [...] in the [...] brought in the goods It is Ordered. That a Warr[...] be directed to Cap[.] Holden Store And Further. That he deliver unto the Governour & Treasurer | The commander reported that he had taken on water and refreshed his ship at the Cape, and had sailed from there in 13 days. On seeing a vessel lying in the roads, he had entered the harbour in order to deliver the letters he carried, stating that he had little need of provisions from the island. The Governor informed him of the Honourable Company’s instructions requiring payment of anchorage and additional charges for tonnage if any trade were to be conducted on the island. After discussion, the commander agreed to comply. The matter was then considered again in full Council, with the commander present. When he hesitated over paying tonnage, it was proposed that he might instead deliver the letters received from the President at Surat to Captain Daniell, commander of the ship London, at the Cape, and only pay anchorage without engaging in trade. The commander declined this option, as he wished to purchase provisions for the slaves on board and to sell goods for the use of his crew. He therefore agreed to pay the required tonnage. A proclamation was then made allowing the inhabitants to sell him provisions, and he purchased several small quantities of yams and other goods. Further reference was made to the ship Charles the Second, including the delivery of goods, noted as including 1,000 bags of [...] and other cargo. An order was made that a warrant should be issued to Captain Holden, storekeeper, directing him to deliver or cause to be delivered on board the ship Charles the Second 2,000 bags of [...] or other agreed goods, to be accounted for to the Honourable Company as debt. A further order directed that one large bale, being part of the cargo, should be delivered to the Governor and the Treasurer of the plantation. Its value was to be placed to the Company’s account, together with the other goods, with an allowance of 50[...] advance upon them in proportion to the original cost of the cargo, amounting in total to 6[..] 2[...]. Interpretations The term “anchorage” referred to a fee charged to ships for the use of a harbour or anchoring ground, forming part of the Company’s regulated income from visiting vessels. The term “tonnage” referred to a charge based on the size or carrying capacity of a ship, often levied when trade or provisioning took place, and distinct from simple anchorage fees. Speculations The negotiation over whether to pay tonnage perhaps reflects an attempt by the visiting commander to minimise costs, balanced against the Company’s desire to enforce its trading regulations. The willingness to allow trade once payment was agreed likely demonstrates the importance of such transactions to the island’s economy, both for the Company and for the inhabitants supplying provisions. | |
26 | Island At A Consultacon held on Thursday Present John Blackmore Governor Mr John Gramond late Minister of the said Island It is Ordered That the said Mr Gramond have a Lycence to Mr Joseph Stephens being done making the same [...]. It is Ordered That the Life be done for and on the behalfe | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday, 24 February 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Field, Ensign. Mr John Gramond, formerly minister of the island, requested permission to return to England on the ship New London, then lying in the roads. He also requested that his account with the Honourable Company should be examined and settled, including any allowance for food money, and that a formal record should be prepared showing the date of his admission into the Company’s service as chaplain and the terms agreed at that time. An order was made granting him permission to return to England on the ship New London. It was further directed that his account with the Company should be formally stated and signed. A copy of the Council order relating to his admission into service, together with the agreed terms, was to be extracted from the Council book and certified by the present Governor and Council. A letter was also to be prepared to the Honourable Company on his behalf. Mr Joseph Stephens was recorded as having made a similar request [...]. An order was made that the same arrangements should be carried out for Mr Joseph Stephens, with the necessary alterations. Interpretations The phrase “mutatis mutandis” indicated that the same administrative procedure was to be applied to another individual, with only the required changes in detail. Speculations The preparation of certified extracts from the Council book perhaps reflects the importance of documentary proof for former Company servants seeking recognition or settlement of accounts in England. The issuing of a formal letter on behalf of Mr Gramond probably suggests that his service record required endorsement or clarification for the Company’s authorities upon his return. | |
27 | John Cro[s]land a souldi[er] belonging to the ship Cha[r]l[e]s Hee now petitioning for his Liberty, and that he might It is Ordered That the said Cros[s]land doe immediately ride the Richard Stanrock Marriner having deserted followe | John Crosland, a soldier belonging to the ship Charles the Second, had remained in the countryside without permission before the ship’s departure and had failed to return in time to go aboard when it sailed. He came back two or three days later and had since been held in confinement for several days. A request was made on his behalf for release, together with a request that he should be accepted into the Honourable Company’s service. It was stated in explanation that his absence at the time of the ship’s departure had been due to threatening words spoken by an officer on board, who had said that he would sacrifice him, causing fear for his life. An order was made that Crosland should immediately be punished by riding the wooden horse for three hours, with three muskets placed at each foot. He was also required to maintain himself at his own expense until the next pay day. After that time, he was to be admitted into the Company’s service as a soldier, or otherwise, at a rate of 11s per month until further order. Richard Stanrock, a mariner, had deserted the Company’s service by remaining on the island after the departure of the ship Charles the Second without permission from the Governor. Nathaniel Greenham, commander of the same ship, gave sworn evidence that Stanrock had been charged by 15 musketeers with committing a felonious act during his time on board. A copy of this charge was to follow. Interpretations The phrase “maintain himself” indicated that Crosland was required to provide his own food and subsistence without support from the Company until he was formally placed on pay. The reference to being “charged by 15 musketeers” suggested a formal accusation supported by multiple witnesses, reflecting a collective statement intended to strengthen the credibility of the allegation. Speculations The punishment imposed on Crosland, combined with his later acceptance into service, perhaps reflects an attempt to enforce discipline while still making use of available manpower. The serious nature of the accusation against Stanrock, supported by numerous witnesses, probably indicates concern over maintaining order and discipline aboard Company ships as well as on the island. | |
28 | Janu[ar]y 15th 1683/4 Sr Whereas there is one Richard Stanro[c]k a Seaman Sr Your most hum[ble] Servant It is Ordered That the said Richard Stanro[c]k be committed Whereas the good Shipp Charles &c. arrived att the | A letter dated 15 January 1684 from Sir Thomas Grantham was presented concerning Richard Stanrock, a seaman belonging to the ship Charles the Second. It was stated that Stanrock had broken open several chests on board the ship and stolen various goods. He had then fled and was believed to be concealed on the island, possibly with the assistance of inhabitants. It was further reported that he had incurred several debts and had received an imprest from the Honourable Company, being bound under a penalty of £100 to complete the voyage. A request had been made that he should be apprehended, secured, and prevented from leaving the island until the return of the ship, so that he might be dealt with according to the law in cases of theft. An order was made that Richard Stanrock should be committed to close custody and held in irons until further direction. It was further noted that the ship Charles the Second had arrived on 3 January 1684, bringing a return to London from the Honourable Company, including a master appointed for service on the island. This individual had not yet received any pay, despite having already been on duty. It was also observed that two months had passed since accounts had last been settled with the former officers and soldiers, dating from 20 December 1683. Interpretations The obligation entered into by Stanrock under a penalty of £100 reflected a formal bond used by the Company to secure completion of service, with significant financial consequences attached to desertion or breach of contract. Speculations The emphasis on apprehending Stanrock and preventing his departure perhaps indicates concern that he might escape beyond the Company’s jurisdiction if allowed to leave the island. The mention of unpaid personnel may suggest administrative delay following the arrival of new officers, possibly contributing to tensions within the garrison. | |
29 | It is Ordered That a Warr[an]t be drawne signed and directed to Further It is Ordered That a Warr[an]t of Debt and credit be drawne signed | An order was made that a warrant should be prepared, signed, and directed to Captain Robert Holden at Fort James, requiring him to issue payment to all officers and soldiers in the Honourable Company’s service on the island. This payment was to cover two months’ wages according to the established rates, with one half to be provided in goods from the Company’s stores and the other half in money. He was also directed to complete and settle all accounts, both old and new, relating to their service up to Thursday, 28 February 1684, exclusive. A further order was made that a warrant should be prepared and directed to Captain Holden for the proper recording of debt and credit. This was to include all sums issued or paid to each officer and soldier, as well as all goods supplied for the use of the fort and the Company’s service up to 28 February 1684. It was also to account for any payments made by, or received from, inhabitants and planters in full or partial settlement of their debts to the Company. These amounts were to be entered as credits to the respective accounts of the officers and soldiers, and properly assigned within the Company’s records, with full details to be recorded accordingly. Interpretations The combined issue of pay in goods and money reflected the Company’s accounting practice on the island, where limited availability of coin required partial payment in kind, drawn from Company stores and entered against individual accounts. Speculations The instruction to reconcile all accounts up to a fixed date perhaps indicates an effort to regularise financial records following recent arrivals and administrative changes. The inclusion of transactions involving inhabitants and planters in the same accounting process likely reflects the interconnected nature of military pay, provisioning, and local economic exchange on the island. | |
30 | To [... ] [...] G[ra]mond cl[ai]m for his debt --- 018:03:11 98:17:11 | An account was set out listing sums due to various individuals in relation to debts and pay. A claim was entered for [...] Gramond in the amount of £18 3s 11d. Hugh Comberford was credited with £2 2s 0d at a rate of £2 per month. Joseph Bayley, John Taylor, John Mantha, Thomas Thacker, William Comerford, Samuel Hasleberry, George Wright, John Moffmiger, Henry Jackson, Richard Hornwood, Robert Addis, Samuel Furne, Erasmus Purkis, Samuel Matthews, John Cumberland, Stephen Marsh, John Fo[...]is, Ezekiel Taylor, Samuel Booker, John Booker, Thomas Gill, John Brockett, William French, William Cardell, Allan Glanvill, John Garlick, Andrew Booker, John Smith, Maurice Hunt, John Worrall, Phillip Boavian, Henry Manning, Edward Blest, and William A[...]bury were each credited with £2 2s 0d. Richard Rye, Matthew Bazett, and William Bonger were each credited with £2 8s 8d. The total of all sums listed amounted to £98 17s 11d. Interpretations The repeated sum of £2 2s 0d indicates a standardised monthly or periodic payment rate applied across most individuals, reflecting uniform pay or settlement terms within the Company’s service. The differing amount of £2 8s 8d assigned to certain individuals suggests either an adjusted rate of pay or the inclusion of additional allowances or arrears in their accounts. Speculations The structured and uniform nature of the payments perhaps reflects an effort to regularise financial obligations across the garrison following the earlier order to settle accounts. The presence of slightly higher amounts for a small number of individuals may indicate differences in rank, role, or duration of service, or the settlement of outstanding balances not applicable to others. | |
31 | To Samuel Gla[n]vill --- 002:02:00 To Wm Slater Sen[?] at 30 s p[er] month --- 008:02:08 To Joseph Trapp --- 007:11:05 To Ralph Simmins his debt for his Powder &c[?] --- 005:13:09 Borne over 98:17:11 | The list of debts and payments is as follows: Samuel Glanvill was owed £2 2s 0d. Richard Loyd, at £2 per month, was owed £3 0s 0d. John Firoft, at £2 5s per month, was owed £5 6s 0d. Robert Goodwyn was owed £2 15s 7d. Samuel Taylor was owed £14 10s 10d. Thomas Goodwyn was owed £2 11s 0d. Joseph Wilkes was owed £2 10s 3d. Charles Oxley Drummond, at £2 per month, was owed £2 2s 6d. James Ward, at £2 5s per month, was owed £2 4s 0d. Allan Dommison was owed £2 11s 6d. Thomas Dixon was owed £2 2s 0d. Simon Whaley was owed £2 11s 11d. Richard Brookbank was owed £9 12s 6d. William Wills was owed £2 9s 11d. Ralph Spired was owed £3 5s 5d. George Inton was owed £0 6s 0d. Hugh Simmins was owed £2 14s 9d. William Bonner was owed £2 11s 1d. Andrew Phillips, a gunner, was owed £5 10s 4d (at £4 per month). Reign Wills, at £2 5s per month, was owed £2 11s 3d. Thomas Mackmo was owed £2 11s 1d. Robert Olston was owed £2 11s 0d. John Rowley was owed £9 9s 4d. Additionally, other debts were noted, such as those for powder or other materials. The total, carried over from the previous entry, was £98 17s 11d. Interpretations The amounts of £2 or £2 5s per month were standard rates for various roles within the Company’s service, particularly for soldiers or sailors. The differing amounts reflected variations in rank, role, or specific debts and allowances. Speculations The systematic collection of pay and debt suggests an effort to maintain clear financial records and ensure proper compensation for service. The inclusion of items such as debts for powder indicates that the Company managed both wages and supplies through a single, integrated financial system. | |
32 | Part To Gabt P[ro]vell --- 000:11:00 Part To Tho: Swallowe --- 001:10:09 To Orlando Bagley by his Wife --- 003:10:00 To Wm Sater --- 001:00:00 The Totall of all [...] written since Comesto --- 005:19:09 To the Frees Plant [...] credit for cattle apprized at 8 s d [...] 498:09:3 From Tho: Birch one Heifer --- 03:10:0 James Eastop one Cow & 1 Bullock --- 03:10:6 William Sater 2 Cows & 1 Calfe --- 10:13:1 Rich[ar]d Curling 2 Cows apprized at [...] --- 15:16:0 Wm Hayes one Heifer --- 03:05:0 Wm Hunt 2 Bullocks --- 08:00:0 Robt Dverton one Heifer --- 02:12:0 Henry Toms one Heifer --- 02:15:0 Jn: Mudge 2 Cows & 2 Calves --- 11:07:0 David Plowden 1 Bullock apprized --- 01:11:0 Tho: For his 3 young Bullocks apprized --- 01:13:9 To Rich: Curling --- 04:00:0 In p[ro]duced by For his acco[unt] --- 01:06:2 Wm Putter one Cow & Calfe --- 05:10:0 James Wakeford 1 Bullock --- 03:00:0 | A further account was set out listing partial payments and credits. Gabt Provell was entered for £0 11s 0d. Mr Robert Swallowe was entered for £10 0s 0d. Thomas Swallowe was entered in part for £1 10s 9d. Orlando Bagley, through his wife, was entered for £3 10s 0d. William Sater was entered for £1 0s 0d. Henry Cable was entered for £20 5s 0d. Thomas Bolton, John Camady, Holden Allen, Daniel Elkins, and Richard Emm[...] were also listed [...] . A total of £5 19s 9d was recorded for the entries written since Comesto [...]. Credit was then assigned to the free planters for cattle valued at 8s per head, amounting in total to £498 9s 3d. Individual contributions were then recorded. Thomas Birch provided one heifer valued at £3 10s 0d. Owen Brian provided one cow valued at £4 16s 6d. John Bartle provided one cow valued at £5 3s 5d. Daniel Collins provided one cow valued at £4 10s 0d. John Colson provided two cows and one heifer valued at £12 5s 11d. John Camady provided one cow valued at £4 10s 0d. Henry Cable provided one cow valued at £5 0s 0d. John Catgrave provided one cow and calf valued at £5 14s 0d. John Draper provided one cow and two bullocks valued at £10 14s 8d. James Eastop provided one cow and one bullock valued at £3 10s 6d. John Homan was entered for £4 4s 5d. William Sater provided two cows and one calf valued at £10 13s 1d. Richard Curling provided two cows valued at £15 16s 0d. William Hayes provided one heifer valued at £3 5s 0d. Jonathan Higham provided one cow and calf valued at £6 5s 0d. Thomas Howe provided one bullock valued at £1 12s 6d. William Hunt provided two bullocks valued at £8 0s 0d. Robert Dverton provided one heifer valued at £2 12s 0d. Isaac Sutton provided one cow and calf valued at £10 2s 0d. Henry Toms provided one heifer valued at £2 15s 0d. William Marsh provided one heifer and one bullock valued at £10 [...] . John Mudge provided two cows and two calves valued at £11 7s 0d. David Plowden provided one bullock valued at £1 11s 0d. Thomas [...] provided three young bullocks valued at £1 13s 9d. Richard Curling was further credited with £4 0s 0d. John Pooler was credited with £1 6s 2d, with the same amount noted as produced on his account. William Putter provided one cow and calf valued at £5 10s 0d. Mr Lorm provided one bullock valued at £3 15s 0d. Christopher Saxton provided one cow and calf valued at £5 9s 6d. Edward Seaford provided one cow and calf valued at £5 12s 9d. Richard Stacy provided one heifer valued at £2 10s 0d. Mr Howard provided one cow and one bullock valued at £5 19s 5d. Thomas Swallow provided one bullock valued at £2 0s 0d. Henry Worsley provided two bullocks valued at £2 13s 6d. James Wakeford provided one bullock valued at £3 0s 0d. Tom Young provided one cow and one bull valued at £4 0s 0d. Interpretations The valuation of cattle at a fixed rate per head reflects a standardised accounting practice used to convert livestock contributions into monetary credit within Company records. Speculations The large total credited for cattle suggests that livestock formed a significant part of the island’s economy and was used extensively to settle obligations to the Company. The detailed recording of individual contributions perhaps indicates a systematic effort to balance accounts between the Company and free planters through assessed agricultural produce rather than cash. | |
33 | [...] [...] hereby Ord[...] & Authoriz[...] to issue and deliver[...] Report: Invoice for Goods Received by Sea Report: Invoice for Goods Received by Sea | An order was issued authorising the delivery of goods for the Honourable Company’s service, as directed by the Governor or his order. The items specified were to be issued and entered with their respective values, and the total amount was to be placed to the Company’s account. This authority was to serve as a warrant for such transactions, dated 24 [...] 1684. Report: Invoice for Goods Received by Sea Interpretations The reference to a “warrant” in this context indicated formal written authority enabling the storekeeper or other responsible officer to issue goods and record their value against the Company’s accounts, ensuring accountability in the management of supplies. Speculations The formal recording of goods received and issued perhaps reflects the increasing administrative complexity of the island’s supply system, particularly as it relied on shipments by sea and careful accounting of Company property. | |
34 | Report: Invoice for Goods Received by Sea | Report: Invoice for Goods Received by Sea | |
35 | Whereas at this tyme the Island is destitute of an It is Ordered by Agreement with him That he the said [...] Roo[...] shall for the [...] | It was noted that the island was at that time without an armourer, and that a person [...] Roo[...] had been identified as having a good reputation for industry, sobriety, and sufficient ability to carry out that work. An agreement was made appointing him as armourer and smith for the Honourable Company on the island. The forge and the smith’s tools were to be placed in his custody, for which he was to give a written acknowledgement of receipt. He was to receive pay at a monthly rate of 2[...] and was to be provided with [...] including washing and quarters, except on extraordinary occasions. In addition, he was to receive £12 per month from the Company’s stock as wages. This arrangement was to continue until further order from the Governor and Council. The record was subscribed by Rob[...] [...] and Gregory [...]. Interpretations The combined role of “armourer and smith” reflected the practical need on a remote settlement for a single individual to maintain and repair weapons, tools, and metalwork essential to both defence and daily operations. The requirement to give a written note for the receipt of tools indicates the importance placed on accountability for Company property, particularly specialised equipment that was difficult to replace. Speculations The formal appointment and relatively substantial wage perhaps indicate the strategic importance of maintaining arms and equipment on the island, especially given its reliance on a small garrison. The provision of tools and housing as part of the arrangement may reflect the need to attract and retain skilled labour in a remote and resource-limited environment. | |
36 | Island Sᵗ Helena Att A Councill held on Tuesday yᵉ 18ᵗʰ John Blackmore Governᵒ Richard H[amo]r[... ] being at the Consultation of yᵉ Honᵒ It is Ordered That if the said Hamor[... ] will bring sufficient Wᵐ Bonner and Jo[...] [... ] and Richard Ry[...] | A Council was held at Fort James on Tuesday, 18 March 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Richard Hamor[...] had previously been brought before the Council and committed to close confinement in irons. Following a petition for some liberty, it had been ordered that he should be placed under the custody of the marshal at the Honourable Company’s plantation, with an iron lock fastened to one of his legs, where he was to work in return for his food. This arrangement had been carried out. A further request was then made by him for additional liberty, so that he might obtain clothing, which he was said to lack. An order was made that, if he provided sufficient security to remain on the island until formally licensed to depart by the Governor and Council, and if he agreed to pay £20 per year to the Governor for the use of the Honourable Company as a penalty for deserting their service contrary to his obligation, then the iron lock was to be removed. He was thereafter to be allowed liberty to work for any person and in any place on the island. William Bonner, Jo[...] [...], and Richard Ry[...] had been posted at Spragg[...] Fort in Lemon Valley. They were found to have been absent from their post on the night of Friday, 14 March 1684, at a time when the ship Prince of Mary, under the command of Captain John [...], appeared off the island at about five or six o’clock in the evening. In response, alarms had been raised by the firing of several great guns, and the ship had steered by Fort James across the road to the [...] . Interpretations The requirement to provide “security” in this context referred to a financial or personal guarantee ensuring that Hamor[...] would remain on the island and comply with the conditions imposed, enforceable through forfeiture if breached. The imposition of an annual payment of £20 as a condition for increased liberty reflects a penal or compensatory charge for desertion, distinct from ordinary wages or debts. Speculations The conditional easing of Hamor[...]’s confinement perhaps indicates a pragmatic approach, allowing labour to be redirected into the local economy while still enforcing penalties for desertion. The absence of soldiers from their post at a time of alarm probably caused serious concern, suggesting weaknesses in discipline at a moment when the island’s defences might have been tested. | |
37 | W[or]thward by the said Fort at Lemon Valloy, and to the It is Ordered That the said Bonner be committed to Prison, and That in regard Richard Ryoe is a new Souldᵉʳ and Robert Ex[... ] [...] Plantᵉ Complaines of Lo[...] Seacton Mr John Groven [...] Executor Complaines of Richard But the said Executor denying to have knowledge | The ship continued westward past the fort at Lemon Valley and towards the south-west point of the island. During the night it was sought by Captain [...] but was not found. On the following morning it returned by way of Lemon Valley Fort and anchored in the road before Fort James. Despite these movements and the firing of ordnance to raise the alarm, none of the soldiers posted at Lemon Valley appeared at their station during the evening, night, or following morning to perform their duty. In their defence, it was stated that they had left their post to obtain provisions and that they had not heard the guns. An order was made that William Bonner should be committed to prison. At the next parade he was to be punished by riding the wooden horse for two hours, with the weight of a full culverin shot attached to each heel. He was also to be removed from Lemon Valley Fort and reassigned to duty at Fort James. In consideration that Richard Rye was a new soldier and not yet fully acquainted with his duties, it was ordered that he should no longer be stationed at Lemon Valley Fort but should return immediately to Fort James to perform his service there. Robert Ex[...] [...], a planter, brought a complaint against Lo[...] Seacton for non-payment of a debt owed for work performed. Seacton acknowledged the debt and undertook to pay it promptly. Mr John Groven [...], acting as executor, brought a complaint against Richard Gurling, a planter, for failure to pay a debt of 4 [...], supported by a bond under Gurling’s hand and seal. Gurling responded that, before Groven [...] had assumed his role, Robert Ex[...] had been accepted in satisfaction of the debt. This was denied by the executor, who stated that he had no knowledge of such an arrangement. Interpretations The reference to a “culverin shot” indicated a heavy iron cannonball used with a culverin, a type of long cannon. Its use as a weight in punishment significantly increased the severity of riding the wooden horse. The mention of a “bond under hand and seal” referred to a formal written obligation, legally binding, used to secure payment of a debt and enforceable through recognised legal procedures. Speculations The failure of the soldiers to respond to the alarm perhaps reflects lapses in discipline or communication, particularly at more remote defensive posts. The distinction made between Bonner and Rye in their punishments probably indicates an effort to balance discipline with leniency towards inexperienced soldiers. The dispute over the debt involving Gurling may suggest informal financial arrangements between inhabitants that were not always clearly recorded, leading to conflict when formal enforcement was attempted. | |
38 | It is Ordered That the said Gurling doe forthwith pay or Richard Gurling complaines of the sd Executoʳ for not It is Ordered That then the said Executor doe forthwith deliver Richard Gurling complaines of Robert Exeter for The said Exeter confesseth the bargaine and debt Wᵐ Roe late Souldʳ but now living in Land in Bay and that on thursday the 18ᵗʰ of febrˢ last the said It is Ordered That the said Black have 21 lashes on his naked | An order was made that Richard Gurling should immediately pay or otherwise satisfy the executor the sum of £4 for the use of the orphans. Upon completion of this payment, the executor was to deliver the bond to Gurling. A further complaint was made by Gurling against the same executor for failing to deliver a bond relating to money already paid to Groven for the use of the orphans. This was not denied by the executor. An order was therefore made that the bond should be delivered to Gurling without delay. Gurling also brought a complaint against Robert Exeter for non-payment of £4 owed to his wife. This debt arose from a bond that Exeter had purchased from Matthew Barnden, the deceased husband of Gurling’s wife. Exeter acknowledged both the agreement and the debt, and undertook to pay the £4 in ready money within one month from that date. William Roe, formerly a soldier and then residing on land in the Bay which he had purchased, made a complaint concerning a slave belonging to Richard [...], a planter. It was alleged that the slave had assaulted Margaret, Roe’s wife. On Thursday, 18 February 1684, at about nine o’clock at night, the slave had come to Roe’s house and requested entry and food, which had been given. While Margaret was alone and attempting to secure the house, the slave seized her by the throat, beat her, and attempted to suffocate her. She managed to escape and flee. An order was made that the slave should receive 21 lashes on his naked body at the flagstaff and that his right ear should be cut off. This punishment was carried out immediately. Interpretations The reference to payment “for the use of the orphans” indicates that the executor was acting in a fiduciary capacity, managing assets on behalf of minor beneficiaries and enforcing debts owed to their estate. The cutting off of the ear formed part of a penal practice intended both as punishment and as a permanent mark of criminality, serving as a visible sign of offence within the community. Speculations The repeated disputes involving Gurling suggest ongoing financial entanglements within the small settlement, where formal bonds and informal agreements could come into conflict. The severity of the punishment imposed on the slave perhaps reflects the authorities’ intention to deter violent offences, particularly those committed within domestic settings, and to reinforce social control. | |
39 | Andrew Wilson free plantᵉ Wᵐ Cordell answered That he had delivered to the said Wilson affirmed that he missed many things, and Noe witnesses appearing, nothing was determined on But Wilson answered That he had redelivered the sd Cordells It is Ordered That the said cloathes be forthwith brought John Matthews free plantᵉ Complaines of Joseph Jones Quincy confessed that the said Matthews did tell | Andrew Wilson, a free planter, made a complaint that William Cordell had taken the key of his trunk from his breeches pocket, opened the trunk, and removed several items from it. Cordell replied that he had previously delivered to Wilson a bond for money due to him in England, and had asked for its return. When Wilson stated that the bond was not in his house, suspicion had arisen, and the trunk had been opened in search of it. Cordell denied taking anything from the trunk. Wilson maintained that several items were missing, while Cordell continued to deny removing anything. As no witnesses were present, no determination was made on the matter. Cordell then alleged that Wilson was holding his clothes. Wilson replied that the clothes had been recovered from another person and were being retained as security for money owed to him by Cordell. An order was made that the clothes should be brought to Fort James without delay, and that the dispute should then be reconsidered. John Matthews, a free planter, made a complaint against Joseph Quincy, also a free planter, for damage caused by Quincy’s swine to his plantation, valued at 40s. The damage had been assessed by Edward Browne and William Poade, who were present and confirmed the extent of the loss, though they could not state with certainty that the animals belonged to Quincy. Joseph Quincy admitted that Matthews had informed him that his swine had entered the plantation and caused damage. He stated that he had told Matthews that, if the animals came again onto his land, they should be killed. He also argued that the fencing around the plantation had not been sufficient. Interpretations The retention of goods as security for a debt reflects an informal but recognised practice of holding property as collateral in the absence of immediate payment, particularly in a setting where formal enforcement mechanisms could be limited. Speculations The inability to resolve the dispute over the trunk probably reflects the difficulty of establishing proof in the absence of witnesses, leaving the matter to be revisited once further evidence could be obtained. The disagreement over damage caused by swine perhaps indicates ongoing tensions between neighbouring planters, where responsibility for fencing and control of livestock was not always clearly enforced. | |
40 | Edward Brayne and Wᵐ Poadoe free Plantᵉ Witnesseth But noe proofe being made that the swine which had Ralph Spence old souldᵉ being the principall p[er]son It is Ordered That the said Spence be committed to the Marshall And whereas the said Spence hath contemptuously It is further Ordered That the said Spence doe on some parade day Leister Sexton free Plantᵉ Complaines of Matthew Dommy Dommy confesseth that he did sell the sd Sexton Sexton replyed that he hath payd the greatest part of Matthew Dommy complained of the said Leister Sexton for | Edward Brayne and William Poade, both free planters, gave evidence that the fence in question had been constructed of stone and stood about four feet high, except in places where it had been broken down by swine. As no proof was provided that the animals responsible belonged to Joseph Quincy, the matter was deferred until further evidence could be obtained. Ralph Spence, an older soldier who had been the principal person stationed at the flagstaff, which was the main point for signalling the approach of ships, was examined concerning the failure to raise an alarm on Friday, 14 March 1684, when the ship President Mary arrived. He stated that he had been absent at that time and for three or four days previously, and that he had left another person in his place, believing that proper watch would be kept. An order was made that Spence should be committed to the custody of the marshal for such time as the Governor should determine. It was further noted that Spence had disobeyed a previous order of the Governor and Council forbidding him to lodge at a house of ill repute, which he had continued to do. An additional order was therefore made that he should be punished by riding the wooden horse for one hour on a parade day. Leister Sexton, a free planter, brought a complaint against Matthew Dommy, also a free planter, for failing to deliver possession of a house in Chappell Valley that had been purchased some time earlier. Dommy admitted that the house had been sold, but stated that it was not to be delivered until full payment had been made. Sexton replied that the greater part of the agreed sum had already been paid, and that the remainder would be settled on Thursday, 27 March 1684, in book credit at the current rate of 2½ per cent, in accordance with the agreement. Matthew Dommy then brought a counter-complaint against Sexton for non-payment of £3 owed under a bond, which was produced as evidence. Interpretations The “flagstaff” functioned as the central signalling point for maritime observation, where failure to maintain watch could compromise the island’s defensive readiness. The reference to payment “in booke at the currant price of 2½ per cent” indicates settlement through account credit rather than cash, valued at an agreed rate reflecting local accounting practice. Speculations The repeated failures in maintaining watch at the flagstaff perhaps suggest broader issues with discipline or reliability among the garrison. The dispute between Sexton and Dommy likely reflects common tensions arising from staged payments and deferred delivery in property transactions, especially where credit arrangements were involved. | |
41 | Sexton confesseth the Bond and Debt, desires a little time It is Ordered That the said Sexton doe pay or satisfy the said John Powell of the said Island presenting a Note under Capᵗ It is Ordered That the said sum of 3ˡ be placᵗ to them respective John Stevens late souldᵉ (but now living on land he purchased) Homan owns the said Note, and agreement but saith he It is Ordered That the said Homan doe deliver unto the said Stevens And also at the same tyme that he deliver to the said Likewise that the said Homan doe pay or satisfy Joseph | Leister Sexton acknowledged the bond and the debt, and requested additional time for payment. An order was made that he should pay or otherwise satisfy Matthew Dommy the sum of £3 by or before 8 April 1684. John Powell presented a note under the hand of Captain Johnson, which was confirmed by the captain. A request was made that £3, being part of Captain Johnson’s account with the Honourable Company or its master, should be credited to John Powell and charged against Captain Johnson. An order was made that the sum of £3 should be entered accordingly as debit and credit by Captain Holden, the storekeeper. John Stevens, formerly a soldier and then residing on land he had purchased, brought a complaint against John Homan, a free planter, for failing to deliver 450 feet of flooring boards in accordance with a contract made two years earlier, supported by a note under Homan’s hand. The agreement included a forfeiture of 20s for non-performance within the specified time. Homan acknowledged the note and agreement, stating that part of the boards had already been delivered and that the remainder would be provided shortly. An order was made that Homan should deliver to Stevens, or his assigns, all remaining boards due under the agreement within 21 days from that date. It was further ordered that, within the same period, he should deliver 42 feet of slit boards for coiling, which Stevens asserted to be owed and which Homan acknowledged and undertook to supply. A further order required that Homan should pay or satisfy Joseph Pratt, a soldier, the sum of 10s, which he agreed to pay within three days. Interpretations The reference to “assigns” indicated that Stevens retained the right to transfer his contractual entitlement to another party, who could then receive the goods in his place. The mention of “slit boards for coiling” suggests specialised timber prepared for particular construction or finishing purposes, possibly relating to flooring or internal fittings, rather than ordinary rough boards. Speculations The repeated delays in fulfilling contracts for materials perhaps reflect difficulties in production or supply on the island, where labour and resources were limited. The formal enforcement of relatively small debts and obligations may indicate the importance of maintaining trust and order in a small, closely connected economic community. | |
42 | Further It is Ordered That the said Homan doe forthwith pay or satisfy But the forfeiture of 20ˢ abovementioned about the 450 John Cannady free planter by his wife Anne himselfe Gabriell Powell confesseth the debt, but saith he cannot It is Ordered That the said Powell doe pay the said sum of 4ˡ to Had[n]olph Ebon free planter complained of Ralph Spence Spence confesseth the debt, and saith he could not It is Ordered That the said Spence doe on the next pay day pay Capᵗ Anthony Beale by his Attorney complained of Thomᵃ Francis by his wife himselfe being sick confessed that | A further order was made that John Homan should immediately pay John Stevens 10s for the cost of the suit arising from the absence of witnesses. The forfeiture of 20s relating to the 450 feet of boards was deferred for further consideration after five days. John Cannady, a free planter, acting through his wife Anne due to illness, brought a complaint against Gabriell Powell for non-payment of £4 in money or credit. Powell admitted the debt but stated that he was unable to obtain money to pay it, and that credit had not been accepted at the previous pay day. He undertook to pay as soon as possible. An order was made that Powell should pay the £4 to Cannady or his assigns within two days after the arrival of the next ship belonging to the Honourable Company in the roads before Fort James. Hadnolph Ebon, a free planter, brought a complaint against Ralph Spence, a soldier, for non-payment of £3 5s, which had been due on the last pay day, 28 February 1684. Spence admitted the debt and stated that he had been unable to fulfil the payment at that time, but would do so at the next pay day. An order was made that Spence should pay Ebon, or his assigns, the sum of £3 5s on the next pay day, including 20s in money if received, and the remainder in goods from the store. Captain Anthony Beale, acting through his attorney, brought a complaint against Thomas Francis, a free planter, for non-payment of a bill of £3 5s originally given by Dr Noysmith, surgeon to the ship Warb[...]. Francis, acting through his wife due to illness, stated that the sum had been paid to Dr Smallwood, surgeon to the ship New London, to be repaid to Dr Howard, surgeon in England, for the use of Dr Noysmith. However, no witness or written authority was produced to show that Francis had been instructed by Noysmith to make this payment. Interpretations The phrase “cost of suit for want of witnesses” referred to expenses incurred in legal proceedings where a party was unable to produce supporting testimony, resulting in additional cost or delay. The arrangement of payment following the arrival of a Company ship reflects the dependence of the island’s economy on maritime arrivals for access to cash and goods, which structured the timing of financial obligations. Speculations The repeated inability of individuals to pay debts in money perhaps reflects a shortage of coin on the island, requiring reliance on goods or delayed payment tied to shipping cycles. The dispute involving multiple surgeons and ships probably indicates the complexity of financial arrangements extending beyond the island, where obligations could be transferred across different individuals and locations without clear documentation. | |
43 | It is Ordered That the said Francis doe forthwith pay or satisfy the Joseph Charlsworth free planter complained of John It is Ordered That Robert Exeter doe forthwith pay or satisfy And that H[a]ddolph Ebon doe keepe the said H[a]ddnolph Ebon by his Attorney complained of John Covell Richard Griffin late souldᵉ appearing as Attorney for It is Ordered That the said credit of the said John Cloverloe doth Samuel Callis having stayed behind the good shipp Charles the 2ᵈ | An order was made that Thomas Francis should immediately pay or otherwise satisfy Captain Beale the sum of £3 5s. Joseph Charlesworth, a free planter, brought a complaint against John Downing, also a free planter, for failing to fulfil an agreement concerning a slave boy named Peter. After extended consideration and the hearing of several persons involved in the transaction, including Robert Exeter and Hadnolph Ebon, a decision was reached. An order was made that Robert Exeter should immediately pay or satisfy John Downing the sum of £6 15s in accordance with his obligation. It was further ordered that Hadnolph Ebon should retain possession of the boy until Exeter had fulfilled a bond given to him. Hadnolph Ebon, acting through his attorney, then brought a complaint against John Covell, heir of John Cloverloe deceased, for non-payment of money due under a bond, which was produced. Richard Griffin, formerly a soldier and acting as attorney for the heir, acknowledged that the debt was owed, but stated that it could not be paid unless the credit held by the deceased John Cloverloe with the Honourable Company could be satisfied out of the Company’s store, and that Ebon would accept this in payment. An order was made that the credit due to Cloverloe should be satisfied from the Company’s stores and applied to Ebon’s claim. If this credit proved insufficient, Griffin was to pay the remaining balance without delay. Samuel Callis, having remained on the island after the departure of the ship Charles the Second, had been committed to prison in irons. A petition was made on his behalf requesting some liberty so that he might obtain a livelihood. Richard Griffin offered to provide security that Callis would not leave the island without licence. Interpretations The retention of the slave boy pending settlement of a bond reflects the use of human property as security within contractual disputes, linking possession directly to the fulfilment of financial obligations. The satisfaction of debt through “credit in the Company’s stores” indicates that balances held with the Company could be discharged in goods rather than cash, forming part of a wider system of account-based exchange. Speculations The complexity of the dispute over the boy Peter perhaps reflects multiple transfers or unclear agreements, requiring intervention to establish responsibility for payment. The reliance on Company-held credit to settle private debts probably indicates the central role of the Company’s stores as a medium of exchange within the island’s economy. The willingness to grant conditional liberty to Callis may suggest a practical approach, balancing punishment for desertion with the economic benefit of allowing labour under supervision. | |
44 | It is Ordered That [...] Griffin doe enter into 20ˡ Bond unto John Fuller, Benjamin Miller and H[enry] Lundy three It is Ordered That they be all committed to prison and remaine [...] Memorandᵐ That the Copy | An order was made that Richard Griffin should enter into a bond of £20 to the Honourable Company, guaranteeing that Samuel Callis would not leave the island without licence from the Governor and Council. Upon completion of this security, Callis was to be released from custody and granted liberty. John Fuller, Benjamin Miller, and Henry Lundy, all planters, had gone aboard the ship [...] on the night of Tuesday and remained there overnight, contrary to orders and to the assurance they had given to the guard when passing. An order was made that all three should be committed to prison and remain there until further direction. A memorandum was recorded stating that a copy of the Council Book covering the period from March 1684 to 11 April 1684 had been sent to the Honourable Company by a ship [...] under the command of Captain Green. Interpretations The requirement to enter into a bond of £20 reflects the use of financial security to enforce compliance, transferring responsibility to a guarantor who would be liable if the condition was broken. Speculations The strict punishment imposed on the planters for remaining aboard a ship overnight perhaps reflects concern about unauthorised movement between the island and visiting vessels, particularly in relation to control over labour and population. The forwarding of Council records to the Company probably indicates routine reporting, ensuring oversight of the island’s administration from England. | |
45 | Island of Att A Councill held on yᵉ 11ᵗʰ Present. John Blackmore Governor Whereas there are severall [...] goods in the Stores It is therefore Ordered Upon mature deliberacon. That the severall goods hereafter mentioned | A Council was held at Fort James on 11 April 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. It was noted that a number of goods remained in the Company’s stores that had been handed over by Captain Johnson, the former storekeeper. Some of these goods had not been assigned any valuation, while others, although already priced, had become damaged. It was considered that they would probably not realise their stated values and that, if kept longer, their condition would further deteriorate, causing loss to the Honourable Company. After careful consideration, an order was made that the goods listed thereafter should be newly valued, priced, sold, and disposed of at the revised rates assigned to each item. Interpretations The reference to goods being “rated” and “prized” reflects the formal process of assigning monetary value for accounting and sale, particularly important where stock had deteriorated and required reassessment before disposal. Speculations The decision to sell damaged goods promptly perhaps indicates concern over loss of value in a climate or storage environment where deterioration could be rapid. The need to reassess previously priced goods probably reflects inconsistencies in earlier accounting or the effects of time and condition on stored supplies. | |
46 | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | |
47 | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | |
48 | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | |
49 | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | Report: Inventory of Company’s Store | |
50 | John Powell Free Planter having formerly had liberty In which Contract & Agreemᵗ in writing among other And in case the said John Powell shall at any time within It is Ordered That the said John Powell, Alice his wife, and the John Milod Gunner Mate having in the Councill held Janʳ It is Ordered That the Register doe draw out a Coppy of the said | A Council was held at Fort James on 11 April 1684. John Powell, a free planter, had previously been granted permission to return to England with his wife. He now requested leave to embark on the ship Welfare, commanded by Captain William Widdrington, together with his wife Alice and a young child, Joseph Church, son of Joseph Church, a deceased clerk. It was stated that, under a written agreement made with Captain Job Ogist[...] , husband to Elizabeth, the widow of the deceased Joseph Church and mother of the child, Powell had undertaken to keep and maintain the child for two years from 11 February 1684. The agreement included a clause that, if Powell left the island for England within that period, he was to take the child with him at his own expense and provide all necessary provisions for the child’s care during the voyage. An order was made granting Powell, his wife, and the child permission to return to England on the ship Welfare. John Milod, gunner’s mate, had previously been granted permission by Council on 15 January 1684 to take possession of a parcel of land in Chappell Valley, situated above the fort and measuring approximately three quarters of an acre. Having completed this arrangement, he requested a copy of the Council’s order confirming the grant. An order was made that the register should prepare and deliver to him a certified copy of the Council order relating to this land. Interpretations The contractual obligation undertaken by Powell to maintain the child, including provision for transport to England if required, reflects the formalisation of guardianship responsibilities through written agreements enforceable by the Council. The issuing of a certified copy of a Council order indicates the importance of documentary title in establishing and securing rights to land on the island. Speculations The requirement that Powell transport the child at his own expense perhaps reflects the absence of institutional provision for dependants, placing responsibility on private individuals through contractual arrangements. The request for a copy of the land grant likely indicates the need for formal proof of tenure, particularly where landholding carried ongoing obligations or potential disputes. | |
51 | [...] the Hon[... ] Compᵃ O: Mᵗʸ thought fit to Walter Mond Robert Wright It is Ordered That the said [...] have creditt with the Hon[... ] Compᵃ Peter Williams having had 20 Acres of Land allotted It is Ordered That forthwith some person shall be appointed to go into [...] d April this 14ᵗʰ of Aprill for 60 years was past to Peter Williams | The Honourable Company arranged for the ship [...] Merchant, commanded by Captain [...], which arrived on Monday, 31 March 1684, to bring seventeen men to the island. They were landed on Tuesday, 1 April 1684. Their names were recorded as Walter Mond, Henry Ellett, Stephen San, Richard Westbrook, Josephine Jones, Thomas Nannes, Robert Moore, Thomas Gillim, Daniell Chappell, Robert Wright, Edward Jones, William Slader, John Randall, Thomas Rutt, Jeremiah Bellman, James Johnson, and Robert Gratton. These men were placed on the Company’s pay from 1 April 1684 at a rate of 21s per month, and the storekeeper was instructed to enter this in the accounts. Peter Williams, who had previously held 20 acres as a free planter but had since disposed of that land, asked to take up another 20 acres of unassigned Company land in Sandy Bay. The land lay to the east, opening westward, next to ground first granted to Edward [...] and then occupied by Thomas Shinning. He proposed to hold the land under the usual rents and obligations required by the Company. An order was made for someone to accompany Williams to Sandy Bay to measure out the 20 acres, mark its boundaries, and report back so that the grant could be formalised. A lease for this land, for a term of 60 years, was granted to Peter Williams on 14 April 1684 and was signed by the Governor, Council, and Register. Interpretations The granting of land by long-term lease rather than outright ownership reflects the Company’s retention of ultimate control over land while allowing settlers to occupy and use it under defined conditions. Speculations The arrival of seventeen men probably reflects a deliberate effort to strengthen the island’s labour force or defensive capacity. Williams’s request for new land after disposing of his earlier holding perhaps indicates changing economic circumstances or a need to re-establish himself under different terms. | |
52 | The good Shipp [...] Merchant having brought from the It is Ordered That the persons hereafter mentioned, vizᵗ have 20 of bread monthly delivered to each of them out That there be certain rates & prices sett upon all the goods It is Ordered & Agreed That the Bread be sold & disposed of at 2½ lb to monies 01.03.4 Edward Seaford Free Planter complaines of Hugh Bedley [...] | A quantity of bread had been brought to the island by the ship [...] Merchant from the Honourable Company. It was noted that no such bread had previously been available on the island, nor was any held in store. Some of the bread was found to be decayed, and provisions were due to be issued the following day to those who were accustomed to receive them. An order was made that Andrew Billings, gunner, John Miles, gunner’s mate, Deodatus Baxter, gunner’s mate, Israell Hale, servant, Ralph Simms, servant, William Slater, servant, Richard Long, servant, Thomas Dimmond, coxswain, and Charles Osborn, drummer, should each receive a monthly allowance of 20 of bread from the stores, beginning on Saturday, 12 April 1684, and continuing until further direction. A warrant was to be prepared and signed, instructing Captain Holden to issue these provisions to the named individuals or their successors in office. It was further determined that fixed prices should be assigned to all goods brought to the island by the same ship, except chalk and coal, so that they might be sold to the Company’s advantage before further deterioration occurred. The bread was to be sold at the rate of 2½ lb for 1s 3½d. Flour was priced at 2[...] equivalent to £1 8s 0d. Brandy was set at £2 per gallon. Pease were set at 1s 4d per bushel, and doolos at 1s 8d per piece. Edward Seaford, a free planter, brought a complaint against Hugh Bedley [...] for repeated verbal abuse. It was stated that he had been called “old rogue” several times, had been confronted twice on the highways, and had been subjected to threatening language, including swearing and curses. Interpretations The term “doolos” appears to refer to a specific type of textile or manufactured good, probably imported and sold in standard units, though its precise identification remains uncertain. Speculations The introduction of bread as a new provision perhaps reflects a change in supply patterns or diet on the island, possibly linked to increased shipping or new procurement practices. The fixing of prices for imported goods probably indicates an effort to control the local market and prevent loss from spoilage or fluctuating demand. The complaint concerning verbal abuse may suggest tensions within the small community, where repeated personal affronts could escalate into formal disputes requiring Council intervention. | |
53 | The wife of the said Edward Seaford complaines of the said Bedley answeres That upon some discourse betwixt him Page Wittnesseth that the said Bedley did greatly abuse the Unto this the said Page was sworne and testifyeth the Edward Seaford & his wife were both sworn, and they testifyed It is Agreed That the said Hugh Bedley is guilty of great misdemeanor Thereupon It is Ordered. That the sd Bedley doe pay or satisfy the said Seaford the That being convict of being guilty of swearing 3 tymes at That he be fined one Dollar unto the Honᵇᶫᵉ Compᵃ or [...] Robᵗ Holden | A further complaint was made by the wife of Edward Seaford against Hugh Bedley, alleging that she had been verbally abused in her own house. It was stated that she had been called “old sawcy bitch” and other insulting terms, and that she had been subjected to repeated swearing, cursing, and imprecations. In response, Bedley stated that a dispute had arisen between himself, Seaford, and Seaford’s wife concerning some liquor missing from his house. He claimed that his slave woman had informed him that the liquor had been taken by Henry Page, a lodger in his house. During this disagreement, he maintained that both Seaford and his wife had also used offensive language towards him. Henry Page gave evidence that Bedley had repeatedly abused Seaford on the highway on two occasions, and Seaford’s wife once in her house. He testified that Bedley had sworn frequently, used curses directed at both Seaford and his wife, and had uttered threatening words. This testimony was given on oath. Edward Seaford and his wife were also sworn and confirmed that Bedley had sworn on several occasions and in different places, using blasphemous expressions such as “God damn me” at three separate times and locations. Additional witnesses were heard, though not sworn. After consideration of the evidence, agreement was reached that Hugh Bedley had committed a serious offence against Seaford and his wife. An order was made that Bedley should pay Seaford the sum of two dollars in rum within one month. A further penalty of 3s was imposed for three separate acts of swearing. An additional fine of one dollar was imposed, payable to the Honourable Company or proprietors of the island, for breach of the peace. Interpretations The imposition of a fine for repeated swearing reflects the formal regulation of speech, where blasphemous language constituted a punishable offence distinct from personal insult. The payment of compensation “in rum” illustrates the use of commodities as a recognised medium of settlement alongside coin within the island’s economy. Speculations The dispute over missing liquor perhaps indicates how quickly minor domestic disagreements could escalate into formal complaints in a small and closely connected community. The structured penalties for both personal insult and swearing probably reflect an effort by the authorities to maintain social order by regulating both behaviour and language in public and private settings. | |
54 | Island Sᵗ Helena At a Councill held on Monday the 21ᵗʰ of Present. Ordered That a warrᵗ be drawne, signd, and directed to Capᵗ two months pay vizᵗ from shuesday (including) the 28ᵗʰ Further it is ordered. That a warrᵗ be drawne signd, and directed as above John Miles Junʳ Mate having bin on the Sd It is ordered That the desire of the Sd John Miles be granted It is likewise ordered. That Willᵐ R[... ] Marshall doe succeed the Sd John | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 21 April 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. An order was made that a warrant should be prepared and directed to Captain Robert Holden, storekeeper, to pay all officers and soldiers in the Honourable Company’s service on the island two months’ wages. This covered the period from Tuesday, 28 February 1684, inclusive, to Thursday, 24 April 1684, exclusive. Payment was to be made half in goods from the Company’s store and half in money. The soldiers recently brought by the ship Amoy Merchant and landed on 1 April 1684 were excluded from this payment. A further order was made that a warrant should be prepared in the same manner for goods that had been issued to the Governor by his direction, both for the use of his wife and for the Company’s service, from 24 February 1684 to 24 April 1684. John Miles junior, gunner’s mate, who had served the Company on the island for several years, requested permission to return to England with his wife and one child on the next available ship. Reference was made to earlier instructions dated 29 March 1679 directing his return, together with others. He also requested that his account with the Company, and that of John Boston, a free planter recently permitted to leave the island, should be formally prepared and signed. Permission was granted for John Miles and his family to leave the island, and for both his account and that of John Boston to be completed and certified. An order was also made that William R[...] , the marshal, should take over the position of gunner’s mate in place of John Miles, receiving the appropriate salary and allowances from Thursday, 24 April 1684, until further direction. Interpretations The division of wages into money and goods reflects a structured system of payment in kind, which allowed the Company to manage limited cash supplies while maintaining regular remuneration. The preparation and certification of accounts for departing personnel indicates the importance of formal settlement of financial obligations before leaving the Company’s jurisdiction. Speculations The continued reliance on mixed payment in goods and money perhaps reflects ongoing shortages of coin on the island. The replacement of Miles with the marshal in the role of gunner’s mate may suggest flexibility in assigning roles within a small workforce where individuals could hold multiple responsibilities. | |
55 | Roberts Bowles late Gunʳ mate deceased Noᵒ 3 The Sd John Miles did tender an accᵗ of the Sd It is Ordered That the Sd accᵗ be recᵈ and kept by the Thomas Quant Englishman who was left on the It is Ordered That he have a lycense according to his [...] Robᵗ Holden | Robert Bowles, formerly gunner’s mate, having died on 3 [...] 1684, John Miles had previously been directed by the Governor to arrange his burial, prepare an inventory of his goods and chattels, sell them to the best advantage, settle all debts and credits, and present a full account to the Governor and Council. An account of these matters was submitted by John Miles, who certified it as accurate and signed it. Within the same document, William Bowre, a soldier, was named to complete the remaining settlements relating to the deceased. Bowre accepted this responsibility in writing and undertook to carry it out. An order was made that the account should be received and kept by the register, and that a copy should be sent to the Honourable Company of Merchants, to be held for reference by any interested party. Thomas Quant, described as an Englishman who had been left on the island from the ship Society, commanded by Captain Gayre, in June 1683, requested permission to return to England on the ship Charles. Permission was granted, on condition that he publicly declared his intention to depart, so that any persons to whom he owed debts might come forward and receive payment. Interpretations The appointment of an individual to complete the settlement of a deceased person’s estate reflects an ad hoc administrative practice, functioning in place of a formal probate system, with responsibility delegated and recorded through Council authority. Speculations The requirement for public notice before departure perhaps reflects the absence of formal mechanisms to enforce debt recovery once an individual had left the island, making such declarations necessary to protect creditors. The retention and transmission of the account to the Company in England probably indicates an expectation that claims relating to the deceased might arise beyond the island, requiring documentary verification. | |
56 | Present At a Councill held Mʳ John S[e]ch Complaines of Thomas Spenser Mʳ Spenser answereth that the Sd Capᵗ Wickins But a piece of silke of about 2 yards long The Sd Spenser answered that the Sd 2 yards | A Council was held at Fort James on Wednesday, 7 May 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Mr John Sech brought a complaint against Thomas Spenser, surgeon, alleging that a piece of silk sent to him or his wife by Captain Wickins, a Dane travelling as a passenger on the ship Successe, had not been properly delivered. It was further alleged that Spenser had cut off part of the silk and retained more than two yards in his own possession. Spenser replied that Captain Wickins had asked him to accompany the coxswain of the ship in delivering the silk and other items to Mr Sech or his wife. He stated that the goods had not initially been delivered into his custody until they had come ashore, when the coxswain informed him that he was too occupied with other duties to complete the delivery and requested that Spenser take charge of them. He said that he had accepted the items and had then immediately delivered all that had been entrusted to him. A piece of silk measuring about two yards was then produced. It was found to match in nature, quality, colour, and pattern the silk already in Sech’s possession. When the ends were compared, they aligned exactly, appearing to have originally formed a single piece. Spenser responded that the two yards of silk in his possession had been separately given to him by Captain Wickins on board the ship for his own use. Interpretations The comparison of the cut edges of the silk reflects a practical evidential method, where physical matching of material was used to establish whether items had once formed part of a single object. Speculations The dispute over the silk perhaps reflects the value attached to imported textiles, which were relatively scarce and therefore prone to disagreement when their ownership or division was unclear. The reliance on physical comparison rather than written documentation probably indicates the informal nature of many transactions involving goods brought by ship. | |
57 | Isaac Hayes Serjᵗ & Adolph Ebon Inhabᵗs doe After much debate & discourse it was proposed A Difference betwixt Gabriell Powell & Richard Information being given that Witt Hunt It is ordered by and with the Consent of the That the Sd Children doe remaine and abide wᶜʰ Further it is Ordered That Willᵐ Bowman and John Draper doe forth | Isaac Hayes, sergeant, and Adolph Ebon, inhabitant, both testified that Captain Wickins had told them he had sent to Mr Sech or his wife, by Thomas Spenser, surgeon, a piece of silk together with spices and other goods. No mention had been made of a whole piece of silk. After extended discussion, Spenser was asked whether he would swear that the two yards of silk he claimed had been given to him for his own use by Captain Wickins, and were not part of the goods sent to Sech. He agreed and, being sworn, affirmed that the two yards had indeed been given to him for his own use and did not form part of the parcel sent to Sech. A dispute between Gabriell Powell and Richard Parram concerning payment for a cow was referred back to them to resolve between themselves. Information was received that William Hunt, a free planter, had left the island aboard the ship Charles or one of four ships recently departed, leaving behind three children. Two of the children were in the care of Thomas Box, and one with John Draper, both free planters. With the consent of those involved, an order was made that the children should remain with Thomas Box and John Draper until further direction. They were to be maintained with food, clothing, and lodging, for which compensation would be allowed if and when Hunt repaid the costs. Any remaining value from Hunt’s goods and chattels, after his debts had been settled, was to be considered. A further order was made that William Bowman and John Draper should immediately take an inventory of all goods and chattels belonging to Hunt that could be found on the island, and that these should be fairly valued. Interpretations The administration of an oath in resolving the dispute over the silk reflects reliance on sworn testimony as a decisive form of proof where physical evidence and witness statements were inconclusive. The arrangement for the care of Hunt’s children demonstrates an informal system of guardianship, managed locally and tied to the settlement of the parent’s debts and estate. Speculations The acceptance of Spenser’s sworn statement perhaps indicates that, in the absence of definitive proof, personal oath carried significant weight in resolving disputes. The departure of Hunt without provision for his children may suggest financial or personal difficulty, requiring the Council to intervene to secure their maintenance and organise his remaining estate. | |
58 | [...] value, likewise that they endeavour to know and Anna the wife of John Canady complaines The Sd Spenser confesseth to all the agreement Henry Jackson saith being deposed saith that It is Ordered Robert Carter freeplanter being convict of It is Ordered | William Bowman and John Draper were required to complete the inventory of William Hunt’s goods and chattels at a fair value, and to determine what debts were owed to him or due from him. A full and accurate account of these matters was to be presented to the Governor and Council at their next session. Anna, wife of John Cannady, brought a complaint against Thomas Spenser, surgeon, concerning a piece of cloth valued at £1 which had been given to him as part payment of £3 agreed for curing a slave woman belonging to Cannady. The woman having died without being cured, it was claimed that, under the terms of the agreement, the cloth should have been returned, but Spenser refused to do so. Spenser acknowledged the agreement but denied that he had been obliged to return the cloth if the woman died without being cured. Henry Jackson, being sworn, testified that he had been present when the agreement was made. He stated that Spenser was to receive £3 for curing the woman, of which a piece of cloth valued at £1 was paid in advance, with the remainder to be paid upon completion of the cure. If the woman died without being cured, the cloth was to be returned to Cannady. An order was made that Spenser should immediately return the cloth to Cannady or pay its value. Robert Carter, a free planter, having been found guilty of swearing, drunkenness, and disorderly conduct, and having been committed to custody, was fined 5s for swearing and 5s for drunkenness. Upon payment of these sums, he was to be released. Interpretations The conditional nature of the medical payment agreement reflects a performance-based contract, where remuneration depended entirely upon successful treatment, with advance payment recoverable if the agreed outcome was not achieved. Speculations The enforcement of repayment following the unsuccessful treatment perhaps indicates an expectation of accountability in medical practice, even in a setting with limited professional oversight. The relatively small fines imposed for swearing and drunkenness suggest that such offences were treated as routine breaches of conduct, addressed through standardised penalties rather than severe punishment. | |
59 | Richard Lloyd Serjᵗ having bin guilty of It is Ordered, And that Richard Honywood be hereby constituted Whereas the Honᵇˡ Company by Mᵣ Shand thought Therefore upon serious Consideration It is Ordered It is further Ordered | Richard Lloyd, sergeant, was found to have committed several acts of misconduct and to be unfit to perform the duties of his position. From Thursday, 24 April 1684, he was removed from his office. Richard Honywood was appointed to take his place as sergeant, receiving the same salary and allowances from that date until further direction. It was noted that a significant number of soldiers had recently been sent to the island under the direction of Mr Shand to maintain guards and watches at designated posts, and that these duties were being carried out. However, the number of officers remained limited, consisting of only four sergeants in addition to commissioned officers, together with the gunners and their two mates. As a result, supervision of guards and watches was insufficient, newly arrived and inexperienced soldiers were not being properly exercised, and several posts lacked an officer to take command during alarms or to report failures in duty. After consideration of these circumstances, three soldiers were selected to act in a supervisory role, performing duties similar to corporals at guards and other assigned posts. An order was made that each of these soldiers should receive an additional 6s per month on top of their existing pay from Thursday, 24 April 1684, until further direction. Interpretations The term “Corps” in this context appears to refer to a functional rank or role similar to that of corporal, assigned to oversee guard duties and maintain discipline in the absence of sufficient non-commissioned officers. Speculations The appointment of additional supervisory soldiers perhaps reflects ongoing concerns about discipline and organisation within an expanding garrison. The emphasis on the training of inexperienced soldiers probably indicates that recent reinforcements had increased numbers without a corresponding increase in experienced leadership. | |
60 | Marc Likewise Whereas Capt: Holden hath made it appeare And that he did by order pay to Capt: John Likewise that notwithstanding all due care And for as much as a bill of Exchange is sent It is Ordered unto the Honᵇˡ Company or Mr Dott for as much as the Sd Capt: | Marc [...], Hugh Simons, Richard Lloyd, and Maurice Hunt were appointed to act as corporals. They were to carry out such duties as required and were each to receive an additional 6s per month until further direction. The register was instructed to provide the storekeeper with a copy of the two most recent orders relating to officers, so that each man’s account could be properly adjusted according to time served and salary. Captain Holden reported that he had spent 10s on the care and preservation of plants brought to the island in boxes on board the ship Charles the Second. He also stated that, by order, he had paid 14s to Captain John Conſt as part payment for a young animal purchased from him. In addition, despite precautions taken, 30 gallons of brandy had leaked from three pipes since the cargo had been landed. It was further recorded that a bill of exchange had been sent to the Honourable Company, dated 6 May 1684, by Captain Nehemiah Earninge, commander of the ship George, requiring Captain John Preston, commander of the ship Charles, to pay the sum of £3 10s 0d for goods supplied to him from the Company’s stores on the island. An order was made that a warrant should be prepared and directed to Captain Holden to enter the following sums to the Company’s account: 10s for the care of the plants, 15s relating to the young animal, £3 5s 0d for the loss of brandy, and £3 15s 0d to balance the bill of exchange, amounting in total to £7 0s 0d. These sums were to be charged accordingly, as Holden was responsible for all monies received and accounted for on behalf of the Company. Interpretations The use of a bill of exchange reflects a financial instrument enabling the transfer and settlement of debts across long distances, linking transactions on the island with payments to be made elsewhere within the Company’s network. The reference to leakage from “pipes” of brandy indicates large storage casks, where loss through damage or poor sealing formed a recognised risk accounted for in financial records. Speculations The careful recording of relatively small expenses and losses perhaps reflects the importance of strict accounting in a remote settlement where supplies were limited and costly to replace. The appointment of additional corporals, including a recently demoted sergeant, may suggest a need to redistribute responsibilities while maintaining discipline within the ranks. | |
61 | for the Honᵇˡ Company on this their Island and for all the goods The allowance day for delivering of provisions monthly to It is Ordered [...] | Marc [...], Hugh Simons, Richard Lloyd, and Maurice Hunt were appointed to act as corporals. They were to carry out such duties as required and were each to receive an additional 6s per month until further direction. The register was instructed to provide the storekeeper with a copy of the two most recent orders relating to officers, so that each man’s account could be properly adjusted according to time served and salary. Captain Holden reported that he had spent 10s on the care and preservation of plants brought to the island in boxes on board the ship Charles the Second. He also stated that, by order, he had paid 14s to Captain John Conſt as part payment for a young animal purchased from him. In addition, despite precautions taken, 30 gallons of brandy had leaked from three pipes since the cargo had been landed. It was further recorded that a bill of exchange had been sent to the Honourable Company, dated 6 May 1684, by Captain Nehemiah Earninge, commander of the ship George, requiring Captain John Preston, commander of the ship Charles, to pay the sum of £3 10s 0d for goods supplied to him from the Company’s stores on the island. An order was made that a warrant should be prepared and directed to Captain Holden to enter the following sums to the Company’s account: 10s for the care of the plants, 15s relating to the young animal, £3 5s 0d for the loss of brandy, and £3 15s 0d to balance the bill of exchange, amounting in total to £7 0s 0d. These sums were to be charged accordingly, as Holden was responsible for all monies received and accounted for on behalf of the Company. Interpretations The use of a bill of exchange reflects a financial instrument enabling the transfer and settlement of debts across long distances, linking transactions on the island with payments to be made elsewhere within the Company’s network. The reference to leakage from “pipes” of brandy indicates large storage casks, where loss through damage or poor sealing formed a recognised risk accounted for in financial records. Speculations The careful recording of relatively small expenses and losses perhaps reflects the importance of strict accounting in a remote settlement where supplies were limited and costly to replace. The appointment of additional corporals, including a recently demoted sergeant, may suggest a need to redistribute responsibilities while maintaining discipline within the ranks. | |
62 | Island St Helena. Att a Councell held on Thursday the Present John Blackmore Governoʳ Anne the Relict of Henry Francis fre[e]planter Thomas Quiliam and Robert Warne soldᵉʳs being It is Ordered That a copy of the said Will be written by the Francis Howard freeplanter complains of John And James Rider freeplanter complaines of the sd | A Council was held at Fort James on Thursday, 29 May 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Field, Ensign. Anne, widow of Henry Francis, a free planter deceased, presented a written document as the last will and testament of her husband and requested that it be formally proved. Thomas Quiliam and Robert Warne, both soldiers, were examined on oath and stated that they had been present when Henry Francis signed and sealed the document, and that he had declared it to be his act and his last will. An order was made that a copy of the will should be prepared by the register and delivered to Anne Francis as executrix, while the original was to remain in the office to be produced whenever required by the Governor and Council. Francis Howard, a free planter, brought a complaint against John Rowland, Thomas Hares, described as a kinsman and servant, and Thomas E[...][...] , described as an apprentice, who had absconded from their master for several weeks. It was alleged that they had killed a sow belonging to Howard, described as a large pig valued at [...] or 6 dollars, and had taken various other items. James Rider, also a free planter, brought a complaint against the same individuals, stating that during their time as runaways they had broken into his house in Sandy Bay, forced open two chests, and removed various goods of considerable value, including a fowling piece [...] which was said to belong to the Honourable Company or Mr [...] . Interpretations The proving of a will through witness testimony reflects a formal validation process, ensuring that the document was properly executed and could be relied upon in administering the deceased’s estate. The term “runaways” in this context refers to servants or dependants who had absented themselves without permission, placing them outside lawful service and exposing them to criminal liability. Speculations The involvement of multiple runaways in theft and damage perhaps indicates how absence from supervision could lead to opportunistic crime within the island’s rural areas. The reference to a fowling piece belonging to the Company suggests that private offences could overlap with Company property interests, increasing the seriousness of the case. | |
63 | John Rowland & Thomas Eastings Confess, and acknowledge It is Ordered. That the said Tho: Hares doe forthwith pay & satisfie And. That Robert Doggerty doe forthwith pay & satisfie unto Further It is Ordered— That the sd Rowland & Eastings be committed close prisoners [Signature] | John Rowland and Thomas Eastings admitted the accusations made against them and acknowledged that they had committed the offences described, together with several others of a similar kind against different persons. An order was made that Thomas Hares should immediately pay Francis Howard the sum of 15 or 16 dollars as full compensation for the actions of Rowland. It was further ordered that Robert Doggerty should pay James Rider a similar sum of 15 or 16 dollars as full compensation for the actions of Eastings. Both parties agreed to this arrangement. A further order was made that Rowland and Eastings should be held in close confinement for eight days, during which time they were to be given only [...] or yams and water. On Friday, 30 May 1684, they were to receive 21 lashes on their naked bodies at the flagstaff and have the tips of their right ears cut off. On Monday, 2 June 1684, they were to receive a further 21 lashes and be branded on the forehead or cheek with the letter “R” to mark them as rogues or runaways. On Thursday, 6 June 1684, they were to be taken along a set route and receive successive punishments, consisting of six lashes at the foot of Fort Hill, six at the top of the hill, six at the parting path near the halfway tree, six at the top of the hill leading to their masters’ houses, and six more upon arrival there. Each of them was also to wear iron shackles around the neck until further direction. Interpretations The staged and repeated punishments at multiple locations indicate a deliberately public process intended to reinforce authority and deter similar behaviour through visibility across different parts of the island. The branding with the letter “R” functioned as a permanent mark of criminal status, formally identifying the individuals as offenders within the community and affecting their standing thereafter. Speculations The severity and repetition of the punishments perhaps reflect the cumulative nature of the offences, which involved multiple victims and extended misconduct over time. The requirement for others to pay compensation on behalf of the offenders may suggest systems of responsibility extending to masters or associates, linking financial liability to social or contractual relationships. | |
64 | Island St Helena Att a Councell held on Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Ordʳ That a warrᵗ be drawne signed Matthew Downey freeplantᵉʳ Complaines Starling denys to have made any But Allis & Jnᵒ Draper freeplanters It is Ordered That the sayd Starling doe forthwith | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 6 June 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Field, Ensign. An order was made that a warrant should be prepared and directed to Captain Robert Holden, storekeeper, to pay two months’ wages to the officers and soldiers. This covered the period from 24 April 1684, inclusive, to 19 June 1684, exclusive. Matthew Downey, a free planter, brought a complaint against John Starling, also a free planter, for failing to deliver one dozen fowls, being part of an agreed total of three dozen. Starling denied that any such agreement had been made. However, Allis Draper and John Draper, both free planters, gave detailed evidence confirming the existence of the agreement. An order was made that Starling should immediately deliver, pay, or otherwise satisfy Downey for the one dozen fowls, together with the costs of the suit. Interpretations The award of “cost of suit” indicates that the complainant was entitled not only to the goods owed but also to reimbursement for the expense of bringing the complaint before the Council. Speculations The reliance on witness testimony to establish the agreement perhaps reflects the limited use of written contracts in routine transactions, requiring disputes to be resolved through personal evidence. The prompt enforcement of delivery or compensation suggests an effort to maintain trust in everyday exchanges within the island’s small trading community. | |
65 | Jnᵒ Draper freeplanter Complaines of Jnᵒ Matthews acknowledgeth that the sayd And did produce it to maintaine. It is Ordered That the sayd Matthews doe pay £9 Richᵈ Gurling freeplanter Complaines of Elizabeth Elizabeth Starling saith that the sayd Gurling Gurling Denys the same Severall witnesses were heard, who related Whereupon Starling refusing to sweare Richᵈ Gurling being deposed saith he It is Ordered That the Plantiffe have yᵉ sd Rugg delivered | John Draper, a free planter, brought a complaint against John Matthews, also a free planter, for failing to pay nine dollars awarded as the cost of certain goods, in which judgment had previously been given against Matthews. Matthews admitted that Draper had demanded this sum but refused payment, arguing that it was excessive, and instead referred the matter to the Governor and Council for determination. An order was made that Matthews should pay Draper the sum of nine dollars, or its value, within two months. Richard Gurling, a free planter, brought a complaint against Elizabeth Starling, also a free planter, for retaining a rug that he claimed as his own, stating that it had been sent to the island by a person who had since absconded. Elizabeth Starling replied that Gurling had sold the rug to her for 5s. Gurling denied this. Several witnesses were heard and described various circumstances relating to the rug, but none could clearly confirm ownership or the existence of a sale. Starling declined to swear to the purchase, stating that if Gurling would swear that he had never sold her the rug, she would withdraw her claim. Gurling was then sworn and declared that he had never sold the rug to Starling and had never received any payment from her for it. An order was made that the rug should be returned to Gurling. Interpretations The resolution of the dispute through a decisive oath reflects a practice in which sworn denial or affirmation could determine ownership where documentary or witness evidence remained inconclusive. Speculations The uncertainty surrounding the rug’s ownership perhaps reflects the informal movement of goods within the island, where items could pass between individuals without clear record. The willingness of Starling to defer to an oath may indicate that such sworn statements were widely accepted as conclusive in the absence of stronger evidence. | |
66 | Thomas [...] freeplanter being Demandᵈ Thomas [...] also freeplanter promi[...] Hugh Sims [...] D[...]ing the 15ᵗʰ of And Wᵐ [...] [...]ing the Richᵈ Loyd [...] being Convicted by a It is Ordered That Mauric[e] Hunt [...] be It is further Ordered That Henry Jackson, Wᵐ Bowyer, and And that each of them haue 6ᵈ Ordered That the Register doe Deliver unto Adjournᵈ to Monday | A Council was held at Fort James on 6 June 1684 and continued with further matters before being adjourned to Monday, 30 June 1684. Thomas [...] , a free planter, was called upon to explain why a debt long overdue and repeatedly demanded had not been paid. A promise was made by another Thomas [...] , also a free planter, that payment would be made within a short time. It was recorded that Hugh Sims died on 15 May 1684, and that William [...] died at the end of the same month. Richard Lloyd, formerly a sergeant, having been found guilty of felony by a jury on 9 June 1684, was removed from further consideration in service. An order was made that Maurice Hunt should be advanced to the rank of sergeant from 19 June 1684, inclusive, corresponding with the commencement of the current two-month period. He was to receive the salary and privileges attached to that rank. A further order was made that Henry Jackson, William Bowyer, and John Holden should be appointed corporals from the same date, each receiving an additional 6d per month above their pay as soldiers until further direction. The register was instructed to provide Captain Holden, storekeeper, with a copy of this order, signed by the register, so that the accounts of the officers concerned could be adjusted to reflect their revised salaries. Interpretations The reference to conviction “by a jury” indicates the application of a formal legal process, suggesting that criminal matters of this seriousness were tried with structured procedures rather than decided solely by the Council. The adjustment of rank and pay from a specified date tied to an accounting period reflects a system in which military organisation and financial administration were closely integrated. Speculations The promotion of Maurice Hunt following the conviction of Richard Lloyd perhaps reflects the need to fill vacancies quickly within a limited pool of personnel. The recording of deaths alongside administrative matters may indicate the routine tracking of personnel changes affecting both labour and military organisation on the island. | |
67 | Jnᵒ Matthews freeplanter hauing in the But the sayd Matthews failing in his proofe Wᵐ Hayes freeplanter being deposed Jnᵒ Gripp freeplanter being deposed It is Ordered That the said Quinny doe forthwith pay | John Matthews, a free planter, had previously brought a case at the Council held on 18 March 1684 against Jennie Quinny, also a free planter, concerning damage caused to his plantation by her swine, assessed at 40s and supported at that time by neighbours’ valuation. The case had been deferred because Matthews had not then proved that the animals belonged to Quinny. A renewed request was made by Matthews for witnesses to establish ownership of the swine and confirm the damage. William Hayes, a free planter, was examined on oath and stated that some months earlier he had driven eleven hogs out of Matthews’s enclosed plantation, one of which belonged to himself and the remainder to Quinny. John Gripp, a free planter, was also examined and stated that he had recently removed seven swine from Matthews’s enclosed ground, identified as Quinny’s animals, consisting of two sows and five young pigs. An order was made that Quinny should immediately pay Matthews 40s in damages together with 20s for the cost of the suit. Interpretations The term “shoats” refers to young pigs that have been weaned but are not yet fully grown, indicating that the valuation of damage included animals of differing ages. Speculations The need to defer the case until ownership could be proven perhaps reflects the difficulty of identifying livestock in a setting where animals were not always securely contained. The reliance on neighbours’ intervention in driving animals out of enclosed land may suggest a shared responsibility within the community for managing straying livestock. | |
60 | Upon a long hearing of a Difference It is Ordered That they be both seriously admonished Jnᵒ Knipe freeplanter Complaines of Isaack answered that the sayd Knipe had Knipe Denyed it, and being deposed It is Ordered That the Defendant doe forthwith pay Upon a Petition of Henry Cole freeplanter It is Ordered That before any grant be Made | A dispute between Andrew Ellison, gunner, and Richard Baram, a free planter, concerning damage caused by cattle and an alleged assault between them was examined at length. After hearing both sides, an order was made that they should each be formally warned to avoid trespass on one another’s property and to conduct themselves peaceably as neighbours. John Knipe, a free planter, brought a complaint against Sutton Isaack, also a free planter, for failing to pay a debt of 7s 6d. Isaack claimed that the debt had already been accepted as settled by Knipe before his death. Knipe denied this and, upon being sworn, stated that he had never received payment or satisfaction of the debt. An order was made that Isaack should immediately pay the sum of 7s 6d to Knipe. Henry Cole, a free planter, submitted a petition concerning a house in Castle Valley which he had previously purchased from John Miller, formerly gunner’s mate. He requested an order confirming his possession of the house and asked for a small adjoining piece of land to be granted for use as a yard or backside. An order was made that no grant would be issued until the Governor and Council had personally inspected the house and the adjoining land. Interpretations The reference to a “pretended battery” indicates an allegation of physical assault that was disputed, suggesting uncertainty or insufficient proof rather than an established offence. The expression “backside” refers to a yard or enclosed area behind a dwelling, commonly used for domestic or practical purposes. Speculations The decision to admonish rather than punish in the dispute between Ellison and Baram perhaps reflects a preference for maintaining local harmony where evidence did not clearly support more severe action. The requirement for inspection before granting land suggests careful control over property allocation, probably intended to prevent disputes or encroachment in a limited and valuable space. | |
61 | [...] Spencer Surgeon Complaines of Isaac Peach answered that he had delivered Oliver evidenced, that in yᵉ Contract betwixt It is Ordered That the sayd Isaac doe suffer the sᵈ Thomas Box freeplanter and Edward have It is Ordered That the said Tho: Box have and keepe | Thomas Spenser, surgeon, brought a complaint against Isaac [...] , a free planter, for failing to deliver a quantity of yams which had been assigned to Sutton Isaack under a contract. Peach replied that part of the yams had already been delivered and that he was willing to supply the remainder, but he denied any obligation to allow them to be dug from the particular place requested, stating that this had not formed part of the agreement. Oliver gave evidence that the location had in fact been specified in the agreement between the parties, and that the yams were to be taken from the plantation or yard behind Sutton Isaack’s house, where they were currently being dug. An order was made that Isaac should allow Sutton Isaack to dig and remove the agreed quantity of yams from the specified ground at the backside of his house. It was also directed that the yams should be taken together in one operation. Peach was further ordered to pay 2s 6d for the cost of the suit. Thomas Box, a free planter, requested permission to take Leonard Hunt, formerly of the island, as an apprentice for a term of years. An order was made that Thomas Box should take Leonard Hunt, described as about eight years of age, as his apprentice for a period of three years, commencing from 25 March 1684. | |
62 | [...] the sayd Thomas Box shall main- Provided always that the sᵈ Tho: Box Jnᵒ Draper freeplanter having It is Ordered That the said Jnᵒ Draper have and During which tyme the sᵈ Draper | Further conditions were set for the apprenticeship of Leonard Hunt under Thomas Box. During the three-year term, Box was required to provide the child with sufficient food and clothing, ensure that he was taught to read and write English, and train him in a trade or occupation described as [...] or [...]warfe. At the end of the term, Box was required to provide Leonard Hunt with one complete set of clothing and two additional suits of the kind commonly worn by servants on the island. A condition was imposed that Box was not permitted, during the term of apprenticeship, to assign, transfer, or otherwise dispose of Leonard Hunt out of his service without the approval and licence of the Governor and Council. John Draper, a free planter, requested permission to take Martha Hunt, daughter of William Hunt, formerly of the island, into his household. An order was made that Draper should take and keep Martha Hunt, described as about three years of age, to live with him until she reached the age of sixteen. During this period, Draper was required to provide her with sufficient food and clothing. | |
63 | And [...] Expiration thereof shall give Richᵈ Layd Corpᵗ and Phillip Berrian sᵈ That the said Layd and Berrian be And That they be both Burnt in the And further That they doe pay or satisfyed unto Whereas the Blacks who after Moncond have | Further provision was made that, at the end of her term, Martha Hunt should be given two suits of clothing of the kind commonly worn by servants on the island. Richard Layd, a corporal, and Phillip Berrian, a soldier, having been convicted of felony by a jury in open session on 9 July 1684 and remaining in custody, were dismissed from the Company’s pay and service from that date. An order was made that both men should be branded on the hand and publicly whipped from the Sessions House to the prison. It was further ordered that they should pay the executors of Mr John Goodson, deceased, the sum of £3 as compensation for the felony, together with 20s for court charges. Payment was to be made either in money, goods, or by six weeks of labour. The executors were to pass the court charges to the appropriate officer. Reference was then made to slaves who had previously been punished for their involvement, either as principal offenders or accomplices, in breaking into the house of Mr Goodson and stealing a considerable quantity of money and silver buttons. Interpretations The punishment of burning in the hand was a judicial marking used to signify conviction for felony, serving both as punishment and as a lasting record of criminal status. The option to satisfy financial penalties through labour reflects a system in which monetary debts could be discharged through work when cash or goods were unavailable. Speculations The combination of corporal punishment, dismissal from service, and financial compensation perhaps indicates an attempt to address both the criminal act and its economic consequences. The reference to previously punished slaves suggests that the offence involved multiple participants, with proceedings extending over time as different individuals were tried and sentenced. | |
64 | It is Ordered That Sambo and young Peter two of Anno [....] Robt of Ralph Simons lately | An order was made that Sambo and young Peter, both slaves belonging to the Honourable Company, together with Tom and his son, and a slave woman then in the possession of the widow Simons, should be assigned to the executors for a term of one year beginning on 1 August 1684. This arrangement was made in full satisfaction of their share of the loss and damage suffered by the orphans of [...] Greenwood as a result of the actions of these slaves and their associates. At the end of the year, the slaves were to be returned to their proper owners, after which further action might be taken as directed. A condition was imposed that the executors were to provide the slaves with sufficient food and clothing and were to keep them under close supervision, preventing them from moving freely about the island and ensuring that they worked on the executors’ plantations. In return for this labour, the executors were required to make good the principal sum of the loss sustained by the Greenwood orphans. It was also recorded that Anna [...], widow of Ralph Simons, recently deceased, entered a formal caution and requested that the matter should not proceed to hearing until she and her servant were present to defend it. Interpretations The assignment of slaves for a fixed term as compensation reflects a system in which labour could be directly substituted for financial restitution in cases of loss or damage. The term “caution” refers to a formal notice or objection entered to delay proceedings until the party concerned could appear and respond. Speculations The use of slaves’ labour to compensate for losses perhaps indicates the limited availability of immediate monetary resources, making labour a practical alternative form of restitution. The widow’s request to delay proceedings may suggest an attempt to ensure proper representation in a dispute, possibly involving property or estate matters following her husband’s death. | |
65 | Com Welles Junr Mar wth severall Compa The sd Widdow simons hath another Capt Gregory Hould him in Councell and were It is Ordered That the sd Ralph Simons [...] her Also freeplanters haveing nominated It is Ordered by the Govr with the That Mr Jno Glover and Thomas Bolton | A further caution was entered by the widow Simons, requesting that proceedings should be delayed until she and her servant were present to defend the matter and until supporting evidence could be produced. Additional testimony was presented concerning the will of Hugh Simons, deceased. Captain Gregory Field and others, who had been in Company service and had since returned, stated that they had witnessed Hugh Simons sign, seal, deliver, and declare the document as his last will and testament. An order was made that the will should take effect within the Governor’s jurisdiction, and that the executors should provide security in relation to the widow Simons and others concerned. Free planters had nominated individuals for administrative roles connected with the division of the island. Mr John Glover and Thomas Bolton were put forward for one division, while Mr John Glover and John Cotton were proposed for the eastern division. It was determined that only two appointments were required. An order was made, with the consent of the Governor and Council, that Mr John Glover and Thomas Bolton should serve as churchwardens for the year 1684. Interpretations The requirement for executors to provide security reflects a safeguard to ensure that they properly administer the estate and protect the interests of beneficiaries, including the widow. The role of churchwarden involved local oversight of parish affairs, including maintenance of the church and certain aspects of community order, indicating the integration of civil and ecclesiastical responsibilities. Speculations The delay requested by the widow Simons perhaps reflects uncertainty or dispute surrounding the validity or terms of the will, requiring further testimony before final confirmation. The selection of churchwardens from among free planters suggests that local governance relied on established inhabitants to take on administrative and communal responsibilities. | |
66 | Who are to give their attendance at Also in the mean tyme mathew The freeplanters haveing nominated It is Ordered by the Govr with That Tho Showin and Will Marsh Joseph Trapp late soldier being permitted | Those appointed were required to attend the next session of the Governor and Council. In the meantime, Matthew Coomy was to be warned to appear at that session with his bonds, as executor. Free planters nominated Mr Thomas Shuttle and Thomas Showin for the western division, and William Bowman and John Marsh for the eastern division, as suitable persons to act as surveyors of the highways. From these nominations, only two were to be chosen. An order was made, with the consent of the Governor and Council, that Thomas Showin and William Marsh should be appointed as surveyors and overseers of the highways for the island for the year 1684. They were required to attend the next session of the Governor and Council. Joseph Trapp, formerly a soldier and permitted to become a free planter on 7 July 1684, submitted a petition requesting that he might receive the same allocation of land divisions as had previously been granted to him when he first obtained his status as a free planter. Interpretations The role of surveyors and overseers of the highways involved responsibility for maintaining and supervising roads, ensuring their usability for transport and communication across the island. The reference to “divisions” relates to allocated portions of land assigned to individuals, reflecting an organised system of land distribution among free planters. Speculations The requirement for attendance at Council sessions suggests that appointed officials were expected to remain directly accountable to central authority rather than acting independently. The petition by Joseph Trapp perhaps indicates that transitions from military service to civilian status could involve uncertainty over land rights, requiring confirmation or renewal by the Council. | |
67 | It is Ordered That upon Examination of the That he have one hundred wt of In full of all the demands R[...] Gregory Hould[...] | An examination was made of the division book, and it was found that Ralph [...] had not yet received any allowance of provisions or any entitlement in that regard. An order was made that he should be supplied with 100 weight of bread at 2d per pound, amounting to 15s 0d, and 60 weight of flour at 3d per pound, amounting to £1 0s 0d. These provisions, valued together at £2 15s 0d, were granted in full satisfaction of all claims relating to his allowance of provisions. Interpretations The reference to the division book indicates an administrative record used to track entitlements, including land and provisions, allocated to individuals within the settlement. The quantities expressed as “weight” reflect bulk measurements of staple goods, showing that provisions were issued and accounted for in standardised units tied to value. Speculations The retrospective grant of provisions perhaps suggests that administrative oversight or delay had prevented earlier allocation, requiring correction through formal review. The calculation of value alongside quantity indicates a system in which provisions were carefully monetised, reinforcing accountability within the Company’s supply arrangements. | |
68 | Island St Att a Councill held on Jn[o] Blackmore Govr M[rs] Greenehouse Exec[uto]rs were acquainted Whereupon the sd Executors withdrew Jno Cannady freeplanter his Black It is Ordered That the sd George one & twenty lash | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 14 July 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild. The executors of Mrs Greenhouse were informed of the order made on 30 June 1684 concerning compensation for the losses suffered by the Greenhouse children when slaves had broken into the house and caused damage. The executors withdrew to consider the matter and later returned, stating that they accepted the arrangement and were satisfied with it. John Cannady, a free planter, had a slave named George who had been identified as one of those involved in the robbery and present at its commission, as established by several confessions. An order was made that George should immediately receive 21 lashes. In addition, he was to work for the Greenhouse executors for one year beginning on 1 August 1684, after which he was to be transported from the island along with the other offenders. Interpretations The term “transported” refers to the enforced removal of an individual from the island, functioning as a form of punishment and exclusion from the local community. Speculations The combination of corporal punishment, enforced labour, and eventual removal perhaps reflects a graduated approach to punishment, addressing both immediate discipline and long-term security. The acceptance by the executors suggests that compensation through labour was considered sufficient to offset at least part of the financial loss caused by the robbery. | |
69 | Gabriell Powell freeplanter was accu[sed] Powell Denyed his trading with the said And the wife of Jno Cannady freeplanter (B[...]) | Gabriell Powell, a free planter, was accused of communicating and supplying Captain Allay, commander of a ship described as an interloper, or members of his crew, in breach of the Honourable Company’s orders and a proclamation issued by the Governor. Powell denied any trading with the ship. He admitted that he had gone aboard the vessel on Tuesday, 9 July 1684, and had spoken with Mr Price, one of the mates, concerning a slave. He stated that, on a previous visit, Captain Allay had been asked to procure a slave for him, and that he had been informed that one had now been brought. He expressed willingness to receive the slave on shore if it could be landed safely, which was done. He acknowledged that the slave woman had been taken from a boat belonging to Captain Allay at Breakneck Valley and that she had come from Mr Cannady. He denied any further dealings with the captain or crew but admitted that he had drunk punch with Mr Price at Friar Valley. He also acknowledged that he had intended to send two persons aboard with Richard Gunsling, who had brought goods down to the beach, the goods being his own. Evidence was given by Captain Holden that Powell had been involved in dealings connected with the delivery of ten slaves by Captain Allay. The wife of John Cannady, a free planter, was also questioned on suspicion of similar conduct. She stated that she had gone to Breakneck Valley on Wednesday, 8 July 1684, to look for her husband, who was aboard a ship, and that her intention had been to prevent him from engaging in any dealings with the interlopers. Interpretations The term “interloper” refers to an unauthorised trader operating outside the monopoly of the Honourable Company, whose activities were strictly prohibited and subject to enforcement. Speculations The interaction with the interloping ship perhaps reflects the economic temptation for settlers to engage in unofficial trade despite formal restrictions. The involvement of multiple individuals in approaching the ship suggests that such contacts may have been difficult to control entirely, especially where personal or economic interests were involved. | |
70 | But neither he nor she did receive It is Ordered That the sd Gabriell Powell [...] 7th of July 1684 [...] Blackmore | Further examination established that neither Gabriell Powell nor the wife of John Cannady had received or sold any goods from the interloping ship. It was also stated that she had not knowingly assisted in any such dealings, although it was acknowledged that a slave woman had been taken from a boat belonging to Captain Allay and delivered to Powell on the following day. An order was made that Gabriell Powell, for his conduct in relation to these events, should be disfranchised and deprived of the privileges of a free man. The order was recorded under the authority of the Council, dated 7 July 1684, and signed by John Blackmore, Robert Holden, and Gregory Feild. Interpretations Disfranchisement in this context involved the removal of the legal status and privileges associated with being a free planter, including rights connected to property, trade, and participation in local governance. Speculations The decision to impose disfranchisement despite limited evidence of completed trade perhaps reflects the seriousness with which any contact with interlopers was treated. The distinction made between Powell’s conduct and that of Cannady’s wife may indicate that intent and degree of involvement were considered when determining punishment. | |
71 | Island St Att a Councill held on Monday 29th John Blackmore Govr William Bowyer Corporall haveing gone on board the It is Ordered Also it is Ordered Andrew Rooker Armorer and Marshall haveing on a Lords It is Ordered | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 29 July 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. William Bowyer, a corporal, had gone aboard the ship Society while it lay in the road without the Governor’s leave or licence, and had also disobeyed orders. He had further acted hastily in seeking to marry the widow Simons before the time allowed under the conditions of his obligation to the Honourable Company. These matters were considered in Council. An order was made that Bowyer should be committed to prison for security until the full moon of August 1684. During this period, he was required to relinquish his position as corporal and revert to the status of a private soldier for a time to be determined. It was further directed that he should undergo such punishment as might be appropriate for his offence and disobedience under his contract with the Company. An order was also made that the common lands at Sandy Bay, including eight acres formerly held by Ralph Simons, deceased, and now in the possession of his executors, should be taken into the hands of the Honourable Company for use on the island. Andrew Rooker, armourer and marshal, had gone aboard the ship Society on a Sunday and remained there overnight without permission, returning only after evening prayers on the following day. An order was made that Rooker should be removed from the office of marshal but continue in his role as armourer until further direction. He was also sentenced to ride the wooden horse for two hours with a white culverin shot attached at each leg, which punishment was carried out. Interpretations The phrase “in the road” refers to the anchorage area off the island where ships lay at anchor, rather than a harbour or dock. The “wooden horse” was a form of corporal punishment involving being made to sit astride a narrow structure, often with weights attached to increase discomfort. A “culverin shot” refers to a type of cannonball used as added weight in punishments, intensifying the physical strain. Speculations The strict enforcement of restrictions on visiting ships perhaps reflects concern over unauthorised contact, particularly in relation to trade or discipline. The connection between Bowyer’s attempted marriage and his contractual obligations may suggest that personal decisions such as marriage were subject to regulation where they affected service or property arrangements. The removal of land from the control of Simons’s executors may indicate administrative consolidation of property following his death, possibly pending redistribution or settlement. | |
72 | Gabriell Powell freeplanter being againe called The said Powell Denyes that he traded with the said Gerard Hale sayth being Examined saith that he On Wednesday the 2d of July the sd Examinant saith that When this Examinant came into Fryar Valley, he found | Gabriell Powell, a free planter, was again brought before the Council and questioned concerning his recent dealings or communications with Captain Allay, described as an interloper, or with members of his ship’s company, contrary to the Lords Proprietors’ published instructions and the Governor’s proclamation. Powell denied engaging in any trade with the interloper. He admitted that he had gone to receive goods from the boatswain, Mr Richard Gunsling, which had been brought down to Friar’s Valley. He also stated that he had been there with Mr Price, a mate of the ship, and others, expecting a slave woman to be delivered to him from the interloper, for whom he had previously made part payment to Captain Allay during an earlier visit. He explained that the slave had instead been landed at Breakneck Valley rather than at Friar’s Valley. Gerard Hale, being examined, stated that while serving as part of the guard at Springs during June and July 1684, he had observed on Tuesday, 9 July 1684, in the morning, two boats coming from a vessel anchored in the road. One of these boats approached the guard house before turning back towards the ship, passing by Castle Hill and returning to the anchorage before Fort James. Later that same day, in the afternoon, he and his guard saw another boat at Breakneck Valley, which they believed to belong to the same vessel and thought to be engaged in fishing. Hale further stated that on Wednesday, 2 July 1684, he and most of his guard saw a large boat filled with men come ashore. Some of the men went up the bay, while others approached near the fort. As the guard moved closer, the boat put out to sea and rowed back towards the ship. At about one o’clock that afternoon, Hale went with some of his guard to Friar’s Valley, approximately eight miles from Jamestown Valley, to observe whether any members of the ship’s company were present and what activities they were engaged in. Upon arriving, he found three men, one described as a shoreman and two as seamen, who, upon seeing him, hurried towards a nearby boat. Hale followed them as they attempted to return to the vessel. Interpretations The designation “shoreman” refers to an individual residing on the island rather than a member of a ship’s crew, distinguishing local inhabitants from visiting seamen. The repeated reference to guarded locations such as Springs and Friar’s Valley indicates established watch points used to monitor contact between inhabitants and visiting ships. Speculations The detailed surveillance described in Hale’s testimony perhaps reflects heightened concern about unauthorised contact with interloping vessels. The movements of boats between different landing points may suggest attempts to avoid detection while conducting unofficial exchanges along less supervised parts of the coast. | |
73 | Ri John Mr Price one of the Mates of the said Interloper | Further evidence was given by Gerard Hale concerning events at Friar’s Valley. He stated that he had seen Mr Price, one of the mates of the interloping vessel, together with the purser, another young man, and Gabriell Powell, a free planter, sitting under a rock and handling fish. No boat or canoe was initially seen on the beach. About half an hour later, a boat arrived carrying five or six men, who landed with casks before bringing the boat ashore. Hale observed that Richard Gunsling, a free planter, accompanied by his slave boy, came from the valley carrying goods, which were placed near a rock. Powell approached Gunsling, and a conversation took place between them. Hale stated that Gunsling remarked that Powell had acted before him, to which Powell replied that he had done so. Further discussion occurred, though Hale did not hear all that was said. It was noted that mention was made of two slaves in connection with this exchange. Powell then returned to the mate and purser and showed them two or three pieces of cut timber, stating that unless he received cloth or an ell of canvas, he would not part with them. What followed from this exchange was not observed. Shortly afterwards, another boat arrived at the valley, equipped with twelve oars and three sails. Some of the men began digging holes on the beach and filling casks with water, and at least two casks were seen being taken to the boat. As it became late, Hale departed for his post at Lemon Valley. While leaving, he observed the earlier boat afloat with its occupants aboard, rowing back towards the vessel anchored off Castle Hill. Powell was not seen in the boat at that time. Interpretations An “ell” of canvas refers to a standard unit of measurement for cloth, used in trade, indicating that the exchange being discussed involved a quantified length of material. The gathering and filling of casks with water reflects routine provisioning activity by ships at anchor, where fresh water was collected from shore. Speculations The exchange involving timber and cloth perhaps suggests attempts at barter outside authorised channels, despite formal prohibitions. The coordinated arrival of multiple boats and movement between different points along the shore may indicate organised efforts to conduct transactions while avoiding detection by the island’s guards. | |
74 | Thomas Goodwyn souldr being Examined saith that That he was one of those also that attended the said It growing towards sunset the Mate in the Pinnace went | Thomas Goodwyn, a soldier, was examined and stated that while serving on guard at Lemon Valley Fort in the afternoon, when Captain Allay’s interloping vessel was lying in the road near Chapel Valley, he observed boats filled with men rowing to the eastern point of Lemon Valley Bay on two separate occasions. He further stated that he had accompanied others to Friar’s Valley on Wednesday, 2 July 1684, where he saw unfamiliar men gathering poultry. Upon noticing the guard, these men hurried towards the beach and made for the ship. Several of these individuals were identified as belonging to the interloping vessel, including one referred to as Mr Price. Gabriell Powell, a free planter, was seen with them drinking punch. During this encounter, some of the strangers stated that they had come ashore to obtain fresh water and declared that they would resist rather than leave without it if challenged. About half an hour later, Goodwyn observed Richard Gunsling, a free planter, accompanied by his slave, bringing three vessels down to the beach. Gunsling approached Mr Price, spoke with him, and then returned to the cove. Further movements of cattle and people were observed, and attempts were made to drive the men towards the shore. Some cattle were driven away, while others escaped towards the sea. Goodwyn stated that it appeared some cattle had already been taken aboard the ship before the arrival of John Hale. Two young goats were killed. Additional men brought casks and materials to collect water, and another boat with twelve oars later arrived. It was reported that Mr Price told John Goodwyn that those present were considered prisoners, though no further action was taken at that time. As evening approached, the mate departed in a pinnace, accompanied by Richard Gunsling. Gabriell Powell was not seen boarding the boat and was left on the beach. Goodwyn and others then proceeded up the hill towards Lemon Valley, while Gunsling was later observed in the boat with Mr Price as it returned to the ship. Interpretations The reference to a “pinnace” denotes a small boat used by larger vessels for transport between ship and shore, often employed for landing parties or carrying supplies. The description of men being considered “prisoners” suggests a temporary assertion of control or detention, though without formal custody or enforcement at that stage. Speculations The organised landing of men to gather water and provisions, combined with resistance to interference, perhaps indicates deliberate defiance of the island’s authority by the interloping crew. The involvement of local inhabitants such as Gunsling and Powell may suggest cooperation or opportunistic engagement with the visiting vessel despite official prohibitions. | |
75 | Upon serious consideration of this whole affaire and all the It is Ordered That the said Gabriell Powell be hereby fined and And That the sd said Powell pay five pounds for the Further It is Ordered That the sd said Powell have one of the 2 Boats It is Ordered That the said Richard Gurnling be hereby fined The Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]y Lords Proprietors of the said Island | After full consideration of the matter, including all circumstances and the Honourable Company’s instructions concerning interlopers and those who dealt with them, an order was made against Gabriell Powell. Powell was fined £10, to be paid immediately for the use of the Honourable Lords Proprietors. He was also required to pay a further £5 representing the value of the slave woman he had received from the interloping vessel. A further order was made that Powell should receive one of the two boats used at Friar’s Valley, upon payment of the total sum of £15. Richard Gunsling, a free planter, appeared within two days after the departure of the interloping vessel and claimed ownership of the boats that had been brought down to Friar’s Valley. He had previously stated to several persons that the boats had been sold to a seaman, though he did not name the individual. Upon examination by the Council, it was determined that his involvement in the matter had been connected with the same unauthorised dealings. An order was made that Gunsling should be fined £10, to be paid immediately for the use of the Honourable Company and the Lords Proprietors. It was then noted that the Honourable Company had issued several instructions and formal orders, made public under their common seal, requiring all military and civil officers to reside within the precincts of Jamestown. Failure to comply with this requirement would result in the forfeiture of their lands. Interpretations The imposition of substantial monetary fines reflects the seriousness with which unauthorised contact with interlopers was treated, particularly where goods or persons were exchanged. The requirement that officers reside within Jamestown indicates a policy aimed at centralising authority and ensuring closer supervision of those holding official positions. Speculations The granting of one of the boats to Powell upon payment may suggest that confiscated or disputed property was sometimes redistributed as part of settlement arrangements. The reinforcement of residency requirements perhaps reflects concern that officers living outside Jamestown might be more susceptible to unauthorised dealings with visiting ships. | |
76 | And whereas the said Lords Proprieto[rs] have thought fitt Yet to render all persons more capable It is Ordered That on Monday and Wednesday the 14th & 20th of August And that all persons concerned may have notice of this Order It is Ordered That the same be affixed and sett up upon the publick Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]y Lords Proprieto[rs] | Further consideration was given to the instructions issued by the Lords Proprietors concerning landholding on the island. It had been ordered that additional servants and others had been sent to cultivate the land, and that those already in possession of land might secure their holdings by taking out formal deeds upon payment of a small fee to the registry. These arrangements had been publicly announced, and specific days had previously been set when the Governor and Council had attended to issue such deeds to those who appeared and accepted the conditions laid down. Despite this, it was recorded that the majority of free planters and inhabitants had delayed obtaining their deeds, even though several months had passed since the initial publication of the instructions. Under the strict terms of those orders, such delay rendered their lands liable to forfeiture. In order to provide a further opportunity, an order was made that Monday, 14 August 1684, and Wednesday, 20 August 1684, were appointed as final days for all persons without deeds to attend the Court of Judicature near Fort James and receive them. It was declared that any who continued to refuse or delay beyond these dates would have their lands forfeited and seized for the use of the Lords Proprietors. To ensure that all persons were informed, it was ordered that this notice should be displayed on public doors throughout the island, including at the Court of Judicature and other customary places. A penalty of £10 or such corporal punishment as the Governor and Council might determine was set for failure to comply. It was also noted that the Lords Proprietors had directed that lands and tenements previously granted by the Governor and Council to various individuals, including officers, soldiers, and free planters, were to be resumed and taken back for the use of the Proprietors. Interpretations The requirement to take out formal deeds reflects the transition from informal or provisional land grants to legally recognised tenure under the authority of the Lords Proprietors. The imposition of forfeiture for non-compliance demonstrates the enforcement of property rights through administrative deadlines tied to official registration. Speculations The widespread delay in obtaining deeds perhaps indicates reluctance among inhabitants to accept new conditions or fees associated with formalising their landholdings. The reassertion of proprietary control over previously granted lands may suggest an effort to regularise ownership and strengthen central authority over the island’s resources. | |
77 | It is Ordered That noe person or persons whatsoever on this said Island And that all persons concerned in such sp[ec]ialls of land may have It is Ordered That the same be affixed and sett up upon the publick Whereas there are severall Debts yet remain[ing] due It is Ordered That a list of all such Debts with their respective | An order was made that no person on the island who was in possession or occupation of any waste or unassigned parcels of land should cultivate, dig, sow, or otherwise make use of such land. All persons in such occupation were required immediately to cease using the land and to relinquish any crops or produce already planted, under penalty of forfeiting those crops. They were further required to vacate the land without delay, failing which they would be proceeded against for contempt of authority and government. To ensure public awareness, it was directed that this order be displayed on public doors throughout the island, including at the Court of Judicature near Fort James. All persons were forbidden to remove or deface these notices, under penalty of £10 or such corporal punishment as the Governor and Council might determine. The order was dated 29 July 1684 and issued in the name of the Governor and Council. It was further recorded that several debts remained outstanding to the Honourable Company and the Lords Proprietors from inhabitants of the island. An order was made that a complete list of these debts, with the names of the debtors and the amounts owed, should be extracted from the island’s records and delivered to the Governor. Those in arrears were to be required to make full payment or provide satisfaction. Any who refused were to be summoned to appear in person before the Governor and Council on Monday, 11 August 1684. Interpretations The reference to “waste parcels of land” denotes land not formally granted or held under recognised title, which remained under the control of the Lords Proprietors. Proceedings for “contempt of authority and government” indicate enforcement through both civil and penal measures, reflecting the broad disciplinary powers exercised by the colonial administration. Speculations The prohibition on using unassigned land perhaps reflects an attempt to prevent informal expansion of holdings and to enforce centralised control over land distribution. The systematic recovery of debts suggests ongoing financial pressures within the settlement, requiring stricter oversight of obligations owed to the Company. | |
78 | If any person or persons be master to make payment Coppy of this Order is to be given to those appointed Past in Councell July 29th 1684 Whereas Matthew Downey free planter and It is Ordered That the said Matthew Downey doe forthwith It is further Ordered That for the defraying of such charges as may be | An order was made that no person on the island who was in possession or occupation of any waste or unassigned parcels of land should cultivate, dig, sow, or otherwise make use of such land. All persons in such occupation were required immediately to cease using the land and to relinquish any crops or produce already planted, under penalty of forfeiting those crops. They were further required to vacate the land without delay, failing which they would be proceeded against for contempt of authority and government. To ensure public awareness, it was directed that this order be displayed on public doors throughout the island, including at the Court of Judicature near Fort James. All persons were forbidden to remove or deface these notices, under penalty of £10 or such corporal punishment as the Governor and Council might determine. The order was dated 29 July 1684 and issued in the name of the Governor and Council. It was further recorded that several debts remained outstanding to the Honourable Company and the Lords Proprietors from inhabitants of the island. An order was made that a complete list of these debts, with the names of the debtors and the amounts owed, should be extracted from the island’s records and delivered to the Governor. Those in arrears were to be required to make full payment or provide satisfaction. Any who refused were to be summoned to appear in person before the Governor and Council on Monday, 11 August 1684. Interpretations The reference to “waste parcels of land” denotes land not formally granted or held under recognised title, which remained under the control of the Lords Proprietors. Proceedings for “contempt of authority and government” indicate enforcement through both civil and penal measures, reflecting the broad disciplinary powers exercised by the colonial administration. Speculations The prohibition on using unassigned land perhaps reflects an attempt to prevent informal expansion of holdings and to enforce centralised control over land distribution. The systematic recovery of debts suggests ongoing financial pressures within the settlement, requiring stricter oversight of obligations owed to the Company. | |
79 | [...] to the next Councill Day following such publication That this being done the said Church Wardens are And if any person or persons have any Neate Cattle running It is likewise Ordered Jo: Blackmore | Further provision was made concerning the assessment and collection of a rate. It was directed that the details of the rate should be presented at the next Council day following publication and then entered into the official record, so that any persons not present might subsequently attend and raise objections to their assessed proportions. After this process had been completed, the churchwardens were authorised to levy the rate. In cases where any person refused or delayed payment after two written demands, the churchwardens were empowered to recover the sum by distraint and sale of the debtor’s goods, returning any surplus remaining after the amount due and associated charges had been satisfied to the owner. Provision was also made for the regulation of cattle. Where any person kept neat cattle that strayed or caused disturbance on the island, the churchwardens were authorised to impose a charge of one penny per head, assessed across the entire stock of such cattle, whether greater or lesser in number. An order was made that the Register should provide a copy of this order to the churchwardens or to one of them. Interpretations The term “distresse” refers to the legal seizure of goods to compel payment of a debt, followed by sale if the debt remained unpaid. The role of churchwardens in this context extended beyond ecclesiastical duties, encompassing local fiscal administration and enforcement of communal charges. “Neat cattle” denotes domesticated bovine livestock, distinguished from other animals such as sheep or goats. Speculations The structured procedure for objection and enforcement perhaps reflects an attempt to formalise local taxation and reduce disputes over assessment. The inclusion of a levy on cattle may indicate ongoing concerns about the impact of grazing animals on shared resources and cultivated land. | |
80 | Island St Att a Consultation held on Tuesday John Blackmore Governr In pursuance of the Hon[oura]ble Lords Proprietors Mr Saml Cowl[e] by his resignation and Saml Clarke ind[ea]vouring This coppy of the said paper being here Taken word by word and Councell of The manner of some of the writings from time to time since | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday, 5 August 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Reference was made to the instructions issued by the Lords Proprietors and to a general order passed in Council on 29 July 1684 for the resumption of small parcels of land that had previously been granted. Copies of this order had been displayed at the Court of Judicature near Fort James and on church doors across the island, where inhabitants assembled after public worship, so that all concerned might be informed. Mr Samuel Cowle appeared in connection with a small parcel of land in Lemon Valley, which Samuel Clarke claimed to have purchased from John Miles, who had recently departed the island. The land in question had originally been granted to Miles by the Governor and Council approximately two years earlier. Cowle stated that an order affecting him had been declared void under the recent directive concerning non-residence, and that he had experienced dissatisfaction and disturbance regarding his position. He requested to be discharged from the Company’s service and declared that he would serve them no longer. A written paper was placed on the table, after which he departed, repeating his intention to withdraw from service. A copy of this paper, taken word for word, was recorded by the Council on 4 August 1684. In it, Cowle stated that since his arrival on the island he had received various writings from the Governor and Council, some relating to his interests and others to his person. He further referred to matters connected with Mr Bowyer’s marriage, asserting that it had been conducted in accordance with the canons of the Church of England. Interpretations The reference to “non-residence” reflects a regulatory condition attached to landholding, whereby failure to reside on or properly maintain granted land could result in its forfeiture. The recording of a written declaration “word by word” indicates a formal evidentiary practice, preserving the exact wording of statements submitted to the Council. Speculations The dispute over the Lemon Valley land perhaps reflects uncertainty created by the recent policy of resuming previously granted parcels, particularly where ownership had changed hands. Cowle’s resignation and written protest may suggest tensions between individual expectations and the tightening enforcement of Company authority over land and service obligations. | |
81 | The Governr and Mr Moss both of them refusing me other circumstances relating to the said Mr Cowl[e] It is Ordered that the said Mr Cowl[e] resignation be accepted | A written declaration was submitted in which it was stated that both the Governor and Mr Moss had refused to recognise the writer in relation to orders of the Church and had prevented him from boarding Captain Yates’s ship without any formal legal grounds. It was asserted that the writer had previously dealt with John Miles, gunner’s mate, who had served approximately seven years, and that payment had been made in consideration of that service. Reference was made to earlier actions of the Governor and Council recorded in official records. The declaration further stated that considerable labour and expense had been undertaken in improving land, including cutting, ditching, constructing watercourses, building stone walls, levelling, clearing, digging, and planting. Despite this, the Governor had prohibited further use of the land without legal justification, relying instead on general orders of Council. The writer expressed dissatisfaction with these actions and declared an intention to withdraw from the service of the island, together with his wife, offering a formal leave-taking and invoking goodwill towards the Governor and Council. This declaration was signed by Thomas Moss. Consideration was then given to the circumstances relating to Mr Samuel Cowle. An order was made that Cowle’s resignation from the service of the Honourable Company, in his capacity as chaplain, should be accepted, and that he was to be dismissed from that service with immediate effect. A further order was made that he should immediately depart from the island, taking with him his household, and that he should deliver the keys of his residence to the Governor or a person appointed by him. He was also required to vacate and clear the church in the country and to deliver its keys, together with all items belonging to the Honourable Company, to the Governor or his appointed representative. It was additionally ordered that the two slaves in Cowle’s possession should be transferred without delay to the Company’s plantation or otherwise assigned for Company service. Interpretations The reference to “orders of the Church” concerns ecclesiastical authority and the recognition of clerical status within the settlement, which could affect both religious and administrative standing. The requirement to surrender keys symbolises the formal transfer of possession and authority over buildings and property belonging to the Company. Speculations The dispute outlined in the declaration perhaps reflects tension between individual claims to property and service rights and the enforcement of Company authority. The immediate dismissal and enforced departure may indicate that such challenges to authority, particularly by a chaplain, were regarded as disruptive to governance and required swift resolution. | |
82 | The Governr that publique notice be given in the usuall manner to all That all the Books in the said Mr Saul[t]e custody That the Church Wardens or one of them have Upon opening of the 20 Hammock faddes sent by the It is Ordered That the said Hammock faddes with all that belongs And that Capt Holden have a Coppy of this It is likewise Ordered That the said Mr Thomas Saul[t]e doe forthwith Jo: Blackmore | Public notice was ordered to be given in the customary manner to all inhabitants of the island that Mr Thomas Sault had relinquished and withdrawn himself from the service of the Honourable Company. An order was made that all books in Sault’s custody, together with vestry records, papers, and any other items belonging to the Honourable Company, should be delivered immediately to the Governor or to a person appointed by him. It was further directed that the churchwardens, or one of them, should supervise the execution of Sault’s resignation. They were required to demand and receive from him all goods and utensils belonging to the church and island, together with all money he had collected for tithes or for the use of the church or chapel in Chapel Valley. Upon rendering a full account of receipts and expenditures, he was to receive a formal discharge. Upon inspection of twenty hammock loads sent by the ship Society under the orders of the Lords Proprietors, several were found to be damaged, particularly the hammocks themselves. An order was made that the hammocks and associated items should be repaired, valued, and sold at a rate of 8s each on average. A copy of this order was to be provided to Captain Holden. It was also ordered that Thomas Sault should immediately submit a full account of all burials, christenings, and marriages conducted since his arrival on the island. Interpretations The term “vestry” refers to the administrative body responsible for parish affairs, indicating that ecclesiastical records and governance were formally organised within the settlement. “Tithing” denotes contributions or payments made for the support of the church, which required formal accounting and oversight. “Hammock faddes” refers to bundled consignments of hammocks, transported as part of ship cargo and subject to inspection, valuation, and sale upon arrival. Speculations The detailed requirements for accounting and handover perhaps reflect concern over the proper management of church property and funds following Sault’s resignation. The need to repair and sell damaged goods suggests ongoing efforts to minimise losses and maintain the economic value of imported supplies. | |
83 | Island St Att a Councill held on Monday 11th John Blackmore Governr Richard Parmin free planter having bin formerly summoned It is Ordered That the said Parmin doe forthwith pay the Thomas Burch free planter having expressed other sum It is Ordered That though it doth appeare he hath sustained great Henry Horry free planter being indebted to the Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]y It is Ordered That a Cow of the said Horry be forthwith appraised Samuel Joffy free planter pleaded his great losses of Cattle and It is Ordered That the said Joffy be forthwith appraised and that his | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 11 August 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Richard Parmin, a free planter, having previously been summoned to appear at a general muster and having failed in that obligation, was ordered to pay the sum of 8s. He undertook to make payment through Joseph Dorson at the next pay day of that quarter and to obtain his discharge accordingly. Thomas Burch, a free planter, acknowledged a debt owed to the Honourable Company but refused immediate payment, citing inability due to significant losses of cattle and the expense of maintaining a large family. Upon consideration, it was determined that, although his losses were recognised, he should be granted an extension of six months before being required to satisfy the debt, with the expectation that means would be found to make payment. Henry Horry, a free planter, also indebted to the Honourable Company and citing losses of cattle and present inability to pay, requested that a cow be appraised and accepted in part payment. An order was made that one of his cows should be valued accordingly and that the remaining balance should be paid within two months. Samuel Joffy, a free planter, similarly pleaded losses of cattle and the burden of supporting his family as reasons for his inability to discharge his full debt at that time. He requested that a cow be appraised in part payment. It was ordered that such an appraisal should be carried out and that his circumstances should be taken into account when determining the time allowed for payment of the remaining balance. Interpretations The “general muster” refers to a formal assembly of inhabitants or soldiers for inspection or administrative purposes, attendance at which was compulsory. The appraisal of livestock as partial payment indicates the use of goods in lieu of money within the island’s economy, with value formally assessed for accounting purposes. Speculations The repeated references to losses of cattle perhaps indicate broader environmental or economic difficulties affecting livestock on the island during this period. The willingness of the Council to accept delayed payments or partial settlement in goods may reflect practical adaptation to limited liquidity among the inhabitants. | |
84 | John Draper free planter having in a former It is Ordered that one dollar of the said foure be abated and that Wm Hayes free planter pleading his great inability to pay It is Ordered that a Cattell of the said Wm Hayes be forthwith John Starling free planter having been in a former Councell It is Ordered that halfe a dollar of the said 2 Dollars be taken Wm Gutter free planter pleading his great inability to pay It is Ordered that a Cow and Calfe be forthwith appraised of Wm Edward Crosby free planter finding in necessity not It is Ordered that he have till next Monday the 18th instant John Poole free planter having in a former Councell been It is Ordered that 2 dollars of the said 8 dollars be taken off, the said Poole | A Council was held at Fort James on 11 August 1684, at which several matters relating to fines and debts were addressed. John Draper, a free planter, had previously been fined 4 dollars for neglect of duty. Upon his request for mitigation, and in consideration that it was his first offence, an order was made that 1 dollar be remitted and that he should pay the remaining 3 dollars without delay. William Hayes, a free planter, pleaded inability to pay his full debt due to the burden of maintaining his wife and children and possessing only a small number of cattle. An order was made that one of his cattle should be appraised as part payment and that he should be allowed six months to discharge the remaining balance. John Starling, a free planter, who had been fined 2 dollars for neglect of duty, requested some reduction. An order was made that ½ dollar be remitted and that he should immediately pay the remaining 1½ dollars. William Gutter, a free planter, also declared inability to satisfy his full debt at present, citing a small stock of cattle and a large family. He requested that a cow and calf be appraised in part payment. An order was made that these animals should be valued accordingly and that he should proceed to satisfy the remainder of the debt without delay. Edward Crosby, a free planter, being unable to pay a small debt owed to the Honourable Company, was granted time until Monday, 18 August 1684, to provide suitable security for the debt. A fine of 2s 6d for neglect of duty was also noted, bringing the total amount due to £2 2s 8d. John Poole, a free planter, had previously been fined 8 dollars for serious neglect of duty. Upon his request for mitigation and citing poverty and lack of cattle, an order was made that 2 dollars be remitted and that the remaining 6 dollars should be paid within six months. Interpretations The remission or “abatement” of fines reflects discretionary authority exercised by the Council, allowing penalties to be adjusted based on circumstance. The requirement to provide “security” for a debt indicates the need for a guarantor or collateral to ensure eventual payment. Speculations The repeated appeals for mitigation on grounds of poverty and limited livestock perhaps indicate broader economic strain among free planters. The Council’s willingness to reduce fines and extend payment periods may suggest a balancing of discipline with the practical need to sustain the island’s population and productivity. | |
85 | [...] [...] free planter appeared on behalf of Rob[...] It is Ordered that a Cow and Calfe be forthwith appraised of the Whereas Ralph Simonds Serv[an]t [...] on the 26th of June last past It is Ordered that Henry Jackson Shoo[...][...] be acquitted from And that R[...] Wills sold[ie]r having been on the said And that [...] Connors sold[ie]r who came hither with Andrew Booker being dismist from being Marshall in It is Ordered that Ezekiell Taylor sold[ie]r be hereby appointed That the Register deliver a Copy of the abovewritten Whereas in the Councell of July [...] 1683 Robert Ex[...] | A free planter appeared on behalf of the orphaned children of Robert Orchard and requested that a cow and calf from their stock be appraised in part payment of a debt owed to the Honourable Company, and that further time be allowed for settling the remaining balance. An order was made that the cow and calf should be valued accordingly and that additional time for payment of the outstanding debt should be considered. Reference was made to Ralph Simonds, a servant, who had died on 26 June 1684 after serving his master for only three days and failing to perform his duties. An order was made that Henry Jackson, shoemaker, should be acquitted from the proceedings of the present Court Martial. An order was made that R[...] Wills, a soldier who had served on the island for approximately three years, should be dismissed from the Company’s service from that day. It was further ordered that [...] Connors, a soldier who had arrived with Thomas Grantham, should also be dismissed from service from that date. These individuals were required to leave the island and establish themselves elsewhere. Andrew Booker, having previously been removed from the office of marshal by the Council on 29 July 1684, was replaced. An order was made that Ezekiel Taylor, a soldier, should be appointed marshal and prison keeper for the garrison and island from 14 August 1684. It was further directed that the Register should provide Captain Holden with a copy of this appointment so that the appropriate salary might be issued. Reference was also made to a previous Council held in July 1683, in which Robert Ex[...] and others had been permitted to become free planters. At that time, they had been granted cattle, provisions, and land. Robert Ex[...] had received his land and cattle and part of the provisions, but had requested that the remainder be withheld until needed, as he worked as a mason. He now petitioned to receive provisions from the stores to a specified value. Interpretations The representation of orphans’ interests by another planter reflects a recognised practice of guardianship, whereby others acted on behalf of minors in legal and financial matters. The office of marshal combined responsibilities for maintaining order and overseeing imprisonment, indicating a central role in local enforcement. The reference to dismissal from Company service implies a transition from formal employment under Company authority to independent or civilian status on or beyond the island. Speculations The repeated reliance on livestock appraisal for debt settlement perhaps indicates the limited availability of currency within the island economy. The dismissal of multiple soldiers at once may suggest adjustments to the size or composition of the garrison, possibly influenced by changing security needs or financial considerations. | |
86 | [...] [...] in Arrear due to him, And upon Examination It is Ordered That the said Robert Ea[...] now deliver up to him – And the said Ea[...] having lately covenanted with [...] his It is also Ordered That the said Ea[...] have given [...] boards And the Register is to give a Copy under his hand [...] [...] [...] [...] Gregory Field | A petition was examined concerning arrears due to Robert Ea[...], and it was found upon review that he had received less than was owed to him, amounting to a deficiency valued at approximately 50s. An order was made that the balance should be satisfied by issuing provisions from the stores. This included a specified quantity of bread, goods valued at 4½ [...], and 40 [...] of flour priced at 3d per unit, together amounting to £0 15s 0d. It was further noted that Ea[...] had recently entered into an agreement concerning work on the upper storey of a building belonging to the Honourable Company, for which he was to receive 15s. An additional order was made that boards should be delivered to him in connection with this work. The Register was instructed to provide a copy of these orders to Captain Holden, the storekeeper, so that the goods could be issued accordingly. Interpretations The settlement of arrears in provisions rather than money reflects the use of store goods as a recognised medium of payment within the island’s administrative system. The reference to work on an “upper storey” indicates construction or repair activity carried out on Company buildings, for which labour was formally contracted and compensated. Speculations The need to reconcile arrears through detailed accounting perhaps indicates ongoing administrative efforts to regularise payments and obligations. The combination of wages and materials being issued may suggest that labourers were supported both through direct payment and through provision of necessary supplies for their work. | |
87 | [...] Att A Consultation held on Friday yᵉ 15 of Present Mr Saul[t] being sent for, appeared, and had the Orders of [...] Gregory Field | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Friday, 15 August 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Mr Thomas Sault was summoned and appeared before the Council. The orders relating to his resignation from the Honourable Company’s service were read to him, and he expressed that they should be complied with. He was then informed that reports had been received that he had been travelling about the island from house to house following his resignation, seeking subscriptions to a written paper. He was requested to produce this paper, as its contents and potential consequences were not yet known. He undertook to provide a true copy without delay. Discussion followed concerning the signing of such papers and the need to prevent disorder. During this exchange, Captain Holden began to speak on the matter, but Sault interrupted him, making a remark concerning the application of law. When the Governor then attempted to speak, Sault again interrupted and declared, with strong language, that he would compel settlement of the island by force of arms. Immediately afterwards, he turned away from the Governor and Council, put on his hat, and departed in a contemptuous manner. Interpretations The act of “getting subscriptions” refers to the collection of signatures in support of a petition or declaration, which could carry political or administrative implications within the settlement. The emphasis on preventing disturbances indicates concern that such collective actions might challenge established authority or provoke unrest. Speculations The attempt to gather support through a written paper perhaps reflects organised opposition to the actions of the Governor and Council. The reference to enforcing settlement “by force of the sword” may suggest heightened tensions and the possibility of open conflict between individuals and the governing authority. | |
88 | [...] Att A Councill held on Monday the 8ᵗʰ day of Present Francis Howard free Planter Complaining of Thomas How Thomas How answered that the said Howard did allow Howard replyed that the said How promised him to pay it It is Ordered That the said How do pay the said three Dollars Thomas How free planter complaining of Robert Daga[...] Robert Daga[...] answered that he did not refuse to give The said How not only avowed, but proffered to depose unto It is Ordered That the said Daga[...] do forthwith pay or satisfy | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 8 September 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Francis Howard, a free planter, complained that Thomas How, also a free planter, had failed to pay 3 dollars previously ordered by the Council on 29 May 1684. How replied that Howard had granted him six months to pay. Howard answered that How had later promised earlier payment and, following a recent dispute, had agreed to pay immediately but refused to do so without a warrant from the Governor. An order was made that How should pay the 3 dollars to Howard on or before Saturday, 4 October 1684. Thomas How then complained against Robert Daga[...], a free planter, for failing to compensate him for goods and provisions, valued at approximately £14, which had allegedly been stolen from his house by Daga[...]’s apprentice. Daga[...] responded that he did not refuse compensation but questioned whether his apprentice had committed the theft and whether the goods were of the stated value. How maintained his claim and offered to give sworn evidence as to both the theft and the value of the goods. He nevertheless expressed willingness to accept half the claimed value from Daga[...], on the condition that the remainder should be recovered through measures relating to the conduct of the apprentice, including damage caused in gaining entry to the house. An order was made that Daga[...] should pay or satisfy How the sum of 6s and should also undertake repairs to the breach made in How’s wall, in full settlement of all damages caused by the apprentice. Interpretations The reference to requiring a “warrant” for payment reflects the practice of formal authorisation by the Governor or Council to enforce financial obligations. The liability of a master for the actions of an apprentice indicates a recognised legal responsibility for those under one’s authority within the settlement. Speculations The willingness to accept partial compensation perhaps reflects the practical resolution of disputes where full proof or recovery was uncertain. The focus on repairing physical damage alongside monetary compensation suggests an emphasis on restoring property as well as settling financial loss. | |
89 | Josiah Charlesworth free Planter complaining of John Salby It is Ordered that a further hearing of this cause be deferred until Andrew Wilson free Planter Complaynes of Wᵐ Cannibals Wᵐ Cannibals answer that as he was going out of the Thomas Cale free planter testifies that he heard the said After a long hearing of both parties several times, as also It is Concluded that the said Wᵐ Cannibals is guilty of great Therefore It is Ordered that he be fined three shillings to the Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]y | A Council was held at Fort James on 8 September 1684, at which several complaints were heard. Josiah Charlesworth, a free planter, accused John Salby, a soldier, of stealing two of his slaves. Salby denied the accusation. After detailed examination of both parties and the witnesses, the complaint was not fully proven. An order was made that the matter should be deferred until the next Council in October 1684, at which time all parties and witnesses were required to attend for further hearing. Andrew Wilson, a free planter, complained that William Cannibals, a mariner, had assaulted and beaten him in his own house without cause. Cannibals replied that, when he was leaving Wilson’s house at Wilson’s request, Wilson struck him on the chest. He stated that he then grappled with Wilson, threw him onto a bed, and left the house. He further alleged that Wilson pursued him with an axe, at which point he again seized him, took the axe away, threw him down, and struck him. Thomas Cale, a free planter, gave evidence that Wilson had forbidden Cannibals from entering his house or land. Upon finding him inside, Wilson had been advised to have him leave, which Cannibals refused to do. According to this testimony, Cannibals then struck Wilson, threw him onto the bed, and took an axe before leaving. Wilson followed him outside with another axe, whereupon Cannibals struck him down and inflicted further blows with his fists. Additional testimony was given by James Walker, a soldier, and Edward Nott, a free planter. After repeated hearings of both parties and witnesses, it was concluded that Cannibals had committed a serious offence and had disturbed the peace. An order was made that Cannibals should pay a fine of 3s to the Honourable Company, 2s to Wilson, and 1 dollar to Thomas Cale. Interpretations The charge of “assault and battery” refers to both the threat of violence and the physical act of striking another person, treated together as a punishable offence. The distinction between fines paid to the Company and sums paid to individuals reflects a system in which both public order and private injury were addressed through financial penalties. Speculations The conflicting accounts of the altercation perhaps indicate the difficulty of establishing clear fault in disputes arising from personal confrontation. The relatively moderate fines imposed may suggest that, although the offence was recognised as serious, it was not regarded as warranting more severe corporal punishment in this instance. | |
90 | [...] And that he be committed to the Marshall untill he pay the Henry Kersey free planter was convicted of swearing Henry Cales free planter Complaines of Richard Parham John Draper free planter complained that he hath lost Andrew Wilson free planter a sow breeding with piggs worth 30 It was proved that the said Parhams negro John Draper, Andrew Wilson, John Cossum and And it appearing that the said Parham hath not been It is Ordered That the said Richard Parham doe forthwith pay To Henry Cales - - - 02 : 10 : 0 04 : 00 : 0 | Following the earlier judgment against William Cannibals, an order was made that he should be committed to the custody of the marshal until the fines imposed were paid. He was also required to provide security for his good behaviour until he departed the island on the first available ship bound for England carrying slaves, or otherwise on the first ship arriving after Christmas. It was noted that he was neither a free planter nor a settled inhabitant, having been left on the island from a ship in May 1683. Henry Kersey, a free planter, was convicted of swearing upon the testimony of John Wilson. He was ordered to pay a fine of 1s, which he undertook to pay but had not yet satisfied. Henry Cales, a free planter, complained against Richard Parham, also a free planter, for the killing of a barrow hog and other hogs valued at £3. Additional complaints were made against Parham concerning damage caused by his slave. John Draper reported the loss of one sow and three hogs valued at 40s. Andrew Wilson reported the loss of a breeding sow valued at 30s. John Cossum reported the loss of two young hogs valued at 12s, and John Midges reported the loss of two young hogs also valued at 12s. Evidence was presented that Parham’s slave had been found in the woods with the hogs and had been taken. It was admitted that one hog had been killed. Although the ownership marks on the animals were not definitively proven, numerous circumstances strongly suggested that they had belonged to the complainants. It was also determined that Parham had not exercised sufficient care in restraining his slave from leaving his property, thereby allowing the damage to occur within the neighbourhood. An order was made that Richard Parham should pay the following sums in compensation. To Henry Cales £2 10s 0d. To John Draper £1 0s 0d. To Andrew Wilson 10s 0d. To John Cossum 8s 0d. To John Midges 8s 0d. In addition, 4s 0d was to be paid to Henry Cales for costs, making a total of £4 0s 0d. Interpretations The requirement to “find security for good behaviour” involved providing a guarantor or financial assurance that future misconduct would not occur, a common legal mechanism in early modern jurisdictions. A “barrow hogg” refers to a castrated male pig, typically raised for meat, and considered a valuable asset within the island’s subsistence economy. The emphasis on “marks” denotes the practice of identifying livestock through distinctive physical markings, used as evidence of ownership in disputes. Speculations The liability imposed on Parham for the actions of his slave perhaps reflects an expectation that masters were responsible for controlling dependants and preventing harm to others. The accumulation of complaints from several neighbours may suggest that the damage was widespread and had become a matter of communal concern rather than an isolated incident. | |
91 | Further It is Ordered [...] John Starling free planter having bin bound to his It is Ordered Upon the desire of the said suretyes that his Wᵐ Reader free planter having bin bound to the good It is Ordered Upon the desire of the said suretyes That the said Richard Garling free planter being questioned for his non It is Ordered That he be excused for his non-appearance at last | Further orders were made concerning recognisances and attendance before the Council. John Starling, a free planter, had previously been bound to good behaviour with Andrew Jeffreys, gentleman, and Thomas Box, free planter, as his sureties, by an order of 31 January 1684 for a period of six months. As no misconduct had been alleged against him during that time, an order was made, at the request of the sureties, that the recognisance should be discharged and that both Starling and his sureties should be released from their obligations. William Reader, a free planter, had likewise been bound to good behaviour with Nicholas Baker, gentleman, and John Starling, free planter, as sureties, by an order of 29 September 1683 for three months. As no offence had been reported during that period, an order was made, at the request of the sureties, that the recognisance should be discharged and that Reader and his sureties should be released. Richard Garling, a free planter, was questioned regarding his failure to appear at the previous Council, despite a notice having been left at his house by an officer. He replied that he had not received notice and expressed regret, stating that he would have attended had he been aware. He also acknowledged a fine of 5s imposed at a former Council for failure to attend a general muster and promised to pay it by a specified day. An order was made that Garling should be excused for his absence from the previous Council, on condition that he paid the fine of 5s as promised. Interpretations A “recognisance” refers to a formal legal obligation, often secured by sureties, requiring an individual to maintain good behaviour for a specified period, failing which financial penalties could be enforced. The discharge of a recognisance indicates that the individual had fulfilled the required conditions without further offence. Speculations The release of multiple individuals from recognisances perhaps reflects a routine review of obligations once the prescribed period had elapsed without incident. The acceptance of Garling’s explanation may suggest that procedural fairness was applied where failures to appear could be attributed to lack of proper notice. | |
92 | John Draper free planter Complains of Henry Coales Henry Coales answereth that there was no agreement That at the end of the said terme he would leave And that he would build a house 24 foot in length It is Ordered That the said John Draper have a Lease The Gunners and [...] Makers having sett forth in a petition It is Ordered That Thomas Goodwyn souldier be hereby appointed Wᵐ Pride free planter petitions to Exchange some acres | John Draper, a free planter, brought a complaint against Henry Coales, also a free planter, for failing to perform an agreement concerning a parcel of yams and the leasing of several acres of land belonging to Robert Orchard, an orphan, for whom Coales acted as trustee. Coales denied that any formal agreement had been made, stating that only informal discussions had taken place. After extended consideration of both parties’ statements and the evidence given by Christopher Kni[...] on Draper’s behalf, Draper set out the terms he was prepared to undertake. It was stated that he would pay £3 per annum for a term of seven years for the yams and the land. At the end of that term, he would leave 2,000 yams planted on the land, properly enclosed. He also undertook to build a house measuring 24 feet in length and 14 feet in breadth, consisting of two rooms, and to leave this building, together with any other structures, for the benefit of the orphan. He further required permission to cut wood and timber for this purpose. An order was made that Draper should receive a formal lease drawn up by the Register on these terms, to commence on 29 September 1684. A petition was then considered from the gunners and [...] makers, who reported a shortage of personnel to assist with the ordnance and described their distribution across various posts. In response, an order was made that Thomas Goodwyn, a soldier, should be appointed as a quarter gunner from that day. He was to receive an additional 6d per day above his existing pay and to continue in this role until further direction. William Pride, a free planter, petitioned to exchange certain acres of land allocated to him above the high-water mark near Fort James for 20 acres in Sandy Bay belonging to Gregory Field. This request was made in lieu of 2 acres previously purchased and in connection with a debt owed in the service of the Honourable Company. Interpretations The role of a trustee for an orphan involved managing property and agreements on behalf of a minor, ensuring that land and its proceeds were preserved or improved for future benefit. A “quarter gunner” was a subordinate position within the artillery establishment, assisting in the maintenance and operation of ordnance under the direction of senior gunners. The specification of building dimensions and improvements within a lease reflects the expectation that tenants would enhance the value of land as part of their tenure. Speculations The detailed terms offered by Draper perhaps indicate competition for access to productive land and the importance of agricultural output within the island economy. The request for additional personnel in the ordnance service may suggest increased concern for defence or strain on existing military resources. The proposed exchange of land by Pride may reflect attempts to consolidate or improve the productivity of holdings while managing outstanding debts. | |
93 | It is Ordered That in regard of the vicinity of the said some acres Upon consideration of Andrew Reader his motion, being for the It is Ordered That the said Andrew shall have 20 ℔ of bread and Whereas it hath pleased the Honble Compᵃ Lords It is Ordered That the said Pepper Barres be forthwith weighed, | An order was made concerning the land held by William Pride, a free planter. Consideration was given to the position and quality of the land originally allotted to him near Fort James, which was described as having good planting ground, timber, water, and stone suitable for building, while the alternative land lay at a greater distance and lacked some of these advantages. It was therefore directed that Pride should instead receive land adjoining his existing holding in Sandy Bay. The land previously allotted to him above the high-water mark near the fort was to revert to the Honourable Company and be disposed of at a later time. A further matter concerned Andrew Reader, who had represented that he was employed for the greater part of his time at the fort in duties relating to ordnance and other works for the Company’s service. As a result, he was unable to obtain provisions in the same manner as others. Upon his petition, an order was made that he should receive an additional allowance consisting of 20 lb of bread and 20 lb of beef each month. This provision was to commence from 11 September 1684 and continue until further direction. Attention was also given to several chests of Japan pepper recently sent to the island by the Honourable Company. These barrels were required to be weighed, and the weight of each recorded. It was directed that the pepper should be put up for sale and distributed in such a way that it might serve as a circulating medium in place of money for the payment of debts and the purchase of goods. An order was made that the pepper barrels should be weighed without delay, marked with their respective weights, and issued at a rate of 1d per lb to officers, soldiers, and inhabitants of the island. Interpretations The reassignment of land reflects the authority of the Company to alter tenures in accordance with practical considerations such as location and resources. The provision of rations to individuals engaged in Company service indicates a system in which labour obligations were supported by direct allocation of food from central stores. The reference to “Japan pepper” denotes a commodity imported through long-distance trade networks, here adapted for local economic use. The use of goods such as pepper as a substitute for currency demonstrates the limited availability of coin and the reliance on barter or commodity-based exchange. Speculations The reassignment of Pride’s land may suggest an effort to consolidate agricultural activity in more suitable areas while retaining strategic land near the fort under Company control. The granting of additional provisions to Reader perhaps reflects the importance of maintaining personnel engaged in military and technical duties. The introduction of pepper as a medium of exchange may indicate attempts to stabilise transactions in the absence of sufficient money supply on the island. | |
94 | [...] that they pass and be receivd instead of money as currant money And that all may have knowledge hereof this The Timber bridge between Fort James & the Crane battery It is Ordered That the said Barclow have 4£ allowed and paid And John Crook haveing made Tommie Salkes It is Ordered That the said Crook have 12d allowed and paid unto And the Register is to write a Coppy of these two Alsoe It is Ordered That a Warrant be drawne signed and directed | An order was made that the Japan pepper, once weighed and marked, should circulate and be accepted as current money within the island. It was directed that it should be used in all bargains, sales, and payments, including transactions for goods issued from the Honourable Company’s stores and for exchanges between inhabitants. To ensure public awareness, the order was to be proclaimed by drum and displayed at the Court of Guard near Fort James. Attention was then given to the timber bridge between Fort James and the Crane Battery, which had become greatly decayed. Reference was made to Barclow, who had been instructed to repair and widen the bridge. It was also recorded that he had previously carried out various works for the Company, including carpentry and walling around the upper storeyard, repairs to the prison known as “the hole”, construction of a house for storing boats, and timber work for a smith’s forge, together with other necessary tasks. An order was made that Barclow should receive £4 in full payment for the repair of the bridge and all other carpentry work completed for the Honourable Company up to 19 September 1684. John Crook was recorded as having undertaken work involving Tommie Salkes’ brother in connection with certain slaves belonging to the Honourable Company. An order was made that Crook should receive 12d in full payment for this work. The Register was instructed to prepare copies of these two orders, sign them, and deliver them to Captain Holden so that the payments could be made and entered into the proper accounts. A further order directed that a warrant should be drawn, signed, and sent to Captain Robert Holden, instructing him to credit various individuals with sums owed to them for previous service to the Honourable Company on the island, where arrears remained unpaid. Interpretations The formal proclamation “by sound of drum” reflects a standard method of disseminating official orders in a community where not all inhabitants would have access to written notices. The reference to “the hole” indicates a form of prison or place of confinement, suggesting a rudimentary penal facility within the settlement. The issuing of warrants to the storekeeper for payment or credit demonstrates the structured accounting system used to manage obligations and disbursements. Speculations The conversion of pepper into a recognised medium of exchange may indicate ongoing efforts to stabilise the local economy in the absence of sufficient coin. The accumulation of multiple works undertaken by Barclow suggests reliance on skilled individuals for essential infrastructure and maintenance. The need to settle arrears for past service perhaps reflects delays in payment that were common within the island’s administrative system. | |
95 | [...] And that another Warrᵗ be drawne signed and directed Likewise it is Ordered That there be a Warrᵗ drawne signed [...] Memorand that this coppy | An order was made that a further warrant should be drawn, signed, and directed to Captain Holden, instructing him to pay such free planters or other persons as he judged appropriate who had money due to them in their accounts with the Honourable Company, so that their accounts might be settled. Another order directed that a warrant should be issued to Captain Holden for the payment of all officers and soldiers in the Company’s service on the island. The payment covered wages due from 19 June 1684, inclusive, to 11 September 1684, inclusive. A memorandum recorded that a copy of the Council Book, covering the period from 11 April 1684 to 8 September 1684, was sent to the Honourable Company aboard the ship Caroline, commanded by John Harding. Interpretations The use of warrants for payment reflects a formal administrative process by which the storekeeper or paymaster was authorised to settle accounts and distribute wages. The balancing of accounts indicates a periodic reconciliation of debts and credits between individuals and the Company. The transmission of Council records to the Company demonstrates regular reporting practices intended to keep central authorities informed of governance and financial matters on the island. Speculations The need to issue multiple warrants for payment perhaps suggests that arrears and delayed wages were a recurring issue within the settlement. The dispatch of official records by ship may indicate the importance placed on accountability and oversight by the Company’s leadership in England. | |
96 | Island of Att a Consultacon held Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ One monday last the 8ᵗʰ of this instant After this President he was only severely | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday morning, 13 October 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. It was reported that on Monday, 8 October 1684, William Domison, a soldier, had openly and publicly declared, in the presence of officers and soldiers assembled in arms at a muster and exercise, that Captain Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, had stated approximately four weeks earlier at the Company’s storehouse that “Wee are not his Majesty’s subjects but the Compᵃs”. This statement had been noted with concern by those present. Domison was described as having previously shown himself to be insolent, turbulent, and disorderly. It was further recorded that on 11 September 1684, when the garrison received three months’ pay, he had used disrespectful and audacious language against the Honourable Company and towards the Governor and Council. On that earlier occasion, he had been committed to prison on suspicion of intending to provoke mutiny and disturbance. Following that incident, he had been subjected to severe […] Interpretations The assertion that the island’s inhabitants were “not his Majesty’s subjects but the Compᵃs” reflects the constitutional position of St Helena as a possession governed by the East India Company rather than directly by the Crown. The reference to a muster and exercise indicates a formal military assembly for inspection and training, at which discipline and loyalty were expected to be maintained. The charge of intending to create a “mutiny” denotes a serious offence involving resistance to authority within a military context. Speculations The repetition of disruptive behaviour by Domison perhaps suggests underlying tensions among the garrison, possibly linked to discipline, pay, or authority. The sensitivity surrounding statements about allegiance may indicate concern among the island’s leadership about maintaining clear authority and preventing dissent within a Company-controlled settlement. | |
97 | Declaration, with all speed to appeare on In the meane tyme Capᵗ Holden was Some dayes before the forementioned 11ᵗʰ | An order had been given that William Domison should appear without delay on Monday, 13 October 1684, to answer for the accusations made by him. In the meantime, Captain Robert Holden was informed of the matter. He expressed strong astonishment at what was described as a false and malicious accusation, which he considered to have arisen from deliberate intent. An explanation was then provided concerning the circumstances that may have led to the dispute. It was recorded that, some days before 11 September 1684, while Holden was engaged in marking the Japan pepper barrels for distribution as payment, Domison approached him and demanded 1 lb of tobacco as part of his wages. Holden declined to provide it at that moment or to interrupt his work. He informed Domison that goods were issued to soldiers on alternate days and that he could receive the tobacco on the next scheduled distribution. This response did not satisfy Domison. It was reported that he used provoking language and proceeded to speak disrespectfully about the Honourable Company, directing abusive remarks at Holden. He insisted that he should be paid in money or in whatever goods he chose, and at whatever time he wished. Holden refused to comply with these demands and did not yield to what was described as Domison’s domineering behaviour. Domison then withdrew. Shortly afterwards, Domison returned and adopted a more conciliatory manner, as though attempting to obtain what he had previously demanded. Despite this change in approach, Holden again refused and reprimanded him for his earlier conduct and language. Interpretations The practice of issuing goods, such as tobacco, as part of wages reflects the structured system of rationed distribution rather than unrestricted payment. The marking of Japan pepper barrels indicates their controlled allocation, reinforcing their role as a regulated substitute for currency within the island economy. The expectation that soldiers should receive goods only at appointed times demonstrates an attempt to maintain order and fairness in the distribution of limited resources. Speculations The dispute over payment in goods perhaps reflects broader dissatisfaction among soldiers regarding the timing or form of their wages. The escalation from a disagreement over provisions to public accusations may suggest underlying tensions within the garrison concerning authority and discipline. | |
98 | The Hon[ble] Compᵃ whose s[ervi]ce he was, his And the said Capᵗ Holden saith he judgeth to This is the sum[m]e of the sd Capᵗ Holden Whereupon seriously considering all that is | It was recorded that Captain Robert Holden declared that he had always acknowledged the authority of the Honourable Company, in whose service he stood and from whom he received his maintenance, and to whose power he was bound in obedience as a servant. It was further stated by him that such obedience did not diminish his allegiance to the Crown, but was consistent with it, and that he had never intended any disloyal meaning in his words. He affirmed that nothing had been spoken by him that could lessen the authority or prerogative of His Majesty over his subjects, including the Company and all persons residing on the island. He asserted that any statement attributed to him had been misrepresented and that, if any words had been spoken, they were to the effect that those serving the Company ought to behave soberly and live orderly lives under its authority. He considered the accusation brought by William Domison to have arisen from resentment and ill intent. A written reply to the charge was submitted, and it was requested by Holden that he might be excused from sitting in Council while Domison was present, stating that he was not able to endure his presence. After careful consideration of the evidence presented, together with Holden’s conduct and behaviour since his arrival on the island approximately nine months earlier, it was judged that he had acted with loyalty, integrity, and proper regard for authority. Interpretations The distinction drawn between service to the Honourable Company and allegiance to the Crown reflects the constitutional arrangement under which the island was governed by a chartered company while remaining under royal sovereignty. The submission of a written defence indicates a formalised process by which accusations against senior officials could be addressed within the Council. The request to withdraw from proceedings during the accuser’s presence suggests an effort to preserve decorum and impartiality in deliberations. Speculations The emphasis placed on Holden’s loyalty perhaps reflects the seriousness with which any suggestion of disloyalty to the Crown was treated within the settlement. The characterisation of the accusation as malicious may indicate that personal disputes could escalate into formal complaints within the confined social structure of the island. | |
99 | And sincerity to his Majesty and his Governmᵗ And seriously considering the nature, Therefore upon the whole That this fellow Dominico be [...] | Further consideration was given to the conduct and reputation of Captain Robert Holden. It was affirmed that he had demonstrated sincerity in his duty to His Majesty and to the government exercised on the island under the authority of the Honourable Company and its servants. Attention was then directed to the behaviour and character of William Domison. It was judged that he had acted maliciously, having concealed part of the words he attributed to Holden and altered their meaning. His manner was described as insolent and presumptuous. It was considered that his actions may have been intended to provoke discontent among the soldiers and to incite unrest, particularly in relation to dissatisfaction over the payment of wages in goods or money. It was also noted that he appeared to have been influenced or encouraged by certain discontented inhabitants, one of whom he had named as a witness. Upon full consideration of the matter, an order was made that Domison should be committed to prison. He was to be placed in irons and detained until the arrival of the next ship bound for England in the service of the Honourable Company. Interpretations The placement of a prisoner “in irons” refers to the use of physical restraints, typically shackles, as a means of secure confinement. The emphasis on altering or misrepresenting spoken words reflects the importance attached to accurate testimony in proceedings where authority and loyalty were in question. The reference to discontent among soldiers concerning payment indicates ongoing tensions related to the system of remuneration in goods rather than coin. Speculations The suggestion that Domison was influenced by others perhaps indicates wider dissatisfaction within the community that extended beyond a single individual. The decision to detain him until a homeward-bound ship arrived may reflect an intention to remove him from the island rather than to impose further local punishment. | |
100 | That he be then [...] carried out of [signature] Att A Councill held on Monday Present Thomas Spen[ce] Chirurgeon Complaines of Wᵐ F[ox] answereth that he made no agreement Stephen Law a[ffirm]eth & witnesseth that the said Wᵐ | An order was made that William Domison should be removed from the service of the Honourable Company and sent to England on the next homeward-bound ship to answer for the offence of calumny and slander. A further Council was held at Fort James on Monday, 13 October 1684 in the afternoon. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Thomas Spence, a surgeon, brought a complaint against William Fox senior for failing to perform an agreement concerning the care and treatment of a slave belonging to Spence, who had since died. Fox denied that any agreement had been made. He asserted that Spence had not properly treated the slave, and that no trust had been placed in him for such care. Stephen Law gave evidence that Fox had agreed with Spence to look after the slave and had undertaken to pay Spence for his services, regardless of whether the slave lived or died. Interpretations The term “calumny and slander” refers to the making of false and damaging statements, treated as a serious offence, particularly where it affected authority and reputation. The reference to an agreement covering payment “whether the said Black did live or dye” reflects a contractual arrangement in which remuneration for medical or caretaking services was guaranteed irrespective of the outcome. Speculations The decision to send Domison to England rather than punish him solely on the island perhaps indicates the gravity of the offence and the desire for higher authority to determine his fate. The dispute between Spence and Fox may suggest uncertainty or disagreement over responsibility for medical treatment and the expectations placed upon those providing care. | |
101 | Upon Consideration of all that hath be alledged It is Ordered John Long free planter Complaines of John Hono[r] John Honour answereth that he did not drive the Thomas Davis free planter being sworn saith that Marmont Hunt being sworn testifieth to the same purpose/ Thomas Davis being desired to declare what he judged It is Ordered Andrew Wilson free planter being Complainant of William [...] confesseth to have done it the [...] Richard Griffons wife and Robᵗ Lightfoot formerly servᵗ to John | Upon consideration of the dispute between Thomas Spence and William Fox senior, an order was made that Fox should pay Spence the sum of 2 dollars in full satisfaction of all demands arising from the agreement concerning the care of the slave who had died. John Long, a free planter, complained against John Honour, also a free planter, alleging that Honour had driven his calf from Honour’s ground into Sandy Bay, where the animal miscarried. Honour denied driving the calf, stating that it had followed his son and that he had been unable to prevent it. Thomas Davis, a free planter, gave sworn testimony that he had seen Honour drive both the cow and calf from near Mr Anthony’s pen to the east ridge and towards Sandy Bay. Marmont Hunt also gave evidence supporting this account. Davis further stated that he believed the calf to have been worth 30s and that he would have paid that amount for a similar animal. An order was made that Honour should pay Long the sum of 5 dollars in full compensation for the calf and 1 dollar for the costs of the suit. Andrew Wilson, a free planter, complained against William [...] for killing his dog and beating his son, a child of about eight years of age. The accused admitted to having committed these acts. Testimony was given under oath by the wife of Richard Griffin and by Robert Lightfoot, formerly a servant to John [...], confirming the killing of the dog. They further stated that the act had been encouraged by Wilson, who had previously indicated that the dog should be killed if found committing offences such as entering others’ ground or attacking poultry. Additional testimony was given that the dog had been heard barking […] Interpretations The awarding of compensation in dollars reflects the circulation of multiple forms of currency or commodity values within the island’s economy. The reliance on sworn testimony demonstrates the importance placed on witness evidence in resolving disputes over property and liability. The reference to a calf “miscarrying” indicates the loss of a young animal, treated as a compensable form of property damage. Speculations The conflicting accounts in the dispute over the calf perhaps illustrate the difficulty of determining responsibility in cases involving livestock movement across open land. The admission that the killing of the dog may have been encouraged by its owner suggests that expectations regarding the control of animals could complicate claims for compensation. | |
102 | For beating of the said Wilsons child by the said Wᵐ But nothing being proved agᵗ [...] the compᵗ Thomas Spen[ce] Chirurgeon Complaines of John Draper free Draper answereth and confesseth that he did Upon the whole Matthew Pomme[...] free planter Complaines of Tho[...] Shawen answereth and confesseth that by his order | In the matter concerning the alleged beating of Andrew Wilson’s child, it was found that no sufficient proof had been produced beyond the account given by the child himself. It was acknowledged that the child and a calf belonging to James W[...] had frequently come into conflict and that attempts had been made to discipline him. As no clear evidence was established against the accused, the complaint was dismissed. Thomas Spence, surgeon, then brought a complaint against John Draper, a free planter, for failing to pay for medical treatment administered to Draper’s son, despite a prior promise of payment. Draper admitted that he had requested Spence’s services, believing him to be the surgeon to the garrison of St J[...], and having heard a favourable report of his abilities. He stated that he later became dissatisfied with the treatment, discontinued his use of Spence after two attempts, and remained willing to pay what he considered reasonable, though he regarded the demand as excessive. Upon consideration of the matter, an order was made that Draper should pay Spence a specified sum [...] in full settlement of his claim. Matthew Pomme[...], a free planter, complained against Tho[...] Shawen, also a free planter, for taking a young hog belonging to him, placing it in his sty, and retaining it. Shawen admitted that his slave had taken up the hog on his instructions after it had been wandering for some time. He stated that he had been willing to return it to any person who claimed ownership. Interpretations The dismissal of the complaint due to insufficient proof reflects the requirement for corroborated evidence rather than reliance on a single testimony, particularly that of a child. The reference to medical treatment by a “chirurgeon” indicates a practitioner responsible for both surgical and general medical care within the settlement. The act of taking up stray livestock suggests a customary practice, though ownership remained subject to proof and could lead to disputes. Speculations The disagreement over medical fees perhaps reflects differing expectations regarding payment for professional services in a community where formal rates may not have been clearly established. The admission that the hog had been taken up but not concealed may suggest that disputes over wandering livestock were common and often resolved through negotiation rather than concealment. | |
103 | Edward Sanford and Thomas How free plantᵉʳs witnes It is Ordered Edward Wilson free planter Complaines of Phillip Savage confesseth the debt, but declares his inability It is Ordered Josias Charlesworth free plantᵉʳ having in a former It is Ordered | Edward Sanford and Thomas How, both free planters, gave evidence that they had gone to the house of Tho[...] Shawen, seen the young hog in question, and identified it as belonging to Matthew Pommery. Upon being sworn, they confirmed this identification and provided further circumstances in support of their claim. An order was made that Shawen should deliver the hog, or its equivalent, to Pommery on the following day, 14 October 1684, and should also pay 5s for the costs of the suit. Edward Wilson, a free planter, brought a complaint against Phillip Savage, also a free planter, for failure to pay a debt of £5 10s secured by a written bill. Savage acknowledged the debt but declared his inability to pay. He offered instead to return the goods by which the debt had arisen, namely a cow and calf, and to compensate for the milk he had received from the cow during his possession. An order was made that Savage should, on Wednesday 15 October 1684 in the forenoon, deliver the cow and calf by cart to Wilson and should further pay 20s at the next general pay day. Josias Charlesworth, a free planter, had previously accused John Talby, a soldier, of stealing two hogs. As the earlier suspicion had not been proven, the matter had been deferred. At this hearing, several persons presented circumstantial evidence suggesting that Talby might have been responsible. Although the allegation was considered highly probable, no conclusive proof was established. An order was made that Talby should pay Charlesworth 1 dollar in full satisfaction of the matter, after which the case was concluded. Interpretations The reliance on witness identification of livestock reflects the importance of community knowledge and observation in establishing ownership. The acceptance of the return of goods in place of monetary payment demonstrates flexibility in settling debts where cash was unavailable. The resolution of a case based on probability rather than certainty indicates that compensation could be imposed even in the absence of definitive proof. Speculations The requirement to return both livestock and additional payment perhaps reflects an effort to balance fairness between creditor and debtor under constrained economic conditions. The imposition of a small payment despite insufficient proof may suggest a pragmatic approach to dispute resolution aimed at preventing prolonged conflict. | |
104 | John Midg[e] free plant[er] complains of W[illia]m Connyers Connyers answereth that having heard the words Mr John Voss and Rob[ert] Jon[es] free planters doe It is Ordered Capt Anthony Bealls complained of W[illia]m Rutter Rutter acknowledged part to be owing by him, but the After long arguing, reasoning, and contesting, with It is Ordered | John Midge, a free planter, complained against William Connyers [...] for quarrelling with him in the street while the last ships were in the road, for partially drawing his sword, and for seizing him by his private parts, causing him shame and distress. Connyers replied that he had heard that Midge had spoken against him and had confronted him over it, whereupon words were exchanged and the dispute escalated into blows. He admitted placing his hand on his sword but denied drawing it himself, stating that others had drawn it and that he had lost it. John Voss and Robert Jones, both free planters, gave evidence that they had seen the two men fighting in the street. They stated that Connyers’ sword had been partly drawn and that Midge had cried out that Connyers had seized him. They were unable to say how the quarrel began but believed that Connyers had been drinking. An order was made that Connyers should be committed to prison at the Governor’s discretion. Captain Anthony Beale brought a complaint against William Rutter, a free planter, for failure to pay several sums of money owed to him. Rutter acknowledged part of the debt but denied the greater portion. After extended discussion and examination of accounts and papers, an agreement was reached. An order was made that Rutter should pay Beale the sum of £5 on the next non-general pay day, the payment to be made in the form of a boat, which was to be appraised and then delivered to Beale. It was further agreed that tobacco held by each party should be weighed and adjusted between them as part of the settlement. Interpretations The act of partially drawing a sword in a dispute was treated as a serious breach of public order, even where it was not fully drawn or used. The use of goods such as boats and tobacco to settle debts reflects the flexible economic practices of the island, where payment in kind was common. The phrase “during the Governor’s pleasure” indicates indefinite detention, subject to release at the Governor’s discretion. Speculations The mention of alcohol suggests that disputes among inhabitants may have been aggravated by drinking, contributing to disorder. The settlement involving both a boat and tobacco perhaps indicates the complexity of accounts where multiple forms of value were combined to reach agreement. | |
105 | Henry Cooke free plant[er] complains of Caleb Pow[ell] Powell answereth that as to the Chest and It is Ordered John Co[oper] coming hither with his wife in Sᵗ Mar[ys] It is Ordered John Smith, Thomas Cha[?]ler, and Matthew [Ba]g[?] It is Ordered | Henry Cooke, a free planter, complained against Caleb Pow[...] for taking into his possession a chest, bedding, and other goods belonging to Edward Roberts, which had been left in his care. It was noted that Roberts had departed while indebted to the Honourable Company. Powell replied that Roberts had owed more than the value of the goods and that he had already delivered some of them valued at 10s, though no proof was produced to support this claim. An order was made that Powell should pay 5s, or 1 dollar, to Roberts. John Cooper, who had arrived from England with his wife aboard the ship St Marys, and who now had a child, was reported to be without a dwelling for his family. As this situation might hinder his ability to perform his duties at the fort or elsewhere, he requested permission to obtain a house. An order was made that Cooper should be permitted to purchase a house in Chapel Valley and occupy it until the Honourable Company, as Lords Proprietors, should direct otherwise. It was required that, while in possession of the house, he should pay all rates and taxes imposed, in proportion with others in the neighbourhood. John Smith, Thomas Cha[?]ler, and Matthew [Ba]g[?], who had been stationed as guards at Bunkers, were found to have negligently lost a quarter cask that had been washed ashore. An order was made that a fine of 5s should be imposed upon them jointly, to be equally divided and deducted from their wages at the next pay day. Interpretations The taking of goods from a debtor’s estate reflects an informal method of recovering value where formal settlement of debts was incomplete. The permission granted to acquire a house demonstrates the regulation of settlement and property occupation by the Company authorities. The deduction of fines directly from wages indicates an administrative mechanism for enforcing discipline among those in service. Speculations The need to provide housing for Cooper perhaps reflects the challenges of maintaining a stable workforce in a remote settlement. The loss of goods by guards may suggest the difficulties of maintaining vigilance over property washed ashore, especially in exposed coastal areas. | |
106 | The Honoᵇᵉ Compᵃ having been pleased to send It is Ordered & Agreed Whereas most of the free plant[ers] have hitherto It is Ordered Upon serious consideration of the Honoᵇᵉ Compᵃ Orders It is Judged most for their service, and | The Honourable Company was recorded as having sent three boats, described as young and serviceable, together with one that was older. Certain persons in the Company’s service, including [...] Wills and others, expressed a desire to purchase them. An order and agreement were made that these individuals should acquire the boats, along with oars and an old sail, for the sum of £5. Payment was to be made proportionately by those involved, according to their accounts, with part of the amount to be settled at the next pay day. It was observed that many free planters had neglected to obtain formal deeds for their lands. To remove any excuse, an order was made that Tuesday, 4 November 1684, should be fixed as a day for issuing deeds to all who presented themselves, unless a ship should be present in the road at that time. Public notice of this arrangement was to be given in the usual manner. Consideration was then given to the Company’s instructions regarding the construction of a merchant house and storehouses, with yards for storing goods and accommodation for slaves expected to arrive from the Indies and Madagascar. It was judged most beneficial to the Company’s service that immediate repairs and enlargements should be undertaken. An order was made that the warehouse or sheds at the Court, and the timber yard within it, should be repaired and extended. A further shed behind the upper storehouse was also to be constructed without delay. These works were intended to provide sufficient space for goods and for housing slaves expected to arrive on forthcoming ships. It was further directed that, once these immediate needs were addressed, work on the merchant house should begin if possible. Interpretations The sale of Company property to individuals in service reflects a controlled redistribution of resources, often tied to accounting arrangements rather than immediate payment. The requirement for formal land deeds indicates an effort to regularise property ownership and enforce administrative control over landholding. The reference to a “merchant house” suggests a central facility for trade, storage, and administration of goods arriving on the island. The preparation of accommodation for slaves highlights the organised importation and management of labour within the Company’s system. Speculations The urgency in preparing storage and housing facilities perhaps reflects anticipation of increased trade activity and incoming shipments. The repeated insistence on issuing land deeds may indicate ongoing difficulties in enforcing formal property rights among settlers. The acquisition of boats by Company servants might suggest the need for additional local transport or fishing capacity to support the settlement. | |
107 | All Bonn[e] Delovs who came hither in the Society Capt It is Ordered Adjourned untill J B[lac][k][mo][re] | All Bonn[e] Delovs, who had arrived on the island aboard the ship Society under Captain John Gayer, presented a request to depart. It was represented that he had incurred considerable expense during his time on the island and had withdrawn from his affairs there, intending to return to England at the first available opportunity. An order was made that Mr Delovs should be granted licence to depart according to his request. The Council was then adjourned until Monday, 15 December 1684. The record was signed by John Blackmore, Robert Holden, and Gregory Feild. Interpretations The granting of “licence” to depart reflects the requirement that inhabitants obtain official permission before leaving the island, ensuring administrative control over movement. The inclusion of signatures confirms the formal validation of the proceedings by the principal officers present. Speculations The request to leave at the first opportunity perhaps suggests dissatisfaction with conditions or limited prospects on the island. The requirement for signatures may indicate the importance placed on accountability and authentication in official records. | |
108 | Island St Att A Consultation held on Monday Present [...] being severall Sould[i]ers in Prison for their late It is Ordered The late Conspiracy, Mutiny, and Rebellion wherein so | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday, 13 November 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Feild, Ensign. Reference was made to several soldiers who had been imprisoned for their recent mutiny and rebellion, in which an attempt had been made by force of arms to break into Fort James. It was judged that such persons did not deserve to be restored to service or retained in the pay of the Honourable Company, nor that provision should be made at the Company’s expense for those who supplied them with food. However, it was considered necessary that they should receive a basic allowance for subsistence while in prison. An order was made that all such persons, formerly soldiers and now imprisoned for this offence, should receive an allowance of 6d per week, commencing from 4 November 1684, being fourteen days after the outbreak of the mutiny. It was further directed that any provisions brought or sent to these prisoners should be searched by the officer of the guard or the marshal before delivery. If only food was found, it might be given to the prisoners, but those supplying it were to be informed that they would not be reimbursed by the Honourable Company and must bear the cost themselves. Reference was then made to the extent of the recent conspiracy, mutiny, and rebellion, in which many, perhaps most, of the private soldiers in service had been involved, either through knowledge of the plot or by giving their consent […] Interpretations The allowance of 6d per week represents a minimal subsistence payment, indicating that prisoners were maintained at the lowest necessary level rather than supported as active members of the garrison. The requirement to search provisions brought to prisoners reflects concerns about security, including the possibility of concealed items being used to aid escape or further disorder. The distinction between Company responsibility and private expense shows that assistance to prisoners was permitted but not officially supported. Speculations The reference to widespread involvement among the soldiers perhaps indicates that the mutiny was not an isolated incident but a broader challenge to authority within the garrison. The imposition of strict controls over prisoners and their provisions may suggest ongoing fears of renewed unrest or coordinated resistance. | |
109 | and acting in it hath given just cause to doubt the hearts It is Ordered Upon serious consideration of the late Insurrection and Mutiny | Serious concern was expressed that the recent conspiracy, mutiny, and rebellion, in which many of the private soldiers had been involved either through knowledge or participation, had cast doubt upon the loyalty and fidelity of all. In order to prevent any further disloyalty to His Majesty and to ensure obedience to the Honourable Company, as Lords Proprietors of the island, and to the established government, measures were deemed necessary. An order was made that on Wednesday, 5 November 1684, the Governor, Council, and all officers and soldiers in the Company’s pay and service on the island should take the Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty, as established by law, and should subscribe it individually. At the same time, each person was required to sign a declaration and engagement affirming their loyalty and obedience to His Majesty, to the Honourable Company, to the Governor and Council, and to the government established on the island. They were also required to commit themselves to oppose any person who might resist or disobey that authority for as long as they remained in the Company’s service. Further consideration was given to the recent insurrection and mutiny, which had involved a combination of many free planters and several soldiers. It had been attempted, in a hostile manner, to seize Fort James by force, including its stores of arms and ammunition, or to surprise the Governor and Deputy Governor and alter the government without lawful authority. Although this attempt had been repelled, it was recognised that further designs might be formed by the leaders, whether by treachery or by renewed open force […] Interpretations The requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance reflects a formal reaffirmation of loyalty to the Crown, particularly significant in a context where authority had recently been challenged. The additional declaration and engagement indicates a strengthening of local governance, binding individuals not only to the monarch but also explicitly to the Company and its officers. The reference to “magazines of arms and ammunition” highlights the strategic importance of Fort James as the central military and defensive installation on the island. Speculations The insistence on collective oath-taking and written declarations perhaps suggests that trust within the garrison had been severely weakened following the mutiny. The fear of further plots, whether covert or open, may indicate that the authorities believed the rebellion had not been fully extinguished and that its leaders remained a potential threat. | |
110 | It is Ordered. John Cobson John Long Chri: Standale Whereas in yᵉ Consultation held on Monday yᵉ 13ᵗʰ of Octᵒ It is Ordered and Resolved. [...] | An order was made concerning a number of persons who had previously had their arms placed in the custody of the Honourable Company’s magazine. It was directed that, upon demand by any duly authorised officer, these individuals should immediately surrender any such arms in their possession. In the event of refusal or delay, the officer was empowered to conduct a thorough search and to seize any arms, weapons, or ammunition found. These were to be secured and conveyed without delay to the Company’s magazine at Fort James. A written account was to be taken of all items seized, specifying the quantity and type found with each individual, and this record was to be delivered to the Governor. The persons named in this order were John Cobson, Edward Gardiner, William Porter, Richard Parren, Francis Hodges, John Higham, William Marsh, Thomas Tinkham, William Rodes, John Midge, John Long, John Shires, Job Garnier, Jos Charlesworth, James Rider, William Fitts, John Crispin, Henry L[e]ny, Widow Cooks, Thomas Bolton, Matthew Pommery, Christopher Standale, John Fuller, Robert Thomps, Lwi[...] Foxcroft, William Coxson, Richard Sunding, Thomas Bee, Thomas Borlis, Gabriell Powlet, and James Waleford. Reference was then made to an earlier order issued on 13 October 1684 concerning Alexander Dominion, a soldier, who had been imprisoned and was to be sent to England to answer charges of calumny and slander against Captain Robert Holden. Upon further consideration of the harmful effects of his actions, particularly as the time for paying officers and soldiers approached, a revised decision was made. An order and resolution were issued that Dominion should receive no further salary or pay from 21 October 1684. He was also to receive no allowance from the fort. It was stated that his conduct had demonstrated disaffection and misconduct, both through his speech and actions, particularly in relation to Captain Holden. It was further determined that, following his confinement, he should be brought to trial according to law, or otherwise dealt with if sufficient proof should emerge concerning his conduct and any improper support he might have received while in prison […] The record was signed by Robert Holden and Gregory Field. Interpretations The seizure of arms from specified individuals reflects a deliberate effort to disarm those suspected of disloyalty following the recent unrest. The requirement to produce written inventories indicates an administrative emphasis on accountability and record keeping in the handling of weapons. The withdrawal of pay and allowances from a prisoner demonstrates that financial penalties could accompany disciplinary measures, particularly in cases of serious misconduct. Speculations The extensive list of individuals required to surrender arms perhaps suggests that suspicion extended widely among both soldiers and inhabitants after the mutiny. The decision to deny all support to Dominion may indicate a desire to make an example of him in order to deter further dissent. | |
111 | Island St Helena Att A Consultation held on Monday yᵉ 18ᵗʰ Present It is Ordered. That assoone as any returning English Shippes shall come That he be advised not to send any of his shipps company That he be further advised not to suffer above 10 or 12 of That he be earnestly advised not to suffer any Officer And that he doe not sell, Barter or give to any of the Alsoe that he doe not receive into his Shipp any person That he be further advised neither to give, sell, or Barter unto | A Consultation was held at Fort James on Monday, 18 November 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Field, Ensign. An order was made that, as soon as any English ships returning to England should arrive in the road before Fort James, an officer should immediately be sent on board to inform the commander of the recent insurrection and mutiny among soldiers and others on the island. The commander was to be advised not to permit any of his ship’s company to come ashore until he himself had first come, and then only in his company. It was directed that no men should go into the fort, nor into the town or among the free planters, without licence. Further instructions were to be given that no more than ten or twelve men should be allowed ashore at any one time, and that none should go into the country or remain ashore overnight without permission from both the commander and the Governor. It was also directed that the commander should not allow any officer, soldier, free planter, or inhabitant of the island to come aboard his ship without written licence from the Governor. Even where such licence was granted, no person was to remain aboard overnight. The commander was further instructed to forbid the sale, barter, or gift of any arms or ammunition to free planters or to any acting on their behalf, and to ensure that none of his officers, mariners, passengers, or others engaged in such dealings. It was also ordered that no soldier, offender, or other person from the island should be received aboard any ship for transport to England without a written order from the Governor and Council, and that this rule should be clearly communicated to all members of the ship’s company. Finally, it was directed that no goods of any kind should be given, sold, bartered, or sent to persons on the island without prior permission from the Governor and Council. Interpretations The strict regulation of contact between ships and the island reflects heightened security concerns following the recent mutiny. The limitation on the number of men allowed ashore demonstrates an attempt to prevent disorder or collusion between sailors and inhabitants. The prohibition on trading arms and ammunition indicates a clear effort to control access to weapons and prevent further unrest. The requirement for written licences highlights the formalisation of authority and control over movement and exchange. Speculations The detailed restrictions placed on visiting ships perhaps suggest that the authorities feared external influence might encourage further dissent. The emphasis on preventing unauthorised transport of individuals may indicate concern that offenders could escape justice by leaving the island. The careful control of trade and communication between ships and inhabitants may reflect broader anxieties about maintaining order in a fragile settlement following recent instability. | |
112 | That upon no manner of pretense whatsoever he do carry If he have not gotten in his Water and other necessary That he be acquainted with the Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ That upon any ships or shipps coming into this said Wᵐ Boor free planter having bin imployed in It is Ordered That a Warrᵗ be drawne signed and directed to | Further directions were issued concerning the conduct of commanders of ships arriving at the island. It was ordered that, under no circumstances, any person, whether officer, soldier, or other inhabitant, man or woman, should be taken off the island without a written licence signed by the Governor and Council. It was also directed that, once a ship had taken on water and other necessary provisions and was ready to depart, the commander should be urged to set sail by about midday, or at the latest by two o’clock in the afternoon. The commander was to be informed of the Honourable Company’s express order that all goods were to be brought to a public market and not sold aboard ship. Accordingly, any cattle, sheep, goats, or similar provisions required were to be purchased from inhabitants in the town above Fort James, or at the Old Market House, now serving as the Court of Judicature. An order was also made that, upon the arrival of any ship in the road before Fort James, all persons were to be prohibited from going aboard such vessels without written licence from the Governor. Officers and soldiers in pay were similarly restricted from coming ashore or entering the town, the watering place near the fort bridge by the crane, or any outposts, including the mount or St James Valley, without permission. Although earlier proclamations had granted some liberty of movement, these restrictions were to apply while any ship remained in the road. Any person acting contrary to this order was to face imprisonment and be treated as a contemner of authority. William Boor, a free planter, was recorded as having been employed in repairing the old square of the burial ground in the town of Chapel, as well as constructing walls in the lower fort yards and the adjoining pond. Although he had already received some payment from the Honourable Company’s plantation, a further sum was determined. An order was made that a warrant should be drawn, signed, and directed to Captain Robert Holden for the payment of £3 5s to Boor in goods from the Company’s stores. A receipt was to be taken from him in full satisfaction for all his work. Interpretations The strict control over departure from the island reflects the Company’s concern to prevent unauthorised removal of persons, particularly in the aftermath of unrest. The requirement to conduct trade only at designated public markets indicates an effort to regulate commerce and prevent private or illicit dealings. The repeated use of written licences demonstrates a formal administrative system governing movement and interaction between ships and inhabitants. The payment in goods rather than money illustrates the continued reliance on a mixed economy within the settlement. Speculations The insistence on rapid departure of ships after provisioning perhaps reflects concern that prolonged contact between crews and inhabitants might encourage disorder or illicit trade. The tightening of restrictions on movement while ships were present may indicate fears that communication with outsiders could undermine authority or facilitate escape. | |
113 | Whereas Ambrose Laurence hath supplyed the Table with It is Ordered That a Warrᵗ be drawne signed and directed to And that the said Capᵗ Holden doe satisfy and It is Ordered Upon further consideration of the late Insurrection with It is Ordered That the severall hereafter mentioned doe upon demand John Cobson | Ambrose Laurence was recorded as having supplied the table with various necessary provisions at a time when the Honourable Company was unable to provide them, to the value of 10s. An order was made that a warrant should be drawn, signed, and directed to Captain Robert Holden to place the sum of 10s to the credit of Ambrose Laurence. It was further ordered that he should be paid that amount in goods from the Company’s stores, and that a receipt should be taken in full satisfaction. Further consideration was then given to the recent insurrection and its surrounding circumstances. It was reported that several free planters, identified as principal organisers and participants, had continued to hold private meetings and that rumours suggested further disorder might be planned, threatening renewed disturbance on the island. An order was made that the persons named should, upon demand by any duly authorised officer of the Honourable Company, immediately surrender any arms previously issued to them from the Company’s stores. In the event of refusal or delay, the officer was empowered to conduct a thorough search of their houses or other suspected locations. Any arms or ammunition discovered were to be seized, secured, and transported without delay to the Company’s magazine at Fort James. A written account of all such items, including their quantity and type, was to be prepared and delivered to the Governor. The persons named in this order were John Cobson, Edward Crosby, Edward Bridges, Thomas Goodale, Owen Guinney, and William Doveton. Interpretations The reimbursement to Ambrose Laurence reflects the expectation that private individuals might temporarily supply official needs, with later compensation from Company resources. The seizure of arms from named individuals demonstrates a targeted response to perceived threats among those suspected of involvement in unrest. The requirement for written inventories of seized weapons highlights the administrative emphasis on accountability and control. Speculations The mention of continued private meetings among suspected ringleaders perhaps indicates that the authorities believed the danger of rebellion had not fully passed. The decision to disarm specific individuals may suggest an attempt to weaken any organised opposition before it could act again. | |
114 | James Easton Richard Harding These being in the tyme of the late Conspiracy and It is Ordered That all the Boates whereof any man whether planter And if upon the arrivall of Ship or Ships in the Roads It is alsoe Ordered That the Governour and Councill doe meete on | A further list of persons was recorded as being subject to orders arising from the recent conspiracy and insurrection. These individuals were James Easton, John Backing, Jasper Jayn, Robert Victor, Philip Savage, Francis Howard, John Woodall, Richard Griffin, Thomas Swallow, John Dominey, Edward Baxford, Henry Wibley, Richard Harding, James Jeffery, Henry Rousey, William Metling, John Nicholls, George Holden, John Milbank, Thomas Collins, Swi[...] Br[...]ton, Thomas Harper, Robert Doganny, and Matth[...] Pom[...]y. It was noted that, during the time of the recent conspiracy and attempted uprising, several boats on the island had belonged to free planters and others who had either actively participated in the design or had knowledge of it. These vessels were considered capable of being used in further schemes or movements connected with unlawful intentions. An order was made that no boats in which any such person held an interest should be permitted to leave the roads before Fort James without express permission from the Governor. Care was to be taken that none should use these boats, whether for fishing or other purposes, except those whom the Governor judged to be trustworthy and loyal. It was further ordered that, upon the arrival of any ship or ships in the road, the Governor might, if considered necessary, have such boats taken up onto the beach before Fort James, in order to prevent their use for dangerous purposes. An additional order was made that the Governor and Council should meet at Fort James on Monday, 1 December 1684, in order to hear and determine causes […] Interpretations The restriction placed upon the use of boats reflects concern over mobility and the potential for coordinated action or escape following the recent unrest. The requirement for the Governor’s permission indicates centralised control over maritime activity around the island. The authority to seize and secure boats demonstrates a preventative approach aimed at limiting opportunities for further rebellion. Speculations The focus on boats as a potential threat perhaps suggests that movement by sea was seen as a key means by which conspirators could organise or evade control. The continued monitoring of named individuals may indicate that the authorities regarded the insurrection as an ongoing risk rather than a concluded event. | |
115 | [...] [...] between party and party, that shall be brought [...] Att A Coun[c]ill held on Monday yᵉ Present [...] Richard Hardy free planter leaving board goods to [...] Job Cawdron answereth that he judgeth the said Bullock Hardy protesting to take his oath that the said Bullock It is Ordered that the said Bullock be forthwith returned according | An order was made that the Governor and Council should meet at Fort James on Monday, 1 December 1684, in order to hear and determine disputes between parties brought before them. Notice of this session was to be given by affixing a written announcement to the Court of Judicature. The record of this order was signed by Robert Holden and Gregory Field. A Council was then held at Fort James on Monday, 1 December 1684. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Gregory Field, Ensign. Richard Hardy, a free planter, brought a complaint concerning a bullock found among cattle in the woods, which he asserted belonged to [...] Bash. The animal was then in the possession of Job Cawdron, a free planter, who claimed ownership. Cawdron replied that he believed the bullock to be his own, stating that it closely resembled his stock and had for some time run with his cattle. Hardy declared that he was willing to swear that the bullock belonged to Bash and presented supporting circumstances. It was affirmed that the bullock in question was the same animal that Hardy had received from Orlando Bagley, a free planter, for the price of £3 1s, and that it had passed from Bagley to Cawdron about two years previously. An order was made that the bullock should be immediately returned according […] and recognised as part of the stock belonging to the said […] Interpretations The reliance on physical resemblance and association with a herd reflects the informal methods used to identify livestock ownership. The willingness to swear an oath demonstrates the importance of personal testimony in resolving disputes where documentary evidence was limited. The reference to prior transactions involving the animal indicates that ownership could become unclear over time, particularly when livestock moved freely. Speculations The dispute over the bullock perhaps illustrates the difficulties of managing livestock in an environment where animals roamed widely and intermixed. The reliance on recollection of past transactions may suggest that record keeping for such exchanges was not always consistent or preserved. | |
116 | Thomas Sp[en]cer Chirurgeon Complained of Job Howston Howston confesseth that upon mediation had It is Ordered that the said Howston doe pay or cause to be But now proof being made of the delivery of the George Haddon Taylor being called to make his appearance It is Ordered That a speciall Warrant of Contempt be forthwith Whereupon he appeared Thomas Shorwyn free planter Complaines of George Sheldon Sheldon confesseth he having had the said garme[nt] some time But withall he saith that on Saturday the 23ᵗʰ of | Thomas Spencer, surgeon, complained against Job Howston for failing to pay 10s for work performed in mending and setting […], and for linen sent to his house to be washed but not returned. Howston acknowledged that, following mediation between himself and Spencer, it had been agreed that 10s 8d was due. He stated that he was ready to pay the amount either personally or through his wife. An order was made that Howston should pay, or cause to be paid, the sum of 10s 8d to Spencer by or before Monday, 8 December 1684. Further proof was then presented concerning the linen that had been sent to be washed but not returned. Upon consideration, this part of the complaint was dismissed. George Haddon Taylor was called to appear, having been warned by a warrant served upon him. Neither he nor any representative appeared on his behalf. Information was given that, when the warrant had been served, he had declared that he would not attend and had spoken other scandalous words. An order was made that a special warrant for contempt should be issued immediately for his apprehension and that he should be brought to Fort James to answer for his conduct. Following this, he appeared. Thomas Shorwyn, a free planter, complained against George Sheldon Taylor for detaining a garment belonging to his child for about eighteen months and for failing to complete its repair. Sheldon admitted that he had retained the garment for some time and had undertaken to mend and finish it, but claimed that he had lacked sufficient materials to complete the work. He further stated that on Saturday, 23 November 1684, he had taken the garment to Shorwyn’s house and attempted to deliver it to Shorwyn’s daughter. When she refused to accept it, he had thrown it down outside the door and left it there. Interpretations The agreement reached through mediation indicates that informal negotiation was commonly used to settle disputes before formal orders were enforced. The issuing of a warrant for contempt demonstrates the authority exercised by the Council to compel attendance and punish refusal. The dismissal of part of a complaint after further proof shows that cases could be partially upheld and partially rejected based on evidence. Speculations The dispute over the garment perhaps reflects the scarcity of materials and the reliance on repair rather than replacement within the settlement. The refusal to accept the returned garment may indicate dissatisfaction with its condition or the manner in which it was handled. | |
117 | Andrew Booker deposed being deposed saith that on last [...] said to the sd S[...]on George you must And further the said Depo[... ] saith that upon discourse Thomas Shor[...] declaring himself willing to take his It is Ordered But Thomas Shor[...] being deposed accuseth the said S[...]on Thomas Sm[...] testifieth that upon the delivery of a Maurice Hunt saith being deposed saith that he was Upon serious consideration of the said S[...]ons being guilty It is Ordered That on that day he have 2 Lash[es] on his naked body | Andrew Booker was deposed and stated that on the previous Saturday evening George S[...] had gone to the house of Thomas Shor[...] and offered to deliver a garment intended for Shor[...]’s daughter. As the daughter refused to accept it and her father and mother were not present, S[...] threw the garment onto the ground before the door, telling them to take it. Booker further stated that he told S[...] that he ought to appear before the Governor for this matter, to which S[...] replied with an oath that he would not do so. It was also reported that, on the following day, during further discussion of the matter, S[...] again swore in a similar manner. Thomas Shor[...] declared that he was willing to accept the garment, although it had not been properly finished by S[...]. An order was made that the original cause should be abated and dismissed. However, Thomas Shor[...] then gave further evidence accusing S[...] of declaring, when told that a warrant would shortly be issued, that he would not appear before any such authority at the Court. Thomas Sm[...] testified that, upon a warrant being delivered from the Governor to S[...], he had stated that he had nothing to do with the Governor, nor the Governor with him. Maurice Hunt, being deposed, confirmed that he had been present when the warrant was delivered, and that S[...] had said he knew what it was and would not obey it, declaring that he would remain elsewhere rather than submit. Upon serious consideration of S[...]’s conduct, which was judged to consist of contemptuous language against authority, open refusal of obedience, and scandalous behaviour towards the Governor, an order was made that he should be committed until Monday, 8 December 1684. It was further ordered that on that day he should receive two lashes upon his naked body at the flagstaff in Fort James. Interpretations The dismissal of the initial dispute while proceeding on the grounds of contempt illustrates the priority given to maintaining authority over resolving minor civil disagreements. The refusal to obey a warrant demonstrates a direct challenge to the legal and administrative power of the Governor and Council. The use of corporal punishment at a public location indicates a method intended to reinforce discipline and deter similar acts of defiance. Speculations The escalation of the matter from a dispute over a garment to punishment for contempt perhaps reflects heightened sensitivity to challenges against authority following recent unrest. The repeated use of oaths and defiant language may suggest underlying tensions between individuals and the governing administration. | |
118 | That he be fined 20 s or £ Dollars to the use of the That he pay 2 s for swearing in severall tymes / That he pay Thomas Shorwyn for his charges 5 s / For 2 Warrᵗ 4 s 6 d To the Officer and Guard that apprehended him 5 s And that he pay or satisfie these sums before he be And that he the said Sheldon be bound with a surety And lastly that all these things be done and performed by the Information being given that Christopher Clayton, Thomas It is Ordered That the said 24 pieces of money be demanded of About having in 40 ton of chalk brought into Lime, the It is Ordered That the said Lyme be sold at 4 s per bushell | Further orders were made concerning George Sheldon following his conviction for contempt. It was ordered that he should be fined 20s, or £1, payable to the Honourable Company, Lords Proprietors of the island, for his offence against authority. An additional fine of 2s was imposed for repeated swearing. He was also required to pay Thomas Shorwyn 5s for his costs, 4s 6d for the issue of two warrants, and 5s to the officer and guard who had apprehended him and conveyed him to the marshal. All these sums were to be paid or otherwise satisfied before he could be released. It was further ordered that Sheldon should enter into a bond for good behaviour for six months, with himself bound in the penalty of £20 and a surety in the sum of £50. Upon fulfilment of these conditions, he was to be discharged. Information was then received that Christopher Clayton, Thomas Cawdron, and John Birt, executors of the will of John Greenwood, a free planter deceased, held in their custody 24 pieces of money that had been lost with Greenwood when an enemy Barbary ship, commanded from Cape Talbot, had taken a vessel in the year 1681. An order was made that these 24 pieces of money should be demanded from the executors. In the event of refusal or delay, a search was to be conducted, and if the money was found, it was to be seized and brought immediately to Fort James for delivery to the Honourable Company, to be disposed of according to their direction. Consideration was then given to a quantity of chalk, amounting to 40 tons, which had been brought to the island and burned into lime. The invoice price, together with freight charges of £5, and the additional labour and expense of burning, were taken into account. An order was made that the lime should be sold at 4s per bushel, and that the remaining ballast derived from the chalk should be sold at 2s per bushel. Interpretations The requirement to pay multiple fines and fees before release reflects a system in which legal, administrative, and enforcement costs were imposed directly upon offenders. The obligation to enter into a bond for good behaviour demonstrates a preventive measure intended to secure future compliance with authority. The reference to a Barbary ship indicates the involvement of North African privateers, whose activities affected trade and property belonging to Company servants. The pricing of lime and ballast shows the regulation of materials essential for construction and maintenance within the settlement. Speculations The strict financial penalties imposed on Sheldon perhaps suggest an intention to deter further acts of defiance in a period of heightened tension. The recovery of money associated with a captured vessel may indicate ongoing efforts to reclaim or redistribute assets lost during maritime conflict. The controlled sale of lime and ballast may reflect the importance of building materials in sustaining and expanding the island’s infrastructure. | |
119 | Whereas an Order was past in this Councell of Octobr [...] But having received many Informations that the said Mʳ It is Ordered Whereas Doda[...] Barker having bin imployed in It is Ordered [signatures] You are hereby Ordered and Authorised to pay and satisfie | An earlier order made in October 1684 had granted Mr Bonnell Dolborr permission to return to England at the first opportunity. Subsequent reports were received stating that Dolborr had been involved in the recent conspiracy on the island. It was alleged that he had been aware of the plans, had assisted in disturbing the peace and in attempting to seize Fort James, and had attended meetings with the conspirators before the uprising began. Continued association with those involved was described, including visits to the houses of the principal ringleaders and their presence at his own quarters. His repeated movement across the island was considered improper, and it was judged that he was deeply involved in their actions. Concern was expressed that he might act as a messenger to carry letters in support of the rebellion and to present the actions of the conspirators and the government in misleading terms. An order was made that Dolborr should not be allowed to depart for England at the first opportunity, despite the earlier authorisation. He was required to remain on the island until permission to leave was granted by the Governor and Council, supported by a licence signed by them. Doda[…] Barker was recorded as having been employed in building a cook room for soldiers at Fort James and in carrying out several additional works there. These works included constructing a large watch house near the guard, erecting a store in the lower guard, and completing further building around the upper store room. An order was made that Barker should receive £3 in full payment for all work completed or to be completed up to Christmas 1684, with payment to be made by Captain Robert Holden, storekeeper of the Honourable Company. The entry concluded with signatures and a formal instruction that the officers named in the following schedule were to be paid their respective wages out of the Company’s stores for their service on the island. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘licence’, ‘consults’, ‘Company stores’, the sum £3, and the role of storekeeper. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘licence’ referred to a formal written permission issued by the Governor and Council, controlling movement on and off the island and requiring official approval for departure. The word ‘consults’ denoted organised meetings or councils held by those involved in the conspiracy, indicating planned coordination rather than spontaneous action. The reference to ‘Company stores’ reflected a system in which goods held by the East India Company were used as a medium of payment, with their value recorded in monetary terms despite being issued in kind. Speculations The revocation of Dolborr’s permission to leave perhaps suggests concern that he might carry information about the conspiracy beyond the island or assist in further coordination. The emphasis on his continued association with the conspirators may indicate an attempt by the authorities to isolate individuals considered influential in maintaining unrest. The continued building work within Fort James may reflect efforts to strengthen the island’s defences and infrastructure following the recent attempt to seize the fort. | |
120 | To John Blackmore Junᵣ Depᵗ — — — 06 : 00 : 10 Borne over — To | A schedule of wages was recorded for officers, soldiers and workers in the service of the Honourable Company on St Helena, covering the period previously specified up to 4 December 1684. Payment of £6 0s 10d was assigned to John Blackmore Junior in his role as Deputy. Andrew Phillipps, serving as gunner, was assigned £6 0s 0d. Dodda[…] Bar[…] as gunner’s mate received £4 10s 0d. A sum of £3 0s 0d was allocated for carpenters’ work. William Wolls, also a gunner’s mate, was assigned £4 10s 0d. Israell Hayes, Richard Honnywood, Maurico Atk[…] and H[…] Jackson, all recorded as soldiers, were each assigned £4 10s 0d. William Wills, John Fo[…] and William Romny, each holding the rank of corporal, were assigned £4 1s 0d. Ezekiell Taylor, serving as marshal, was assigned £3 3s 0d. Thomas Goodwyn, quarter gunner, received £4 1s 0d. Andrew Ro[…] was assigned £3 3s 0d. Gabr[…] Oxley, serving as drummer at a rate of 20s per month, was assigned £3 0s 0d. Thomas Dimmory, acting as coxswain at 14s per month, was assigned £2 2s 0d. John Mankah, George Wright, Stephen Law, John Bro[…], Samu[…] Booker, Thomas Harding, Robert Goodwyn and Thomas Thae[…] were each assigned £3 3s 0d. The account was then marked ‘Borne over’, indicating that the schedule of payments continued onto the next section. Candidate terms and items identified for review included the roles of gunner, gunner’s mate, corporal, marshal, quarter gunner, drummer and coxswain, the phrase ‘borne over’, and the repeated valuation of £3 3s 0d. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The designation ‘quarter gunner’ referred to a subordinate artillery role responsible for assisting the gunner and overseeing specific sections of ordnance, reflecting a structured hierarchy within the garrison’s artillery. The term ‘marshal’ in this context denoted an official responsible for custody, discipline and the supervision of prisoners, combining policing and administrative duties within the fort. The phrase ‘borne over’ indicated a continuation of the account onto a subsequent page, a standard bookkeeping practice used to maintain continuity in financial records. The repeated sum of £3 3s 0d represented a standardised wage, commonly used in Company accounts for ordinary soldiers or labourers over a defined period. Speculations The detailed listing of ranks and corresponding wages perhaps reflects an effort to maintain clear distinctions of status and responsibility within the garrison following recent disorder. The consistent recording of payments alongside roles may suggest a deliberate attempt to reinforce administrative order and accountability in the aftermath of unrest on the island. | |
121 | Borne over To Simon Whaley — — — 03 : 03 : 0 For labourers worke Borne over | A continuation of the wage account was recorded, listing further individuals in the service of the Honourable Company on St Helena and the sums assigned to them up to 4 December 1684. Payments of £3 3s 0d were assigned to Simon Whaley, Thomas Yo[r]ke, John Cun[…]land, Joseph Boi[r], Henry Mann[…]ng, Sam[ue]ll Mead[…]oll, George Sutton, Joseph Bagley, Wᵐ Bon[…]ell, John Garlick, John Worrall, John Baxter, Wᵐ Li[…]bery, Sam[ue]ll Allen, Thomas Machin, Nathaniel Ot[…]on, Walter Mears, Hugh Pember, Wᵐ H[…]nger, Allen Granville, Samuel Hackbury, J[…]mell Taylor, James Ward, Richard Brook[…]it, Thomas Par[…], Thomas Gu[…]l[…]m, Erasmus Sp[…]l[…]ne, Ralph Smith, Daniel Chappell, Matthew Bassett, Stephen Marsh, Thomas Drew, Robert Austi[n], John Talb[…]y, Robert Abb[…]s, John Rowley and John Smith. A smaller payment of £0 8s 0d was assigned to Thomas Hill. The entry then noted ‘For labourers worke’, indicating that the following section would contain payments specifically attributed to labour performed, and was marked ‘Borne over’, showing that the account continued onto the next page. Candidate terms and items identified for review included the repeated valuation of £3 3s 0d, the smaller sum of £0 8s 0d, the phrase ‘labourers worke’, and the term ‘borne over’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The repeated sum of £3 3s 0d represented a standardised wage commonly used in Company accounts, equivalent to three guineas, and suggests a uniform rate for a defined period of service. The smaller payment of £0 8s 0d assigned to Thomas Hill indicates either a shorter period of service or a lower grade of labour, reflecting variation in employment duration or status. The phrase ‘labourers worke’ distinguished payments made specifically for manual or contracted labour, separate from regular wages for soldiers or Company servants. The term ‘borne over’ indicated that the account was being continued onto a subsequent page, following standard bookkeeping practice. Speculations The large number of individuals receiving identical payments perhaps reflects a standardised system of remuneration intended to simplify accounting and maintain uniformity among personnel. The separation of labourers’ work from other payments may indicate an increasing reliance on contracted or supplementary labour alongside the regular garrison workforce. | |
122 | To John B[...] — — — — — 03 : 03 : 0 Dismist at the end of 2 months, Debtors Prison Freemen Total For all which this shall be your Warrant Given under our To Capᵗ Robert Holden the Theo[...] | A further continuation of the wage account was recorded, detailing additional payments, deductions and classifications of individuals in the service of the Honourable Company on St Helena up to 4 December 1684. Payments of £3 3s 0d were assigned to John B[…], Thomas W[…] and Ambr[…] L[…], with a further entry of £10 0s 0d noted for the same party as additional wages. John F[…] was also assigned £3 3s 0d. Deductions were then recorded. Christopher Jones had one week’s pay deducted, leaving £2 4s 9d. William Finch had two weeks deducted, leaving £2 12s 6d. William Chappell had one month deducted for three […] spent in confinement, leaving £2 2s 0d. Edward B[…] had six weeks deducted, leaving £1 10s 9d. Two individuals were recorded as dismissed at the end of two months’ service. Edward D[…] and John B[…] were each assigned £2 2s 0d for that period. Under the heading of debtors, William Cordell and Robert Wright were each assigned £1 10s 9d. John Cro[…] was assigned £0 10s 6d for fourteen days’ service only. Thomas Richardson, described as being in the country, was assigned £1 10s 9d. A separate section listed those in prison. William Bowyer, Allan Dennison, George Clarke Junior, Joseph Onoman, Thomas Brown, Joseph Clarke Senior, James Johnson, Robert Morris and Samᵗ Callis were each assigned £1 10s 9d. Under the category of freemen, Captain Joshua Johnson was assigned £5 11s 4d. Foster Saxton received £0 6s 3d and Gideon House Junior £0 9s 8d. John P[…] was assigned £2 0s 0d for the payment of men engaged in plantation work. William Roe was assigned £3 5s 0d for burning lime and performing mason’s work. A total was then struck, and the entire account was issued as a formal warrant dated 4 December 1684. Authority was given to Captain Robert Holden, storekeeper of the Honourable Company, to pay these sums out of the Company’s stores. Candidate terms and items identified for review included abatements of pay, the classification of debtors, the category of prisoners, the designation of freemen, the repeated valuation of £3 3s 0d, and payment in stores rather than coin. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘abated’ denoted an official deduction from wages, generally imposed for absence, imprisonment or misconduct, reflecting a structured disciplinary system. The classification ‘freemen’ distinguished individuals not in regular military or Company employment but entitled to payment for services rendered, indicating a mixed labour structure on the island. The repeated sum of £3 3s 0d represented a standardised wage commonly used in Company accounts, equivalent to three guineas for a defined period of service. Payment out of the Company’s stores rather than in coin reflected a system in which goods were used as a substitute for currency, with their value recorded in monetary terms. Speculations The detailed recording of deductions and imprisonment alongside wages perhaps reflects a deliberate attempt to maintain administrative order and financial control following recent unrest. The continued payment, even to those in prison, may indicate an effort to prevent further discontent by ensuring that basic entitlements were still recognised. The inclusion of plantation labour and construction work within the same account suggests that the Company relied on a flexible workforce to meet both military and economic needs on the island. | |
123 | Island St Helena’s You are hereby Ordered and Authorised to Deliver Report: Goods Issued from the Stores | A formal order was issued on St Helena directing that goods held within the Honourable Company’s main stores were to be delivered under the authority of the storekeeper. These goods were to be issued either to the Governor or upon his written instruction, for use at the fort gates and for other purposes connected with the Company’s service. It was specified that the items to be delivered were those listed in the following schedule, each accompanied by an assigned monetary value. These values were to be recorded against the account of the Honourable Company, ensuring that all goods issued were properly accounted for within the Company’s financial records. Report: Goods Issued from the Stores Interpretations The term ‘main stores’ referred to the central warehouse controlled by the East India Company on St Helena, where imported goods were held and from which supplies were issued for both military and civil use. The use of an ‘invoice’ in this context indicates a formal record of goods received and distributed, combining both inventory control and financial accounting within a single document. The practice of assigning monetary values to goods reflects a system in which physical supplies functioned as both commodities and accounting units, allowing them to be tracked as part of the Company’s financial structure. Speculations The emphasis on recording both the delivery and value of goods perhaps reflects increased administrative oversight following recent unrest, ensuring that supplies could not be diverted without accountability. The reference to goods received by sea may indicate the importance of recent shipments in sustaining the island’s operations, particularly in maintaining the fort and supporting the garrison. | |
124 | Report: Goods Issued from the Stores For all which this shall be yo Warrᵗ Given under To Capᵗ Robert Holden the These — You are hereby Ordered and Authorised to place 04 : 19 : 16½ — In a Bill of Exchange for Capᵗ Dobson Comander 03 : 07 : 09 — In a Bill from Capᵗ Harding Comandᵉʳ of 07 : 05 : 00 — In a Bill from Capᵗ Spooner Comandᵉʳ of the For all which this shall be yo Warrᵗ Given under To Capᵗ Robert Holden the These — Adjourn’d untill Thursday | Report: Goods Issued from the Stores A warrant dated 4 December 1684 was issued under the authority of the Governor and Council of St Helena, directing Captain Robert Holden, storekeeper of the Honourable Company, to execute the payments previously listed. These sums were formally authorised and confirmed under their signatures. A further instruction was then issued requiring that specific sums be entered as debts against the Honourable Company’s account. The total of £4 19s 16½d was recorded in relation to a bill of exchange drawn for Captain Dobson, commander of the Carolina. A sum of £3 7s 9d was recorded in relation to a bill from Captain Harding, also commander of the Carolina. A further sum of £7 5s 0d was recorded in relation to a bill from Captain Spooner, commander of the […], for goods delivered by him into the Company’s stores on the island, for which payment was to be made according to the contents of that bill. These entries were to be formally placed to the Company’s debit, ensuring that the value of goods received and financial obligations arising from maritime transactions were accurately accounted for. A second warrant, again dated 4 December 1684 and directed to Captain Holden, confirmed the authority for these entries and payments. The record concluded with an adjournment of the Council proceedings until Thursday 11 December 1684. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘bill of exchange’, ‘debit’, the fractional amount 16½d, and the recording of ship-based financial transactions. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations A ‘bill of exchange’ was a financial instrument used in long-distance trade, allowing payment to be made at a later date or in a different location, and was commonly used by the East India Company to manage transactions between ships and distant settlements. The term ‘debit’ referred to an entry in the Company’s accounts recording money owed or goods received, forming part of a structured accounting system balancing credits and obligations. The fractional amount 16½d reflects the precision of early modern accounting, where halfpennies were routinely used and recorded in financial transactions. Speculations The presence of multiple bills of exchange connected to ships perhaps indicates the reliance of the island on maritime trade and the need to settle accounts with ship commanders who supplied goods. The careful recording of these debts may suggest increased scrutiny of financial transactions following recent disturbances, ensuring that all obligations were properly documented and authorised. | |
125 | Island St Helena At A Councill held on Thursday yᵉ 11ᵗʰ of Present John Blackmore Governour Wᵐ Doveton Free Planter having bin warned to appeare for It is Ordered That the said Doveton doe immediately give a Note under Wᵐ Molloy Free Planter having bin also warned to appeare It is Ordered That the said Molloy have a month’s time from this day [...] It is Ordered That the said Executors [...] immediately Deliver the said According to which Order the said Executors did Deliver Adjourn’d until the afternoon the same day | A Council was held at Fort James on 11 December 1684, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Engineer. William Doveton, a free planter, was summoned to appear for failing to return an iron chest that had previously been issued to him by the Honourable Company during his service. He claimed that the chest was his own property brought from England. When required to produce proof, he admitted that he had in fact paid for the chest by having its cost deducted from wages due to him some years earlier. An order was made that Doveton should immediately provide a written note to Captain Holden confirming that the money previously deducted from his wages for the chest was to be accounted to him, and that the sum should be repaid to him from the first wages next due. William Molloy, also a free planter, was similarly summoned regarding Company property. He stated that he had left his anvil in a house in Bishop’s Valley about a year earlier and that he had required it for his work. It was ordered that Molloy be given one month from that date to locate and return the anvil to Fort James. Failure to do so would result in the forfeiture of its value, assessed in dollars at a rate of 20s, to the use of the Honourable Company. A further order was recorded concerning executors who were required to deliver certain goods belonging to Morris, together with a bill from James Walker valued at £6, to the Governor. Compliance with this order was confirmed, as the executors delivered both the goods and the bill to the Governor, who received them. The Council was then adjourned until the afternoon of the same day. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘free planter’, ‘Engineer’, ‘iron chest’, ‘anvil’, valuation in dollars at 20s, ‘executors’, and ‘bill’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The valuation ‘dollars at 20s’ reflects the conversion of Spanish or other silver dollars into English currency for accounting purposes, indicating a standard rate used by the Company in local transactions. The term ‘executors’ referred to individuals responsible for administering the estate of a deceased person, including the handling and transfer of goods and outstanding financial obligations. A ‘bill’ in this context referred to a written financial obligation, often a bill of exchange or promissory note, representing money owed and transferable within the Company’s accounting system. Speculations The recovery of Company property such as the chest and anvil perhaps reflects a broader effort to reclaim assets and maintain stricter control over resources following recent instability. The requirement for written acknowledgement and repayment of deducted wages may indicate an attempt to regularise past arrangements and ensure clearer accounting practices. The involvement of executors and the collection of goods and debts suggests that the Company was actively consolidating claims over property and finances, possibly to reinforce authority after the recent conspiracy. | |
126 | [...] the Conti[nu]a[...] of the said [...] of Counci[...] Capᵗ Robert Holden Depᵗ Governour Complain[...] The Bond was produced, read, and proved Capᵗ Holden produced a Letter of Attorney from the said Thomas Smout produced a Defence [...] that if he But Thomas Shorwyn being bound in the said Bond Thomas Shorwyn confessed his being bound, but After a long debate and mature enquiry It is the opinion & Judgment of the Court that the said It is Ordered That the said Shorwyn doe forthwith pay Gregory Field | A continuation of the Council held on the afternoon of 11 December 1684 recorded a complaint brought by Captain Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, against Thomas Smout and Thomas Shorwyn, both free planters, for failure to pay a bond valued at 300 […] owed to Mr […] in London. The bond was produced before the Council, read aloud and formally verified. Captain Holden presented a letter of attorney from the said Mr […], granting him authority to act on his behalf in recovering the debt. Thomas Smout submitted a defence stating that if he had failed to pay £150 to the said Mr […] or his assigns upon the arrival of goods at the island, which had arrived on 3 January 1683, then 40 acres of his land were to be entered upon and taken for the use of the said Mr […]. Thomas Shorwyn, who was also bound in the same bond for the full sum of 300 […], was described as being bound without any stated condition. Captain Holden therefore requested that judgement be given against Shorwyn alone for the entire debt. Shorwyn acknowledged that he had entered into the bond but argued that he had done so only as a surety. He further stated that he had already paid part of the money he had borrowed from Mr Smout in England and was prepared to pay the remainder […]. He also declared that he was not in a position to pay the full amount. After extended discussion and careful consideration, it was determined by the Court that the bond of 300 […] should have been paid or otherwise settled eleven months earlier. It was judged that Shorwyn, although acting as surety, was equally liable as a principal under the law alongside Smout. An order was therefore made that Shorwyn should immediately pay or otherwise satisfy the outstanding sum due on the bond. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘bond’, ‘letter of attorney’, ‘assigns’, ‘surety’, ‘principal’, the valuation of 300 […], and the condition relating to land forfeiture. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations A ‘bond’ in this context referred to a formal legal agreement acknowledging a debt, enforceable by law and often carrying strict obligations for repayment. A ‘letter of attorney’ was a legal document authorising one person to act on behalf of another in financial or legal matters, commonly used in long-distance transactions between England and overseas settlements. The term ‘surety’ denoted a person who guaranteed the debt of another and could be held fully responsible for repayment if the principal debtor failed to pay. The designation ‘principal’ referred to the primary party responsible for a debt, though in such bonds a surety could be treated equally liable in law. The reference to ‘assigns’ indicated that the right to receive payment could be transferred to another party, reflecting the transferable nature of such financial obligations. Speculations The enforcement of the bond against the surety as well as the principal perhaps reflects the Council’s determination to uphold financial discipline and ensure that debts owed to individuals in England were honoured. The inclusion of a condition allowing land to be seized in default of payment may indicate the importance of land as a form of security in the island’s economy. The reliance on a letter of attorney suggests that creditors in England depended on Company officials on St Helena to enforce debts locally, highlighting the interconnected nature of imperial trade and legal systems. | |
127 | Island St Helena Whereas in a Councill held yᵉ 11ᵗʰ of this instant These are in his Maᵗᶦᵉ name to Will and Faile not in the due and speedy Execution hereof, Gregory Field | A further order issued on St Helena followed proceedings held in Council on 11 December 1684, in which Robert Holden, acting as attorney for […] Juston of London, had brought a complaint against Thomas Shorwyn, a free planter on the island, for failure to pay a bond valued at £300 sterling. The bond had been produced, examined and acknowledged by Shorwyn as his own act and deed. The time allowed for payment had elapsed several months earlier, and judgement had been given against him upon request. He had been ordered to pay the full sum of £300 sterling to Holden as attorney for the creditor. Shorwyn having failed to comply with this judgement, further enforcement action was authorised. A formal warrant was issued in the name of the King, directing Richard Honiwood […] to execute the judgement. He was instructed to proceed against the personal estate of Shorwyn by first seizing and distraining upon any goods and chattels belonging to him that could be found on the island. These goods were to be attached and held until full satisfaction of the debt had been made. All such goods and chattels were to be secured and a detailed account of them was to be presented to the Governor and Council. This would allow them to be appraised and applied towards the discharge of the bond and the judgement. Strict instruction was given that the order was to be executed promptly and fully, with a return made to the authorities confirming compliance. The warrant was dated 22 December 1684, in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of King Charles the Second of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and was signed by Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘bond’, ‘attorney’, ‘judgement’, ‘distress’, ‘attach’, ‘personal estate’, ‘goods and chattels’, ‘appraised’, and ‘return of execution’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘distress’ referred to a legal process by which goods were seized to compel payment of a debt, a common enforcement mechanism in early modern law. The phrase ‘attach’ denoted the formal legal seizure of property, preventing its removal or disposal until the matter was resolved. ‘Goods and chattels’ referred to movable personal property, as distinct from land, and were typically the first assets targeted in the recovery of debts. The ‘personal estate’ encompassed all movable possessions belonging to an individual, which could be seized to satisfy financial obligations. The requirement to make a ‘return’ meant that the officer executing the warrant had to report back formally to the issuing authority, detailing the actions taken and the outcome. Speculations The issuing of a warrant in the King’s name perhaps reflects the extension of English legal authority to the island, reinforcing the legitimacy of the Council’s actions. The emphasis on seizing movable goods rather than land at this stage may indicate a preference for quicker recovery of debts without immediately resorting to more complex land claims. The formal and detailed nature of the enforcement order suggests an intention to demonstrate the authority of the Council and to deter others from defaulting on similar obligations. | |
128 | Island St Helena Att A Councill held on Tuesday yᵉ 23 Present John Blackmore Governour The good Ship Royall James being now in this road vizᵗ Capᵗ James Marriner Comandᵉʳ Garrison Officers Andrew Phillipps Gunnᵉʳ Capᵗ Marriner was appointed Foreman who accepted Arraignment of Wᵐ Bowyer, Joseph Clarke Junʳ, Joseph Owerman, | A Council was held at Fort James on 23 December 1684, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Engineer. The ship Royall James, commanded by Captain James Marriner, was at anchor in the road. He had been informed of the recent mutiny involving several soldiers in the service of the Honourable Company, some of whom had deserted. Marriner offered assistance in the trial of those accused, and it was agreed that he and several of his officers should take part. These officers came ashore, were approved by the Court and were sworn to serve alongside six officers of the garrison, who together were appointed as a jury. Those selected from the ship were Captain James Marriner as commander, Captain John Wotton as chief mate, William Doveton as second mate, Jonathan Dunk as fourth mate, Edward Mason as purser and Henry Groats as boatswain. The garrison officers were Andrew Phillipps as gunner, Doddaeus Barber as gunner’s mate, Israel Hayes, Richard Honymood as sergeant, Henry Jackson and Phipps Wills as corporal. Captain Marriner was appointed foreman of the jury and accepted the role, and all members were sworn. William Bowyer, Joseph Clarke Junior, Joseph Owerman and Robert Mount, formerly soldiers and now prisoners, were brought before this body. They were formally arraigned and charged with mutiny and rebellion against the established government, including an attempt by force to break into and seize Fort James. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘road’, ‘jury’, ‘foreman’, ‘arraigned’, ‘indicted’, and the composition of naval and garrison officers acting together. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘road’ referred to an anchorage near the shore where ships could lie at anchor, rather than a harbour enclosed by structures. The use of a ‘jury’ in this context reflected a formalised trial procedure modelled on English legal practice, though adapted to the conditions of a remote settlement. The ‘foreman’ was the leading member of the jury, responsible for guiding deliberations and delivering the verdict on behalf of the group. To be ‘arraigned’ meant that the accused were formally brought before the court to hear the charges against them and to respond to them. Speculations The inclusion of officers from a visiting ship in the jury perhaps reflects a need to supplement local authority and reinforce legitimacy during a period of unrest. The formal trial procedure suggests that the authorities sought to present the handling of the mutiny as lawful and orderly rather than arbitrary. The presence of multiple ranks from both ship and garrison may indicate an effort to demonstrate unity between naval and island authority in suppressing rebellion. | |
129 | The Prisonᵉʳs being every one singly Examᵈ and do whether But Robert Moore pleaded not guilty and put himself Clarke Owerman and Moore were ordered to Wᵐ Forster Planter being sworn saith that on munday Wᵐ Wootton Gunner mate being deposed saith that he saw [...] Depoᵗ saith that there was deposited in | The prisoners were each examined separately and asked whether they were guilty of the indictment. William Bowyer, Joseph Clarke and Joseph Owerman refused to enter a plea or provide any answer, instead declaring that they appealed to the King’s Bench in England. Robert Moore entered a plea of not guilty and placed himself upon God, his country and the jury. Clarke, Owerman and Moore were ordered to withdraw, and Bowyer remained before the court. Witnesses were then called and sworn to give evidence against him. William Forster, a free planter, stated under oath that on Monday 21 October 1684 he had seen Bowyer advancing from John Colson’s lower plantation house towards Fort James. Bowyer had been carrying a musket on his shoulder and a sword by his side and was leading a group of armed soldiers numbering about 20, with a further group of townsmen following behind to the number of about 20 or 30. Bowyer had led them to the […] house, formerly called the Old Market House near Fort James. He had then turned towards the upper mount where the Governor stood and had spoken to him, although the witness had not heard what was said. William Wootton, gunner’s mate, gave evidence that he had seen Bowyer come out from Le[…]ton’s house from the plantation, carrying a musket and placing himself at the head of a party of soldiers and townsmen gathered before John Colson’s upper plantation house. These men were described as being in their shirts or colours. Bowyer had led them down towards a lower […] near Pritchard’s household, a place from which someone had run away from St Thomas’s plantation. The witness stated that this party, whether intending labour or destruction, had marched towards Fort James. Clarke, Owerman and Moore had been seen coming down by another route, while Bowyer continued forward with his armed group. He had led them from the lower house to the sally port of Fort James. Further testimony stated that a quantity of military stores had been kept in a locked chest within the castle, including 10 lb of powder, 100 musket shot, 50 flints and a quantity of match for use in the fort. It was declared that powder connected with Bowyer had been found at John Colson’s upper plantation after Bowyer had been taken prisoner. This powder had been brought on the same day that the attempt upon the fort had been made. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘King’s Bench’, ‘put himself upon God his Country and the Jury’, ‘sally port’, ‘match’, the quantities of powder and shot, and the term ‘appeal’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The reference to the ‘King’s Bench’ indicated the principal criminal court in England, to which the prisoners claimed a right of appeal, although such appeals were rarely practical from a remote settlement. The phrase ‘put himself upon God his country and the jury’ was a formal declaration that the accused accepted trial by jury, relying on their judgement rather than confession or refusal to plead. A ‘sally port’ referred to a secure entrance in a fortification, used for controlled access and often a vulnerable point during an attack. The term ‘match’ referred to slow-burning cord used to ignite firearms, particularly matchlock muskets, forming an essential part of military supplies. Speculations The refusal of several prisoners to plead and their appeal to the King’s Bench perhaps reflects an attempt to delay proceedings or challenge the authority of the island’s court. The detailed description of arms, ammunition and movement towards the fort suggests that the authorities sought to demonstrate clear intent to commit organised rebellion. The discovery of powder at a plantation associated with Bowyer may have been used to strengthen the case that he had prepared for armed action rather than spontaneous disorder. | |
130 | [...] Rooker demoner and John Frith Constᵇᵉ Thomas Spooner Chirurgeon and Maurice Hunt Edward Blosse Souldᶦᵉ being sworn saith that he James Johnson late Souldᶦᵉ now a prisoner had his The said Bowyer was demanded whether he had any Then upon the Jury withdrawn, and after neer That they found the prisoner guilty of the Rebellion That for judgment for it Adjourn’d untill | Further witnesses were examined and sworn, including […] Rooker, described as demoner, and John Frith, constable. Both confirmed the testimony previously given by William Witts in all particulars, except for the final point concerning a chest of ammunition said to have been left at Bowyer’s house. Thomas Spooner, surgeon, and Maurice Hunt, sergeant, also gave sworn evidence. They stated that they had seen Bowyer marching at the head of soldiers and townsmen at about three o’clock in the afternoon towards Fort James and up to the sally port. It was further confirmed by earlier witnesses that Bowyer had struck and beaten upon the sally port with his musket in an attempt to force it open. Edward Blosse, a soldier, testified that he had seen Bowyer leading the party of soldiers and townsmen to Fort James at about one o’clock. He stated that he himself had been among their number and had marched with them. He declared that he had been drawn into the conspiracy by Robert Moore, a soldier, who had persuaded him to leave his post at Lemon Valley and join the gathering at John Frith’s house. Blosse further stated that Bowyer had encouraged him to go to his house to stand guard and defend themselves. James Johnson, formerly a soldier and now a prisoner, had his earlier examination read aloud. Under oath he confirmed that the contents were true. He stated that Bowyer had sent a party of soldiers and townsmen, of which he had been one, to Fort James. He admitted that he had been among those who had garrisoned Bowyer’s house, where orders had been given to resist and to carry out a surprise attack when opportunity allowed. Bowyer was then asked whether he wished to question any of the witnesses or make a defence. He declined to do so, maintaining his appeal to the King’s Bench and offering no further response. The jury then withdrew and, after approximately two hours, returned with their verdict. Bowyer was found guilty of rebellion and mutiny at Fort James. It was also declared that he possessed no goods or chattels to their knowledge. The proceedings were then adjourned until Wednesday 24 December 1684. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘dem[o]ner’, ‘constable’, ‘surgeon’, ‘sergeant’, ‘sally port’, ‘van’, ‘garrisoned’, ‘verdict’, and ‘goods or chattels’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘dem[o]ner’ is unclear in this context and may represent a damaged or abbreviated occupational title, possibly referring to a minor official or labour role connected with the settlement. The use of ‘van’ referred to the front position of a marching group, indicating Bowyer’s leadership role at the head of the assembled party. The expression ‘garrisoned’ in this context indicated that individuals were stationed defensively at a particular location, suggesting an organised attempt to hold a position. The declaration that the prisoner had no ‘goods or chattels’ meant that he possessed no identifiable movable property that could be seized to satisfy penalties or fines. Speculations The repeated emphasis on Bowyer’s position at the front of the group perhaps reflects an effort to establish him as the principal leader of the attempted attack. The testimonies describing persuasion and recruitment suggest that the conspiracy may have relied on active efforts to draw others into participation rather than broad spontaneous support. The finding that Bowyer possessed no goods or chattels may indicate either genuine poverty or the prior concealment or dispersal of property in anticipation of punishment. | |
131 | The Continuation of the Councill by Adjournmᵗ Present Joseph Clarke Junʳ was call’d and appeard. The Jury were called vizᵗ who all appeard and answered to their Names The Examination and confession of the Prisoner under Then upon Witnesses were called Thomas Spooner Surgeon Maurice Hunt Serjᵗ being sworn saith that [...] | A continuation of the Council proceedings by adjournment was held at Fort James on 24 December 1684, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Joseph Clarke Junior was called and appeared before the court. The jury was also called, consisting of Captain James Marnor, Captain John Wobrang, William Botes, Jonathan Dinfitt, Edward Mason, Henry Trotts, Andrew Phillips, Dodat[…] Barber, Giraol Hayes, Richard Honnywood, Henry Jackson and Ripe Wills, all of whom answered to their names. The written examination and confession previously attributed to Clarke was read aloud. He responded that he did not know anything contained within it and stated that he would continue to rely on the appeal he had made at his arraignment, refusing to plead in any other manner. Witnesses were then called. Thomas Spooner, surgeon, John Frith, corporal and Andrew Rooker […] were sworn. Each testified that they had seen Clarke on 21 October 1684 marching with a drawn sword in his hand alongside Bowyer at the head of the soldiers and townsmen who advanced towards Fort James. It was further stated that Clarke had thrown his sword during the march towards the sally port and had struck the door or wall of the sally port with it, also kicking at the gate in an attempt to break it open. Maurice Hunt, sergeant, was also sworn and began to give evidence that […]. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘arraignment’, ‘appeal’, ‘sally port’, ‘corporal’, ‘sergeant’, and the concept of refusing to plead. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The refusal to plead while maintaining an appeal to the King’s Bench reflected a legal strategy whereby the accused declined the jurisdiction of the local court, though such appeals were rarely effective in a colonial setting. The rank of ‘corporal’ indicated a junior non-commissioned officer responsible for discipline and small groups of soldiers, reflecting the structured hierarchy within the garrison. The ‘sally port’ was a fortified entrance designed for controlled access, and its mention in testimony indicates that it was a focal point of the attempted attack. Speculations The repetition of similar witness accounts perhaps suggests that the prosecution aimed to establish a consistent narrative of coordinated action at the fort. Clarke’s denial of his own confession may indicate either coercion during its taking or a deliberate attempt to repudiate earlier statements in hope of avoiding conviction. The emphasis on physical actions at the sally port suggests that the authorities considered direct assault on the fort’s entrance as key evidence of rebellion. | |
132 | Bowyers house, he found the said Clarke & severall The prisoner being demanded to plead, and make Then upon the Jury without going forth, gave their Joseph Owerman, was call’d, and appeared. The Jury all appeared and answered to their Names, And Witnesses were call’d but Colᵒ John Wobrang one Wᵐ Roe and Edward Emonds two planters being sworn Thomas Spooner Chirurgeon being sworn saith the John Frith Corporall being sworn saith that he Wᵐ Chappell souldᶦᵉ being sworn saith that he was | Further testimony was given concerning the actions of Joseph Clarke Junior and the continuation of proceedings on 24 December 1684. Maurice Hunt, sergeant, stated under oath that upon going to Bowyer’s house he had found Clarke and several other soldiers there, armed and attempting to force entry. It was reported that Clarke had cried out to those present that “you are slaves”. Hunt declared that he had then fired upon them and had taken Clarke prisoner along with other soldiers. Clarke was again required to plead and make his defence. He refused to do so and maintained his original appeal. The jury, without withdrawing, returned their verdict and found Clarke guilty in the same manner as William Bowyer. Joseph Owerman was then called and appeared before the court. The jury was again assembled and all members answered to their names. During the proceedings, Colonel John Wobrang, one of the jury, withdrew, and Daniel Ship Simon of the ship Royall James was sworn in to replace him. Witnesses were then called. William Roe and Edward Emonds, both free planters, testified that they had seen Owerman advancing with a drawn sword in his hand beside William Bowyer at the head of a large party of soldiers and townsmen moving towards Fort James and its sally port on 21 October 1684. They further stated that Joseph Clarke had been on the other side of Bowyer, also carrying a drawn sword. Thomas Spooner, surgeon, confirmed the same account and added that he had seen Owerman, along with others, attempting to force open the sally port of Fort James, despite orders from the Governor to desist and for the soldiers to enter the fort to preserve it from harm. John Frith, corporal, testified that he had seen Owerman marching with a drawn sword beside Bowyer at the head of the party that attempted to break open the sally port on 21 October 1684. William Chappell, a soldier, stated under oath that he had been among the group assembled with townsmen at about ten o’clock in Chapel Valley on that same day. He testified that he had seen Owerman leave the house there and march alongside Bowyer, armed with a drawn sword, leading a body of soldiers and townsmen towards Fort James. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘fired in upon them’, ‘drawn sword’, ‘replacement of a juror’, ‘sally port’, and the phrase “you are slaves”. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The phrase ‘fired in upon them’ indicated the discharge of firearms at close range, suggesting that armed resistance was actively used to suppress the advancing group. The reference to a ‘drawn sword’ signified readiness for combat, as the weapon had been unsheathed and held for immediate use. The replacement of a juror during proceedings demonstrates a flexible adaptation of formal trial procedures, allowing continuity despite the withdrawal of a member. The reported phrase “you are slaves” reflects the language of protest or defiance, possibly used to challenge authority or encourage resistance among those present. Speculations The repeated emphasis on individuals carrying drawn swords perhaps served to reinforce the perception of organised and deliberate armed rebellion. The substitution of a juror from the visiting ship may indicate the importance placed on maintaining the legitimacy and completeness of the court during a sensitive trial. The reference to the phrase spoken by Clarke may suggest that rhetoric played a role in motivating participants, indicating that the disturbance involved not only physical action but also attempts to influence others. | |
133 | And further saith that he heard the Governour to Maurice Hunt Serjᵗ being sworn saith that he Then the said Owerman’s Examination & confession And being asked what he had to say in his defence, he Thereupon the Jury without going forth gave in Robert Moore was brought to the Barr, who pleaded not Guilty The Jury answered all to their Names The said Moores Examination & confession under his Witnesses sworn, Andrew Rooker Armourer John Frith Corporall Andrew Rooker saith that he saw the said John Frith Corporall saith the same as the said [...] | Further evidence was presented in the case against Joseph Owerman. It was stated that the Governor had commanded those assembled beneath the fort to remain where they were, yet the group continued to advance towards the sally port. Owerman was described as being among those who moved forward in an attempt to force entry. Maurice Hunt, sergeant, testified that he had taken Owerman prisoner along with others at Bowyer’s house, where they had been found armed. Owerman’s earlier examination and written confession, made at the time of his first apprehension, was read aloud in court. He acknowledged that the contents were true. When asked to make a defence, he declined and referred himself to the judgement of the court and jury. The jury, without withdrawing, returned their verdict and found Owerman guilty of mutiny and rebellion as charged. Robert Moore was then brought before the court. He entered a plea of not guilty and placed himself upon trial. The jury was again called and answered to their names. Moore’s examination and written confession were read aloud, and he acknowledged them to be true. Witnesses were then sworn, including Andrew Rooker, armourer, John Frith, corporal, Thomas Spooner, surgeon and William Wells, gunner’s mate. Andrew Rooker testified that he had seen Moore armed among a group of soldiers and planters advancing towards Fort James on 21 October 1684. He further stated that when the Governor ordered the soldiers to enter the fort, he had heard Moore say that if Captain Holden, whom he called a traitor, was not delivered to them, they would take the others as well. Rooker stated that Moore then advanced with the rest towards the sally port. John Frith, corporal, confirmed the same account as the said […]. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘armourer’, ‘put himself upon trial’, ‘confession under his hand’, ‘sally port’, and the accusation of ‘traitor’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The role of ‘armourer’ referred to a specialist responsible for maintaining and issuing weapons, indicating that Rooker held a position connected with the management of arms within the garrison. The phrase ‘put himself upon trial’ denoted the formal acceptance of judgement by a jury, following a plea of not guilty. A ‘confession under his hand’ referred to a written statement signed by the accused, considered a formal and legally significant admission. The accusation of ‘traitor’ in this context reflected a charge of disloyalty to authority, used here as a form of protest or justification for rebellion rather than as a formal legal finding. Speculations The acknowledgement of written confessions by the accused may suggest that these statements carried significant weight in securing convictions. The repeated description of armed movement towards the fort perhaps indicates that the prosecution sought to establish a coordinated and deliberate attempt at rebellion. The accusation directed at Captain Holden may reflect internal grievances within the garrison, suggesting that personal or administrative disputes contributed to the unrest. | |
134 | Thomas Spooner Chirurgeon saith that he Wᵐ Wells Gunner Mate saith to the same purpose Further the said Wells saith that he asked the Then the said Moore was asked what he had But the said Moore putting himself upon the mercy Thereupon the Jury did immediately without going Then the Jury was discharged, and the Councill Memorand that a Copy of yᵉ Robᵗ Holden | Further evidence was given against Robert Moore. Thomas Spooner, surgeon, testified that he had seen Moore armed and positioned in the front rank of soldiers marching behind William Bowyer and the Counterpoise Jack towards Fort James on 21 October 1684. He stated that the Governor had commanded them all to halt and ordered the soldiers to enter the fort. Moore was reported to have replied that if Captain Holden, whom he called a traitor, was not delivered, they would take the others as traitors, declaring that they were all traitors. It was then stated that Moore marched with the whole party towards the sally port. William Wells, gunner’s mate, confirmed the same account. He stated that he had seen Moore at the same time and place and had heard him declare that he would not obey the Governor’s command. When ordered to enter the fort, Moore was said to have declared that they would take them out as traitors, after which he and the rest of the party advanced towards the sally port. Wells further testified that he had later asked Moore whether he had been present when he was wounded, and Moore had answered that he had been at the sally port of Fort James at that time. Moore was then asked to present his defence. He declined to contest the evidence and instead placed himself upon the mercy of the court and jury. The jury immediately returned their verdict without withdrawing, finding Moore guilty according to the indictment. The jury was then discharged, and the Council was adjourned. A memorandum recorded that a copy of the Council Book covering the period from 13 October 1684 to 24 December 1684 had been sent to the Honourable Company aboard the ship Royall James, commanded by Captain Samuel Marriner. The document was signed by Robert Holden and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘Counterpoise Jack’, ‘front rank’, ‘putting himself upon the mercy of the Bench’, and ‘Council Book’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘Counterpoise Jack’ is unclear but appears to refer to a flag or emblem carried by the group, perhaps serving as a symbolic or organisational marker during their march. The ‘front rank’ indicated the leading line of soldiers in formation, signifying Moore’s prominent and active role in the advance. The phrase ‘putting himself upon the mercy of the Bench’ meant that the accused abandoned any formal defence and submitted himself to the judgement and leniency of the court. The ‘Council Book’ referred to the official record in which proceedings and decisions of the Governor and Council were entered, serving as a formal administrative and legal record. Speculations The repeated mention of defiance against the Governor’s direct orders perhaps reflects the seriousness with which the authorities regarded the breakdown of military discipline. The presence of a flag or symbolic marker such as the ‘Counterpoise Jack’ may indicate that the group acted with some degree of organisation and shared identity. The rapid delivery of verdicts without jury withdrawal suggests that the evidence was considered overwhelming or that the proceedings were intended to be swift in the aftermath of the mutiny. | |
135 | Island St Att a Councill held on tuesday 30ᵗʰ of Present Bl[ack]more Governoʳ Upon Considerac[i]on of the Verdict of 12 Men upon the It is Ordered That on Fryday next the 2ᵈ of January the sd Whereas Thomas Spooner Chirurgeon hath [... ] It is Ordered That Henry Manning souldᶦʳ (who hath bin Adjourned until Fryday Robᵗ Holden | A Council was held at Fort James on 30 December 1684, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Consideration was given to the verdict delivered by a jury of 12 men in the trials of William Bowyer, Joseph Clarke Junior, Joseph Onswoman and Robert Moore, all soldiers, who had been found guilty of mutiny and […]. It was ordered that on Friday 2 January 1685 these persons should receive sentence of death according to […]. Attention was then given to Thomas Spooner, surgeon, who had obtained leave and requested permission to depart on board the ship Royall James, commanded by Captain James Marriner. Approval was granted for his departure. In consequence, Henry Manning, a soldier who had previously served as a surgeon’s mate to the said Captain in the Honourable Company’s service, was admitted on trial to serve as surgeon in Spooner’s place on the island. It was ordered that he should receive 30s per month together with his diet at the Governor’s table while stationed at the fort, with his appointment to commence on Thursday 1 January 1685. It was further directed that the Company’s chest of medicines, together with all associated items previously held by Spooner, should be delivered into Manning’s custody. A full account of the items received was to be made, and a receipt provided. The Council was then adjourned until Friday 2 January 1685, and the record was signed by Robert Holden and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘sentence of death’, ‘surgeon’s mate’, ‘diet at the Governor’s table’, ‘chest of medicaments’, and the payment of 30s per month. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The phrase ‘sentence of death’ referred to the formal judicial punishment imposed following conviction for serious offences such as mutiny, reflecting the strict military discipline enforced on the island. The role of ‘surgeon’s mate’ indicated a trained assistant to a surgeon, often responsible for basic medical duties and capable of stepping into the principal role when required. The provision of ‘diet at the Governor’s table’ signified that the individual would receive meals as part of his employment, indicating both practical support and a degree of status within the settlement. The ‘chest of medicaments’ referred to a secured collection of medicines and medical instruments belonging to the Company, essential for treating illness and injury among the garrison and inhabitants. Speculations The swift progression from verdict to sentencing perhaps reflects the urgency with which the authorities sought to restore order following the mutiny. The appointment of a replacement surgeon immediately after Spooner’s departure suggests that maintaining medical provision for the garrison was considered a priority. The transfer of the Company’s medical supplies under formal accounting procedures may indicate concerns about proper management and accountability following the recent unrest. | |
136 | Island St Att a Councill held on Friday yᵉ 2ᵈ of Present Bl[ac]kmore Governour Wᵐ Bowyer was by Comand brought, and being asked The said Bowyer answered he stood to the appeale he Then sentence of death was pronounced, that he should He thereupon said that he had recᵈ his [ ] Joseph Clarke Junʳ was also brought, and had the Then the same Sentence was pronounced upon him as Joseph Onswoman was also brought & was likewise Then the same Sentence was pronounced upon him as the Robt Moore was likewise brought & demanded also Ordered That the Councill be held at Fort James on Monday Adjourned untill monday Robᵗ Holden | A Council was held at Fort James on 2 January 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. William Bowyer was brought before the court by command and was asked what he had to say as to why sentence of death should not be passed upon him. He replied that he stood by the appeal he had made at his trial and arraignment. Sentence of death was then pronounced, ordering that he should be drawn from the place where he stood to the place from which he came, and from there to the place appointed for execution, where he was to be hanged until he was dead. Bowyer then declared that he had received his […] charter to the Honourable Company, and that he was not in a condition […] or agreed to them therein. Joseph Clarke Junior was then brought forward and asked the same question. He replied that he stood by his appeal as Bowyer had done at his arraignment. The same sentence of death was pronounced upon him. Joseph Onswoman was also brought and asked what he had to say. He requested the favour of the court, yet the same sentence of death was pronounced upon him as upon the two previous men. Robert Moore was then brought forward and likewise questioned. He asked for mercy and favour from the court. The same sentence of death was passed upon him as upon the other three. It was ordered that a further Council should be held at Fort James on Monday 12 January 1685 for the trial of Captᶰ […]. The proceedings were then adjourned until that date, and the record was signed by Robert Holden and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘drawn from thence’, ‘appeal’, ‘sentence of death’, ‘charter’, and the form of execution described. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The phrase ‘drawn from thence’ referred to the formal process of leading or transporting a condemned prisoner from the place of judgement to the place of execution, forming part of the ritual of capital punishment. The continued reliance on an ‘appeal’ to the King’s Bench indicated the prisoners’ refusal to recognise the authority of the island court, although such appeals were rarely effective in practice. The mention of a ‘charter’ suggests that Bowyer may have been referring to a contractual or legal agreement governing his service to the Company, which he believed affected his liability or treatment. Speculations The uniform application of the death sentence to all four men perhaps reflects a determination by the authorities to make a strong example following the mutiny. The differing responses of the prisoners, with some maintaining appeals and others requesting mercy, may indicate varying expectations about the possibility of clemency. The reference to a charter by Bowyer suggests that some participants may have believed that their contractual status offered protection or justification for their actions, even if this was not accepted by the court. | |
137 | Island St Att a Councill held on Monday yᵉ 5ᵗʰ of Present John Blackmore Governour Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to visit It is Ordered That a Warrᵗ be drawn and signed to Restrain Robᵗ Holden | A Council was held at Fort James on 5 January 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Consideration was given to the condition of the Governor’s wife, who had been afflicted with a prolonged and severe illness and was reported to be near death, with the expectation that she might die that same day. This circumstance coincided with the time appointed for carrying out the sentences of death upon some of the recently condemned persons. In light of this situation, together with other significant considerations, it was ordered that a warrant should be drawn and signed directing Taylor, the Marshal, to suspend and delay the execution of those prisoners for whom he had already received authority to proceed. The executions were to be halted until further order. The record was signed by Robert Holden and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘Marshal’, ‘warrant’, ‘precept’, and the suspension of execution. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The office of ‘Marshal’ referred to the official responsible for carrying out judicial orders, including the custody of prisoners and the execution of sentences. A ‘precept’ in this context was a formal written order authorising the execution of a legal judgement, particularly the carrying out of capital punishment. Speculations The decision to suspend executions at this moment perhaps reflects sensitivity to the Governor’s personal circumstances, suggesting that public punishment might have been considered inappropriate during a time of domestic crisis. The reference to other unspecified considerations may indicate additional concerns, possibly relating to order, morale or the broader situation following the recent mutiny. | |
138 | Island St Att a Consu[lt]ation held on Thursday Present John Blackmore Governour Wᵐ Archibald Marriner having bin absented on the It is Ordered That the said Wᵐ Archibald have a lycense And It is further Ordered That Richard Beale the Chiefe Steward of Capᵗ Upon further consideration of the 4 condemned prisoners It is Ordered That the said Joseph Onswoman and Robert Moore | A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 January 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. William Archibald, described as a mariner, had previously been ordered in May 1684 to leave the island on the first ship arriving with slaves around Christmas. Having remained on the island and now appearing before the Council, he requested permission to depart aboard the ship Jonat and Mary, commanded by Captain John […]. It was ordered that he be granted a licence to leave the island on that vessel, which was bound for Barbados. It was further ordered that Richard Beale, chief steward to Captain Anthony Beale, be granted a licence to depart for England aboard the ship Honour, commanded by Captain […]. This permission was granted on the condition that he should not carry any letters, papers or manuscripts without first presenting them to the Governor for inspection before boarding. Further consideration was given to the four condemned prisoners, namely William Bowyer, Joseph Clarke Junior, Joseph Onswoman and Robert Moore. It was ordered that Joseph Onswoman and Robert Moore should be banished from the island permanently and never permitted to return, on pain of death. It was directed that they be transported to Barbados aboard the ship Jonat and Mary, commanded by Captain John […], which was then anchored in the road and preparing to sail for that destination. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘banished’, ‘transported’, ‘chief steward’, ‘licence’, and the restriction on carrying papers. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘banished’ indicated formal expulsion from the island, with a permanent prohibition on return, enforced under threat of capital punishment. The concept of being ‘transported’ referred to enforced removal to another colony, in this case Barbados, as an alternative to execution. The role of ‘chief steward’ denoted a senior servant responsible for managing provisions and domestic arrangements aboard a ship or within a household, indicating a position of trust. Speculations The decision to commute the sentences of Onswoman and Moore to banishment rather than execution perhaps reflects a shift towards moderation following the earlier suspension of executions. The requirement that outgoing individuals submit all papers for inspection suggests concern over the transmission of information, possibly in relation to the recent mutiny. The use of Barbados as a destination for banishment may indicate established routes of removal within the Company’s wider network of colonies and trade connections. | |
139 | It is likewise Ordered That Allan Dawson the first upon Moore and Further It is Ordered & appointed That a Councill be held on Monday next yᵉ 19ᵗʰ Memorand that the Copy of the Island St Att a Councill held on Monday yᵉ 19ᵗʰ of Present John Blackmore Governour Joseph Clarke Junʳ and James Johnson were called Then the persons that had bin warned to be of the Aaron Phillips chiefe Gunner Thomas Harding who all appeared and answered to their names & they were all | Further orders were made during the consultation held on 15 January 1685. It was directed that Allan Dawson, described as the principal instigator of Moore and Onswoman in the recent insurrection and mutiny, should also be banished from the island permanently and never permitted to return on pain of death. It was ordered that he be transported to Barbados aboard the ship Jonat and Mary. A further order appointed that a Council should be held at Fort James on Monday 19 January 1685 for the trial of Joseph Clarke Junior, James Johnson, Thomas Browne and Samuel Cal[…]e, all formerly soldiers and involved in the recent mutiny. A memorandum recorded that a copy of the Council Book covering the period from 30 December 1684 to 15 January 1685 had been sent to the Honourable Company aboard the ship Honour, commanded by Captain George […]son. A Council was then held at Fort James on 19 January 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Joseph Clarke Junior and James Johnson were called and brought to the bar. Persons previously warned to serve as jurors were then called, namely Aaron Phillips, chief gunner, Henry Manning, surgeon, Maurice Hunt, sergeant, John Forde, corporal, William Wells, gunner’s mate, Thomas Gooding, quartermaster, Thomas Harding, John Blake, John Worrall, Daniel Chappell, John Manclo and Ralph Spires. All appeared and answered to their names. They were empanelled as a jury, Aaron Phillips being appointed foreman, and all were sworn. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘principal instigator’, ‘empanelled’, ‘foreman’, ‘bar’, and the composition of the jury. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The description of Allan Dawson as the ‘principal instigator’ indicated that he was considered the main individual responsible for encouraging or directing the actions of others in the mutiny. The term ‘empanelled’ referred to the formal selection and acceptance of individuals to serve as jurors in a trial. The role of ‘foreman’ denoted the leading member of the jury, responsible for delivering the verdict on behalf of the group. The ‘bar’ referred to the place within the court where the accused stood during proceedings, symbolising their submission to judgement. Speculations The continued use of banishment alongside execution may suggest that the authorities were balancing punishment with practical considerations such as labour needs or maintaining order. The careful selection and formal swearing of jurors perhaps reflects an effort to maintain procedural legitimacy in the handling of multiple trials following the mutiny. The inclusion of individuals from both military and skilled roles within the jury may indicate an attempt to ensure a representative and authoritative body for judgement. | |
140 | Joseph Clarke Junʳ and James Johnson being brought up their Joseph Clarke was asked whether he was guilty or James Johnson was likewise asked the same question Then both the said Clarkes and Johnsons confessions Thomas Browne and Samuel Callis were brought to Thomas Browne being asked whether guilty or not Then his Examination & confession subscribed by himself Browne before mentioned who pleaded not guilty Then his Examination & Confession subscribed by himself And, | Proceedings continued at Fort James on 19 January 1685 with the trial of additional prisoners involved in the recent insurrection and mutiny. Joseph Clarke Junior and James Johnson were brought forward and formally arraigned. They were indicted for participation in the late rebellion against the government of the island, and specifically for attempting, together with others, to break into and seize Fort James by force of arms. Clarke was asked whether he was guilty or not guilty. He confessed that he was guilty and requested pardon. Johnson was then asked the same question. He likewise confessed his guilt and sought pardon. The written examinations and confessions of both Clarke and Johnson, previously subscribed by them, were then read aloud in court. Each acknowledged that the contents were true and, upon being sworn, affirmed the truth of those statements under oath in the presence of the Governor, Council and jury. Both prisoners were then removed from the court. Thomas Browne and Samuel Callis were then brought to the bar and arraigned. They were indicted for participation in the same insurrection and mutiny against the government. Browne was asked whether he was guilty or not guilty. He initially answered that he was not guilty and placed himself upon trial by God and his country. His written examination and confession, which he had previously signed, was then shown to him and read aloud in court. He acknowledged that the contents were true and, upon being sworn, confirmed under oath before the Governor, Council and jury that the statements contained within it were accurate. The process was repeated, and Browne again acknowledged his confession as true, affirming under oath that the contents of his examination and confession represented the truth in full. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘arraigned’, ‘indicted’, ‘put himself upon trial of God and his country’, ‘confession under his hand’, and the repetition of sworn confirmation. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘arraigned’ referred to the formal presentation of charges against an accused person in court, requiring them to respond to the indictment. An ‘indictment’ represented the formal accusation of a serious offence, setting out the charges to be answered by the accused. The phrase ‘put himself upon trial of God and his country’ indicated acceptance of trial by jury, with the verdict entrusted to the judgement of fellow men under the perceived authority of divine justice. A ‘confession under his hand’ denoted a written statement signed by the accused, regarded as a formal admission of guilt or involvement. Speculations The willingness of several prisoners to confess and seek pardon perhaps suggests that they anticipated leniency compared to those previously sentenced to death. The repeated reading and affirmation of confessions may indicate the importance placed on documented admissions in securing convictions. The initial plea of not guilty by Browne, followed by confirmation of his confession, could reflect uncertainty or hesitation in the face of formal proceedings rather than a consistent defence. | |
141 | And further Wᵐ Browne s[ol]d[i]er his Examination under his Then more Witnesses were named and about to be called but The Prisoner was all asked, and ask if they had any Then the Jury withdrew for about one quarter of an The four Prisoners were sett to the Barre Answered yes, Who shall speak for you? The Foreman. Joseph Clarke Junʳ was asked, and the Jury was They answered guilty. Who hath he have any goods or Chattells to The same Questions were put to the Jury for the other Adjourned until A B Wilkins | Further proceedings were conducted at Fort James on 19 January 1685 concerning the trials of Joseph Clarke Junior, James Johnson, Thomas Browne and Samuel Callis. An additional examination of William Browne, a soldier, was read aloud. This statement closely corresponded with the earlier examination and confession of Clarke, reinforcing the account already presented. Further witnesses were prepared to be called, but the jury requested that no additional testimony be heard, stating that the matter appeared sufficiently clear without it. Each of the prisoners was then asked whether they had anything further to say or any witnesses to present in their defence. All declared that they had no witnesses and nothing further to offer, except to request mercy. The jury then withdrew for approximately a quarter of an hour. Upon returning, they were called and all answered to their names. The four prisoners were brought again to the bar, and the jury was asked whether they had reached a verdict. They confirmed that they had, and the foreman spoke on their behalf. Joseph Clarke Junior was first considered. The jury was asked whether they found him guilty or not guilty of the indictment, and they answered that he was guilty. When asked whether he possessed any goods or chattels to satisfy judgement, they stated that they knew of none. The same questions were then put regarding James Johnson, Thomas Browne and Samuel Callis. The jury found each of them guilty of their respective indictments. The proceedings were then adjourned until Monday 20 January 1685. The record was signed by A. B. Wilkins, Robert Dolben and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘goods or chattels’, ‘foreman’, ‘withdrawing of the jury’, and the refusal to call further witnesses. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The statement that the prisoners had no ‘goods or chattels’ indicated that they possessed no identifiable movable property that could be seized to satisfy penalties or financial obligations. The role of the ‘foreman’ of the jury involved delivering the collective decision of the jurors in court. The withdrawal of the jury referred to the period during which jurors retired to consider their verdict in private before returning to announce their decision. Speculations The jury’s decision to decline further witnesses perhaps suggests that the confessions already presented were considered decisive and sufficient to establish guilt. The uniform verdicts of guilt may indicate that the court proceedings were influenced heavily by prior admissions rather than contested evidence. The repeated requests for mercy by the prisoners suggest an expectation that cooperation might result in reduced punishment compared to those previously sentenced. | |
142 | Island St At a Council held on Tuesday yᵗʰ 20ᵗʰ Present Joseph Clarke Junʳ James Johnson Thomas The said persons answered that they had nothing Then upon they and every one of them had severally You Joseph Clarke the Elder, you James Johnson you Then the Prisoners were removed, and the Jury dismissed Then some other reason was had about the four It is Ordered That the said Joseph Clarke Junʳ James It is further Ordered that Allen Dennison | A Council was held at Fort James on 20 January 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Joseph Clarke Junior, James Johnson, Thomas Browne and Samuel Callis were each brought before the court and asked what they had to say as to why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon them. Each of them replied that they had nothing to say and referred themselves to the mercy of the Governor and Council. Sentence of death was then pronounced separately upon each of them. The judgement declared that they should be carried from the place of judgement to the place from which they came, and from there to the place appointed for execution, where they were to be hanged by the neck until dead. The prisoners were then removed, and the jury was dismissed. Further discussion was held concerning these four condemned men. It was ordered that Joseph Clarke Junior, James Johnson, Thomas Browne and Samuel Callis should be banished from the island permanently and should never return upon pain of death. It was further directed that they be immediately placed aboard the ship John and Mary, commanded by Captain John Brett, then lying in the road before Fort James and bound for Barbados, to be transported there. It was also ordered that the expenses of their banishment should be recorded and that a formal order be drawn and signed by the Governor and Council, bearing the Company’s seal, instructing the ship’s commander to convey these men together with Joseph Onswoman and Robert Moore, who had previously been condemned and ordered for transportation in the consultation held earlier that month. A further order, noted in the margin, directed that Allan Dennison, described as the person who had openly spoken in a manner opposing the jurisdiction and authority of the island’s government, should likewise be banished permanently. He was to be immediately placed aboard the same ship John and Mary and transported to Barbados along with the other six prisoners. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘sentence of death’, ‘banishment’, ‘transportation’, ‘Company’s seal’, and ‘jurisdiction and authority’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The use of ‘banishment’ in this context indicated permanent expulsion from the island, enforced under threat of execution if the individual returned. The term ‘transportation’ referred to the enforced removal of offenders to another colony, here Barbados, as an alternative to execution. The ‘Company’s seal’ signified official authentication of documents issued by the governing authority, giving legal force to the order. The reference to ‘jurisdiction and authority’ concerned the recognised legal power of the island’s government to administer justice and enforce its decisions. Speculations The repeated commutation of death sentences to banishment suggests that the authorities perhaps sought to reduce the number of executions while still removing those considered dangerous. The grouping of multiple prisoners for transportation on a single vessel indicates a coordinated effort to clear the island of those involved in the mutiny. The inclusion of Allan Dennison for statements against authority suggests that verbal opposition, as well as direct participation, was treated as a serious threat in the aftermath of the rebellion. | |
143 | Island St Information being given on Sunday yᵗʰ 18ᵗʰ of this Accordingly the said Chirurgeon went into the said place These are to Certify you, Worships, That this present day Daniell Collins Josiah Shalesworth Robᵗ [D]y[ ] A B Wilkins | Information was received on Sunday 18 January 1685 that William, the son of William H[…], a child of about six years of age whose father had recently departed from the island, had been found dead the previous day in the woods at Pa[…]. Henry Manning, surgeon, was immediately sent to the location to examine the body and to summon as many witnesses as could be gathered. He was instructed to determine the cause and manner of the child’s death. Manning proceeded to the place and assembled several persons who were available. Together they examined the body and made enquiries into the circumstances of the death. A certificate was subsequently issued under their hands, the substance of which was recorded. The certificate stated that on 18 January 1685 the undersigned individuals had viewed the body of the child, William H[…], who had recently been living with Edward Sa[…], described as a farmer and planter. It was observed that the child’s left leg, left arm and the left side of his face and head had been severely bruised. From the information gathered and the surrounding circumstances, it was concluded that a log of timber had been lying on the edge of a bank in the woods. It was believed that the child had been playing upon or near the log and had either stepped upon it or slipped. The log was then thought to have fallen, carrying the child down with it. The child had come to rest beneath the log, which had crushed and bruised the left side of his body as described, causing his death. The certificate was signed by Daniel Collins, Josiah Shalesworth, Robert D[…]y[…], George Snedden, Hugh Bodley, Thomas B[…], Henry Hersey, John Rowlesby, John Smith, Thomas Goodlake, Richard […], A. B. Wilkins, Robert Dolben and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘certificate’, ‘view of the body’, ‘circumstantial evidence’, and the involvement of multiple witnesses in determining cause of death. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The issuance of a ‘certificate’ in this context represented a formal written statement recording the findings of those who examined the body, serving as an official account of the cause of death. The phrase ‘view of the body’ referred to the physical inspection of the deceased by appointed individuals, a practice used to establish observable facts before reaching a conclusion. The reliance on ‘circumstances’ indicated that the determination of cause of death was based on observable evidence and witness information rather than direct observation of the event itself. Speculations The involvement of numerous witnesses in examining the body perhaps reflects an effort to ensure that the conclusion of accidental death was widely accepted and not subject to dispute. The detailed description of the injuries and surroundings suggests that the authorities were concerned to rule out foul play in a small and closely connected community. The formal recording of the incident indicates the importance placed on documenting even accidental deaths within the administrative framework of the island. | |
144 | Island St Att A Councill held on Monday yᵗʰ 26ᵗʰ of Present W[he]reas att a Councill held the [ ] of this It is now Ordered That a warrant be drawne signed and Further Whereas a guard of Souldiers that are It is Ordered That John Goodwin a young man of a [...] | A Council was held at Fort James on 26 January 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Reference was made to a previous Council held earlier in January, at which an order had been issued for a warrant to be drawn and signed directing Captain Taylor, Marshal, to suspend and delay the execution of certain condemned persons whose execution had been scheduled for that day, pending further order. Among those named in that earlier order were William Bowyer and Joseph Clarke Junior. A new order was now issued directing that a warrant be drawn, signed and delivered to Captain Taylor, Marshal, instructing him that on Saturday 31 January 1685 he was to take William Bowyer and Joseph Clarke Junior to the appointed place of execution and there cause them to be hanged by the neck until they were dead. Further consideration was given to the condition of the garrison. It was noted that the soldiers on guard duty had recently been heavily burdened, particularly as a result of the recent mutiny and rebellion. Guarding responsibilities at the various lookout posts and outlying fortifications around Fort James had been strictly maintained, with a large number of sentries posted, especially during the night and in greater numbers than usual. It was ordered that John Goodwin, described as a young man of about 18 years of age, should be assigned […]. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘Marshal’, ‘warrant’, ‘sentries’, ‘look outs’, and ‘out fortifications’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The role of ‘Marshal’ referred to the official responsible for carrying out judicial sentences, including executions and the custody of prisoners. The posting of ‘sentries’ indicated soldiers assigned to stand guard at fixed positions, responsible for maintaining vigilance and security. ‘Look outs’ referred to elevated or strategic observation points used to monitor approaches to the fort and surrounding areas. ‘Out fortifications’ denoted defensive structures located beyond the main fort, forming part of the wider defensive network. Speculations The reinstatement of execution orders after an earlier suspension perhaps reflects a return to stricter enforcement once immediate personal or situational concerns had passed. The emphasis on increased guard duties suggests that the authorities remained concerned about further unrest following the recent mutiny. The reference to assigning a young man to duties may indicate a need to reinforce the garrison due to the strain placed on existing personnel. | |
145 | [...] so hee now is required to pay the residue And It is further Ordered That George Browne aged about 18 a lusty Adjourned untill A B Wilkins | Further orders were issued during the Council held at Fort James on 26 January 1685. Reference was made to a prior obligation for payment, by which a sum had been ordered to be settled by the end of December 1684. It was noted that a portion had already been paid from 1 January to 21 January 1685, and Captain Holden was directed to continue making payment accordingly until further order. It was further ordered that George Browne, described as about 18 years of age, a strong young man and the son of Thomas Browne, formerly a blacksmith in England and now resident on the island, should be taken into the service of the Honourable Company. It was recorded that he had some familiarity with commerce within the Company’s service. He was to be received as a soldier from Thursday 20 January 1685 inclusive, and was to receive the clothing and pay appropriate to that role from that date until further order. Joseph Holden was directed to provide these accordingly. The Council was then adjourned until Monday 2 February 1685. The record was signed by A. B. Wilkins, Robert Dolben and Gregory Field. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘residue’, ‘commerce’, ‘Company’s pay’, and ‘clothing and pay of a soldier’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘residue’ referred to the remaining balance of a sum that had not yet been paid following partial settlement. The mention of ‘commerce’ in this context suggested prior experience or involvement in trading or Company-related activity, indicating familiarity with its operations. The phrase ‘Company’s pay’ denoted formal employment under the Honourable Company, including entitlement to wages and provisions. The provision of ‘clothing and pay of a soldier’ reflected standard practice whereby enlisted men were supplied with both uniform and wages as part of their service. Speculations The continuation of payment arrangements perhaps indicates ongoing administrative efforts to settle outstanding accounts following recent disruptions. The recruitment of a young man into military service may suggest a need to replenish the garrison after the removal or execution of those involved in the mutiny. The reference to his familiarity with Company commerce may imply that practical experience was valued alongside physical capability in selecting new soldiers. | |
146 | Island St Helena Att A Councill held on Munday yᵉ 9ᵗʰ Present Whereas there is a house and ten acres of a Upon full consideration of particulars One Ordered That he have a Lease of ten acres of land for 5 yeares And in the meane time to have the | A Council was held at Fort James on 9 February 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Consideration was given to a house and ten acres of land that had recently been forfeited to the Honourable Company. These had formerly belonged to Joseph […] Bowman, who had served for a long period as a soldier in the Company’s pay and service but had recently departed for England without licence and had been involved in […] mutiny. The land was described as lying above the high-water mark near Peak Hill and as being barren ground, formerly associated with John […] Freeland and […] Charles, who was deceased, leaving behind his widow and […]. An application had been made by a man described as having a wife and two children and living in modest circumstances. He requested permission to occupy the premises so that he might support himself and his family. He sought leave to reside in the house and to cultivate approximately one and a half acres of the land, which had previously been fenced and planted, offering to pay a reasonable rent for a fixed term. Upon full consideration of the matter, it was ordered that a lease of the ten acres be granted for a term of five years and three quarters, commencing on 25 March 1685. The rent was set at 40s per annum, to be paid at the end of every half year. It was further directed that, in the meantime, the applicant should be granted possession and benefit of the premises, provided that he gave sufficient security […] as a condition of good behaviour. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘forfeited’, ‘lease’, ‘high-water mark’, ‘security’, and ‘good behaviour’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘forfeited’ indicated that the property had been seized by the Company due to the former holder’s actions, in this case departure without licence and involvement in mutiny. A ‘lease’ referred to a formal agreement granting the right to use land for a specified period in return for payment of rent. The requirement for ‘security’ in this context meant that the tenant was obliged to provide assurance, often in the form of a bond or guarantor, to ensure compliance with conditions. The condition of ‘good behaviour’ reflected a legal obligation to maintain lawful conduct, with potential penalties if breached. Speculations The reassignment of forfeited land perhaps indicates an effort by the authorities to ensure that property remained productive and under control following the mutiny. The granting of land to a family of modest means may suggest a policy of encouraging stable settlement and agricultural use of otherwise neglected land. The requirement for security and good behaviour may reflect ongoing concerns about maintaining order in the aftermath of recent unrest. | |
147 | Deodatus Barker complained of mathew Bowne Mathew Bowne being denyed the whole accusation [...] the wᶜʰ aforesd [...]. [...] Barker being sworne saith that upon Upon serious consideration It is Ordered. That the sd Mathew Bowne be immediately That he do stand committed unto Doe Barker That he be fined 100£ sterling to the Honᵇˡ And that he be bound to his good behaviour in That he stand bound to keep the peace towards his After a very long hearing of a complaint of Tho: | A complaint was brought by Deodatus Barker against Matthew Bowne, accusing him of defaming and scandalising him, and of speaking in a manner that reflected poorly upon and undervalued the government of the island, which had been entrusted to the Honourable Company, Lords Proprietors. Matthew Bowne denied the full accusation but admitted that he had heard that […] had a wife in England. Witnesses, being free planters and sworn, testified that they had heard Bowne say that Barker had a wife there and that he had used insulting language, including telling him to go home to his wife in England. Additional testimony confirmed that Bowne had repeated such remarks on the island. Deodatus Barker, being sworn, stated that following these remarks he had sought satisfaction from Bowne for the injury done to him. He declared that Bowne had responded insolently and had asserted that no justice was to be had on the island. It was further reported that Bowne had declared that he did not recognise Captain Holden or Captain Creagh as having authority there, or words to that effect. Upon serious consideration of the matter, it was ordered that Matthew Bowne be immediately committed to prison. It was further ordered that on Thursday next he should receive 39 lashes upon his naked body at the flagstaff in Fort James. He was also to remain committed in relation to Barker’s complaint for defamation. A fine of £100 sterling was imposed upon him to the use of the Honourable Company, for his actions in undervaluing the government of the island. He was further required to enter into a bond of £10 for his good behaviour, with two sufficient sureties each bound in £20 for a term of one year from Monday […] instant. He was also required to be bound to keep the peace towards Barker. After this matter, a further complaint was heard at length, brought by Thomas Brown against Thomas Belson for non-payment of a bond of £48 in money, and consideration was given to the arguments presented […]. Candidate terms and items identified for review included ‘scandalising’, ‘defamation’, ‘39 lashes’, ‘bond’, ‘sureties’, ‘good behaviour’, and ‘keeping the peace’. Only those requiring further explanation have been included below. Interpretations The term ‘scandalising’ referred to making statements that damaged another person’s reputation, often treated as a serious offence in small communities. The punishment of ‘39 lashes’ was a corporal penalty commonly imposed for offences involving disorder or disrespect towards authority. A ‘bond’ in this context represented a formal financial obligation, enforceable by law, intended to ensure compliance with specified conditions. ‘Sureties’ were individuals who guaranteed the conduct of another person, becoming liable for payment if the conditions of the bond were breached. The requirement of ‘good behaviour’ imposed a legal obligation to avoid further misconduct, while ‘keeping the peace’ required the individual to refrain from causing disturbance or harm, particularly towards the complainant. Speculations The severity of the punishment imposed on Bowne perhaps reflects the authorities’ heightened sensitivity to criticism following the recent mutiny. The large financial penalty suggests that statements challenging the legitimacy of the government were treated as a significant threat to order. The requirement for sureties indicates that the authorities sought not only to punish past behaviour but also to ensure continued compliance through social and financial pressure. | |
148 | [...] could say who severall witnesses on the It is Ordered by and with both their consents That the wrongs matters in difference betwixt Henry Coales free planter complained of Isaack Isaack Leach confesseth he was two nights at ye John Coales free planter saith that he & Tho: Coales the father of Henry Coales Bridget another daughter of sd Henry | A complaint was brought by Deodatus Barker against Matthew Bowne, accusing him of defaming him and speaking in a manner that reflected poorly upon and undervalued the government of the island, which had been entrusted to the Honourable Company, Lords Proprietors. Matthew Bowne denied the full accusation but admitted that he had heard that […] had a wife in England. Witnesses, being free planters and sworn, testified that they had heard Bowne say that Barker had a wife there and that he had used insulting language, including telling him to go home to his wife in England. Further testimony confirmed that such remarks had been repeated on the island. Deodatus Barker, being sworn, stated that after these remarks he had sought satisfaction from Bowne for the injury done to him. It was declared that Bowne had responded insolently and had asserted that no justice was to be had on the island. He was also reported to have said that he did not recognise Captain Holden or Captain Creagh as having authority there, or words to that effect. Upon serious consideration of the matter, it was ordered that Matthew Bowne be immediately committed to prison. It was further ordered that on Thursday next he should receive 39 lashes upon his naked body at the flagstaff in Fort James. He was also to remain committed in relation to Barker’s complaint. A fine of £100 sterling was imposed upon him to the use of the Honourable Company for speaking against the government of the island. He was further required to enter into a bond of £10 for his good behaviour, with two sufficient sureties each bound in £20 for a term of one year from Monday […] instant. He was also required to be bound to keep the peace towards Barker. After this, a complaint brought by Thomas Brown against Thomas Belson for non-payment of a bond of £48 was heard at length, and consideration was given to the arguments presented […]. | |
149 | came in againe, went to ye Bed, and began to lye The sd Leach saith that he and the foresaid The Coales saith that they did lye downe on ye bed Henry Coales further complaineth of the sd Francis [...] saith that one night about twelve [...] Rides & Jo: Pile free planters Upon very serious deliberate consideration | Further evidence was given in the complaint concerning Isaac Leach and Mary Coales. It was stated that Leach returned to the room, went to the bed and lay down beside Mary Coales, while her sister was also lying with her. It was said that Leach knew she was asleep. Shortly afterwards he himself went to bed. Leach stated that he and Mary Coales lay down together to sleep. She stated that they did lie down together, that she fell asleep immediately, and that Leach might then have risen and gone away again without being heard by her sister. Henry Coales further complained that Leach had damaged his daughter’s reputation in several places by saying that he had lain with her and that she had not been a virgin before he had had use of her body. Francis […] stated that one night, about midnight, when Leach’s wife was lying in bed, she believed her husband had come to her. She took no notice and fell asleep. After a short time she awoke and found that someone had had sexual relations with her, she having thought it was her husband. […] Rides and John Pile, free planters, stated separately that Leach had spoken of this matter to the girl’s mother and had openly said that he had had sexual relations with Mary Coales. It was also reported that he had spoken of it at length in Joseph […]’s house in the presence of others, and again in John Coales’s house before additional witnesses. After careful consideration of all the evidence and circumstances, attention was drawn to Leach’s offensive manner of speaking about the act and to his previous behaviour in speaking badly of others. Candidate terms and phrases were reviewed. No terms were identified that required further explanation for an educated reader. Speculations The emphasis placed on Leach’s repeated statements perhaps reflects how damaging such talk was within a small community, where reputation could affect both family standing and social order. | |
150 | It is Ordered That the said Leach be immediately Comitted Complaint being made of Martha [...] The sd Martha denyed the accusation Tho: [...] being sworn saith that James Hand soldier being sworn saith | It was ordered that Isaac Leach be immediately committed to prison. It was further directed that on Thursday 5 February 1685 he should receive 39 lashes upon his naked body at the flagstaff in Fort James. He was required to cease repeating the accusations against Mary Coales and, having failed to prove them and being at that time on the point of marriage, to make satisfaction to John Coales for the offence for which he stood convicted. He was also required to enter into a bond of £20 for his good behaviour, with two sufficient sureties each bound in £40, from Monday 9 February 1685. All of these conditions were to be fulfilled before his release from imprisonment. A complaint was then brought against Martha […] the wife of Thomas Bal[…], a free planter, for speaking slanderous, reproachful and insulting words against the government and for discouraging others from settling and living on the island. Martha denied the accusation. Thomas […] being sworn stated that he had heard her recently speak in bitter terms against the Honourable Company, Lords Proprietors, and that she had called the Governor a base man and an impostor. He further stated that she had said that those present had come like a company of rogues and beggars. James Hand, a soldier, being sworn, stated that on Saturday 3 February 1685 he had heard Martha speak these words within the fort, in the guardhouse. He added that she had also called Captain Holden a knavish man, and had said that if she and her husband went to England they would complain to the King. It was noted that these words were plainly malicious. Candidate terms and phrases were reviewed. No terms were identified that required further explanation for an educated reader. Speculations The repetition of harsh language against both the Governor and Company officers perhaps indicates lingering resentment following the recent unrest on the island. The mention of appealing to the King suggests that some inhabitants believed royal authority might override or challenge the Company’s governance. The concern that such words might discourage settlement implies that maintaining the island’s population and stability remained an important priority for the authorities. | |
151 | [...] Tho: Sherwin free planter John Bolton and The sd Martha Bolton confesseth that she had Upon most serious consideration of the whole It is Ordered That the sd Martha Bolton be forthwith committed Upon consideration of the free planters behaviour It is Ordered That the prohibition for the free planters [...] | Further witnesses, including Thomas Sherwin, John Bolton and […], all free planters, being sworn, gave testimony to the same effect as Thomas […], confirming that Martha Bolton had spoken the same words. Martha Bolton acknowledged that she had spoken these words, stating that they had been uttered in a moment of disturbance or distress. Upon very serious consideration of the matter, and of the harmful nature of such insulting expressions in bringing the government into disrepute, and taking into account her condition as a poor freeholder, as well as her conduct during the recent insurrection and afterwards, it was ordered that Martha Bolton be immediately committed to prison. It was further directed that she should receive 20 lashes upon her naked body at the flagstaff in Fort James, at such time as the authorities should appoint. Consideration was then given to the behaviour and conduct of the free planters, who had been attempting to organise a petition. It was noted that some among them, including John George Heston and Francis Jennings, had expressed dissatisfaction and had justified their recent participation in the insurrection and disturbances, while also speaking about their willingness or unwillingness to continue living on the island under the present government and conditions. It was therefore ordered that the existing prohibition preventing free planters from going on board any ship arriving in the roads of the island should remain in force. This restriction was to be continued and publicly proclaimed in the same manner as had been done when the last two ships had arrived. Candidate terms and phrases were reviewed. No terms were identified that required further explanation for an educated reader. Speculations The punishment imposed on Martha Bolton, though less severe than in some other cases, perhaps reflects a balance between maintaining authority and recognising her social position. The concern over a petition suggests that collective action by the free planters was viewed as a potential threat to order, especially so soon after the insurrection. The continued restriction on contact with ships may indicate fear that communication with outsiders could spread dissent or enable further unrest. | |
152 | [...] Present Information being given that Sexton The said Sexton denyeth that ever he Joseph Smith [...] and employed as [...] Smith answered that he would acquaint Sexton thereupon replied damme the Black [...] one of the sd Compan[y]s | A Council was held at Fort James on 23 February 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Information was presented that Sexton, a free planter, had spoken words considered disrespectful and improper towards the Company and the government. He had been warned to appear before the Council, which he did, and was informed of the accusations. Sexton denied that he had spoken any such words. Joseph Smith, employed in the Company’s service, being sworn, stated that on Thursday 12 February 1685 he had been passing by Sexton’s house with others and with the Company’s slaves and cattle. He had questioned Sexton about certain cattle, including a beast that had been killed which bore no mark and was therefore in dispute. Sexton admitted that he had killed one such unmarked beast and stated that it belonged to the stock of the children of John Grooming, deceased. Smith replied that he would inform the Governor. Sexton then responded with insulting language, stating that he did not care for the Company or the Governor. A slave belonging to the Company, described as one of its principal herdsmen, being sworn, confirmed that he had heard Sexton make these statements to Smith while he was overseeing the Company’s cattle and a steer that had been killed. Candidate terms and phrases were reviewed. The expression “principal blacks” was identified as potentially unclear in its historical meaning, while other terms were considered sufficiently self-explanatory for an educated reader. Interpretations The phrase “principal blacks” referred to slaves who held positions of responsibility or authority within the Company’s workforce, often overseeing labour, livestock, or other enslaved individuals, and whose testimony could carry weight in official proceedings. Speculations The involvement of Company slaves as witnesses perhaps reflects their recognised role in managing livestock and their importance in providing testimony in disputes over property. The reference to unmarked cattle suggests that ownership of livestock could be contested, particularly where identification marks were absent. The reported language used by Sexton indicates that open defiance of Company authority continued to surface among some free planters following the earlier unrest. | |
153 | [...] [...] that he [...] he did not see a [...] Upon Consideration of the whole matter It is Ordered. That the sd Sexton be immediatly Comitted Information being given against Tho: Goodale Goodale presently replied God damne yo[u] | Further evidence was considered in the case against Sexton. It was stated that he had declared that he did not care what could be proved against him regarding the cattle, nor what could be done to him concerning the Company, despite the beast he had killed being unmarked. Upon consideration of the matter, and of Sexton’s character and conduct, which was described as disorderly and inclined towards spreading false claims, it was ordered that he be immediately committed to prison. It was further directed that he be tied to the gallows post as an example and receive 23 lashes upon his bare body at the flagstaff in Fort James on Tuesday 24 February 1685. He was also to be kept in prison without release for six months unless he entered into a recognisance of £10, with two sufficient sureties of £5 each, and paid the imposed fine before discharge. Information was then brought against Thomas Goodale, a free planter, for speaking malicious and offensive words. He appeared before the Council and denied the accusation. Richard Horrywood, being sworn, stated that on the afternoon of the same day as the disturbance at Fort James involving the free planters, he had been standing on the upper works of the fort with Andrew Rossiter and others. He observed Goodale passing along the high battery. Andrew Hooker then addressed Goodale in a familiar manner. It was said that Goodale replied that they were “King’s men”. Barker, a gunner who was present, responded that they now had a King within them. Goodale then replied with insulting language directed at both the King and those present. Candidate terms and phrases were reviewed. The term “recognisance” was identified as potentially requiring clarification, while other expressions were considered sufficiently clear for an educated reader. Interpretations “Recognisance” referred to a formal legal obligation by which a person pledged a sum of money as security for their future behaviour, to be forfeited if the conditions were broken. Speculations The use of corporal punishment in a public setting perhaps reflects an intention to deter further acts of defiance by making an example of the offender. The exchange of words invoking the King suggests that loyalty to royal authority was being contested or used rhetorically during moments of tension. The continued prosecution of such speech indicates that the authorities remained highly sensitive to expressions that could undermine order following the recent disturbances. | |
154 | Deodatus Barker Gun[n]er being Andrew Rossiter Armourer being sworne Upon most serious Consideration It is Ordered That the sd Goodale be immediatly | Further evidence was given in the case against Thomas Goodale. Deodatus Barker, gunner, being sworn, confirmed the account previously given by Richard Horrywood, stating that he had heard Goodale say, “God damn you and your King too”. Andrew Rossiter, armourer, being sworn, stated that on the same day as the disturbance, while he stood upon the upper works of the fort, Goodale passed by. Rossiter addressed him in a familiar manner, asking after him. Goodale replied that he had a King in his belly and asked Rossiter what he had. Rossiter responded that though Goodale had a King in his belly, it was an evil one. It was then reported that Goodale made an aggressive or threatening movement towards him. Upon serious consideration of this evidence, together with other words proved against Goodale, and noting that he had been involved in the recent rebellion and was considered to be of a disorderly and disruptive disposition, it was ordered that he be immediately committed to prison. He was to remain imprisoned for three months and was not to be released earlier unless the government deemed it appropriate. It was further ordered that he should be fined in such manner as the government considered suitable, including provision of supplies or other payments as determined. Before being released, he was required to enter into a recognisance of £50 for his good behaviour for a term of one month, with two sufficient sureties each bound in £25, and to pay the required fees. Candidate terms and phrases were reviewed. No terms were identified that required further explanation for an educated reader. Speculations The emphasis on Goodale’s previous involvement in the rebellion suggests that earlier actions continued to influence how later offences were judged. The requirement for both imprisonment and financial security perhaps reflects an attempt to restrain behaviour through both punishment and future obligation. The repeated concern over disrespectful language indicates that verbal challenges to authority were treated as a serious threat to stability on the island. | |
155 | Island St [...] [...] and Councell Upon the Examination of some Planters & And whereas to that the sd persons who most And accordingly were actually three severall But the greatest pt of the sd Islanders and | An examination was undertaken by the Governor and Council into the claims made by various planters and inhabitants concerning the rights and titles to the lands they occupied or claimed to possess. It was found that the greater part of the planters and inhabitants had originally been granted land by order and instruction of the Honourable Company’s Lords Proprietors. These grants had been made either in return for their service on the island or as a condition of being permitted to reside there. Each family had been allotted two or three parcels of land, while each single man had been assigned one. It was further observed that many of these same inhabitants had since claimed and taken possession of additional parcels of land, which they asserted had been purchased from others who had either left the island or remained upon it. These lands had been repeatedly sold, exchanged and transferred among themselves as if they were their own property, without regard to the Company’s instructions or any recognised legal authority for such transactions. As a result, considerable uncertainty had arisen. It could not be determined without difficulty what lands each person possessed, under what right they held them, or where the boundaries of those lands were situated. This confusion prevented an accurate account from being provided to the Lords Proprietors, contrary to their explicit instructions. It was also noted that many of the inhabitants had previously refused to accept formal deeds issued under the seal of the Lords Proprietors, which had been intended to secure their lands to them and their heirs. Public notice had been given by the Governor and Council in the church at Jamestown on three separate occasions, inviting the inhabitants to receive these deeds. Despite this, the majority had refused to accept them. Interpretations The reference to “deeds sent by the Lords Proprietors under their seal” indicated formal legal instruments issued by the Company’s proprietors to confirm ownership and inheritance of land. Acceptance of such deeds would have brought landholding under direct Company regulation, making refusal significant in terms of resisting formal control over property. | |
156 | for the prevention of future inconveniences & abuse the bringing It is Ordered. That noe person or persons that is now That none may pretend Ignorance That the Register doe forthwith cause | An order was issued by the Governor and Council on 23 February 1685 to prevent future disputes and abuses arising from the unauthorised claiming, buying, selling and transferring of land on the island. It was directed that no person currently in possession of land, or claiming any right to it, should buy, sell, exchange, transfer or otherwise dispose of any part or the whole of such land for a period of one year from that date. No such transaction was to take place unless prior consent had been obtained from the Honourable Company’s Lords Proprietors. It was further declared that this order was to be made publicly known so that no person could claim ignorance. Any individual acting contrary to the order could expect that any land so acquired or transferred would be entered upon and seized for the use of the Lords Proprietors. To ensure proper notice, it was ordered that the Register should immediately prepare two copies of the order. One copy was to be displayed at the Court of Judicature near Fort James, and the other in the upper storehouse in Rupert’s Valley, so that all concerned might read and understand it. The order was to be confirmed in Council. | |
157 | [...] [...] the Honble Comp[an]y Lords Proprietors These are to give notice unto all the Inhabitants | Notice was given that the Honourable Company’s Lords Proprietors had previously issued strict orders and instructions to Captain Thomas Grantham, commander, concerning the regulation of cattle on the island. These instructions had required that no person should allow their cattle to stray or wander freely upon the Company’s waste lands, except where such cattle were properly marked with the Company’s brand or otherwise identified in accordance with the rules. It had been directed that cattle intended to graze upon the Company’s waste lands should be gathered, improved and maintained under regulated conditions, and that all such cattle were to be marked on 1 May each year or on another fixed day to be appointed by the Governor. The owners of such cattle had been required to pay an annual duty for each beast grazing on these lands. Any cattle found on the Company’s waste lands after the appointed day without proper marking were to be seized and treated as the Company’s goods and chattels. These orders and instructions had been publicly declared in the presence of the Governor, Captain Grantham and the Council, so that all inhabitants might be informed and comply, particularly those whose cattle grazed upon the waste lands. However, it was reported that these instructions had not been observed. Apart from attempts to restrain cattle from wandering, no proper marking had been carried out and the required duties had not been paid. In order that the service due to the Lords Proprietors should no longer be neglected, notice was given to all inhabitants that the time for the general marking of cattle was approaching. The first day of May next was appointed as the official day on which all inhabitants were to mark their cattle intended to graze upon the Company’s waste lands. A payment of 1d for each head of cattle was to be made to such persons as would be appointed for that purpose. It was also declared that if any person wished to mark their cattle before that date, they might do so in advance. | |
158 | [...] called where it to be given thereoff to be Whereas all manner of persons are hereby Upon the penalty of the offender paying The new day of the garrison for 3 months It is Ordered That none be drawn, received or delivered Likewise for himself next satisfy such of Was to place to | Further instructions were issued concerning the marking and regulation of cattle. It was directed that any person wishing to mark cattle before the appointed day should give notice to the Governor, so that individuals authorised by him might attend to record the number of cattle and collect the required payment for each head. It was declared that any cattle found straying or grazing without proper marking would be seized and treated as the Company’s goods and chattels. All persons were strictly forbidden, under any pretext, from buying, selling or otherwise disposing of cattle without first accounting to the Governor and having the transaction properly entered before delivery. Any such unauthorised dealings were to be recoverable by persons appointed by the Governor, and the Governor’s approval was required for the killing or disposal of any unmarked cattle. It was further ordered that any offender would be liable to pay the full value of any cattle so unlawfully used, bought, sold or disposed of, together with such additional punishment as the Governor and Council might determine. Attention was then given to the payment of the garrison. As the period of three months’ service was to be completed on Thursday 26 February 1685, it was ordered that no payments were to be drawn, received or delivered to Captain Haden except for the purpose of settling the pay of officers and soldiers. These payments were to cover three months from 26 November 1684 inclusive, together with their rations, excluding any additional allowances, and according to each man’s salary. Provision was also made for the payment of those employed in public work, including the drawing of provisions, and for the settlement of any debts owed to them for such services. Interpretations The phrase “escheated at the Company’s goods and chattels” referred to the legal process by which unmarked or unlawfully held cattle were forfeited to the Company and treated as its property, to be disposed of at its discretion. The requirement that all sales be “entered before the Governor” indicated a formal registration process intended to bring private transactions under official oversight and record, thereby enforcing Company control over livestock ownership. Speculations The detailed regulation of cattle marking, movement and sale perhaps reflects the importance of livestock as a key economic resource on the island and the need to prevent loss of revenue through informal or unrecorded dealings. The insistence on central oversight of transactions and penalties for non-compliance suggests an effort to reassert administrative control following earlier patterns of neglect or resistance among the inhabitants. | |
159 | [...] appraiſed at the rate of the whole or any pt of their respective And all persons are hereby ordered that Capt Haden to place And for an invoice of featherwood to Barbadoes pr Lastly a place to put into to deliver goods to the Memorandum that the Companys S: J Wilk[...] Island of St Helena At a Consultation held on [...] day Morning Present Whereas Mr Benet [...] | Various financial and administrative measures were recorded concerning debts owed to the Honourable Company. It was directed that goods might be appraised and applied, either in whole or in part, towards the settlement of individuals’ debts to the Company. All persons were ordered that Captain Haden should enter to the Company’s account several kinds of merchandise, together with barrels of powder delivered to John Mareingant in the road at the island. An amount of salt, recorded as about 20[...], was also to be accounted for. An invoice of goods consigned by Captain Mareingant was to be taken in exchange for provisions and a quantity of brandy. An additional invoice of featherwood sent to Barbados by Captain H[...] was likewise to be entered to the Company’s account. It was further directed that goods delivered to the Governor by order of the Company were to be properly accounted for, and that all persons were to be held responsible to the Company according to their respective accounts. A memorandum noted that the Company’s Council book had been brought and that in January 168[...] a copy had been sent to the Company. It was also recorded that no ships had recently arrived or departed from the island, except for one under Captain Rogers which had been taken and was bound elsewhere. A consultation was then held at Fort James on the morning of 17 March 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign, at which point reference was made to Mr Benet [...]. Interpretations The practice of goods being “appraised” towards debts indicated a system in which physical commodities could be formally valued and accepted in place of money, reflecting the Company’s reliance on goods-based accounting in a constrained monetary environment. The instruction to “place unto the Company’s account” referred to the formal recording of goods, transactions or exchanges within the Company’s central accounts, ensuring that all movements of property were documented and attributed for financial control. Speculations The use of goods such as powder, salt, brandy and featherwood in settling accounts perhaps reflects the limited availability of coin on the island, requiring a flexible system in which commodities functioned as currency. The careful recording of shipments, exchanges and deliveries suggests an effort to tighten financial oversight, probably in response to earlier irregularities or losses in Company property. | |
160 | Island St At a Consultation held on Sunday Present Whereas M[rs] Benet Delves was sent It is Ordered That forthwith demand be made of | A consultation was held at Fort James on Sunday morning, 17 March 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. It was recorded that Mr Benet Delves had been sent to the island by the Honourable Company aboard the ship Society, commanded by Captain John Cox, to serve as a writer for a term of three years. After his arrival, and within about two months, he had abandoned the Company’s service without the consent of the Governor and Council. For more than six months thereafter, he had lived and associated with persons who were described as disaffected towards the Company and the government of the island, including individuals who had openly declared and attempted, with arms and threats, to resist authority and to take Fort James by force. James Cox, having obtained leave to go aboard a ship, was involved in circumstances connected with Delves’ departure. Captain Roger Paxton, commander of a vessel described as Moxico March, had been preparing to sail on Saturday 14 March 1685 and had pressed for Delves to be allowed to come aboard. Delves, having gone out in a boat, was reportedly urged by persons in the Company’s service to return ashore. He then appealed to Captain Paxton, alleging that he was being forced back by officers of the Company, although this account was regarded as doubtful. Delves subsequently departed from the island without any leave or licence from the government, contrary to the Company’s strict orders. It was therefore ordered that an immediate demand should be made of Job Jowstor, with whom Delves had lodged, for all goods and chattels belonging to Delves, including a slave. Interpretations The term “writer” referred to a junior administrative officer employed by the Company, responsible for keeping accounts, correspondence and official records, forming part of the island’s bureaucratic structure. The phrase “goods and chattels” denoted all movable property belonging to an individual, including slaves, which could be seized or accounted for under Company authority in cases of debt, misconduct or unlawful departure. Speculations The association of Delves with disaffected individuals and his unauthorised departure perhaps indicates concern that Company servants could align themselves with opposition groups, undermining both administrative control and security. The prompt order to seize his property suggests that the authorities sought to enforce discipline by ensuring that desertion or disobedience resulted in immediate material consequences. | |
161 | Delves and that they be all forthw[i]th seized further It is Ordered That Ed Steeling writer & Doctor S J Wilk[i]ns | It was further ordered that all goods and chattels belonging to Mr Benet Delves were to be immediately seized, secured and brought into Fort James. If any of his goods had been concealed, removed or otherwise misappropriated, those responsible were to be examined and taken into custody. A full and exact inventory of all such goods was to be made. Any money belonging to Delves that had been sent to England was to be accounted for and reported by the next returning ship. A search was also to be conducted for any remaining goods belonging to him, and if found they were to be secured, inventoried and brought safely to Fort James. It was further ordered that Edward Steeling, writer, Doctor Barber, together with certain gunsmiths, namely Orme[...] Hockbrane and Robert Goodman, soldier, who had been on board Captain Paxton’s ship, were to provide separate and detailed accounts of their actions and observations. These accounts were to include what had passed between themselves, Captain Paxton and Mr Delves while on board the ship and at the time of their departure. They were required to attest their statements upon oath, so that they might be received and considered by the Honourable Company. These reports were to be completed by Monday 17 March 1685 and presented to the Governor and Council. Interpretations The requirement to produce an “exact inventory” referred to a formal administrative process by which all seized goods were carefully listed and valued, ensuring accountability and preventing loss or dispute over Company property. The instruction that witnesses “attest the same upon oath” indicated a formal evidentiary procedure, whereby statements were legally affirmed and could be relied upon in official inquiries or disciplinary action. Speculations The insistence on sworn, individual accounts from those present on the ship perhaps reflects concern that Delves’ departure involved contested authority or misconduct by Company officers, requiring clear and verifiable testimony. The detailed seizure and accounting of Delves’ property suggests that the authorities intended both to recover Company interests and to reinforce discipline by demonstrating the consequences of unauthorised departure. | |
162 | Island St Att Councell Held on Tuesday Present Job Jowster Desiring to have & keeping It is Agreed wth him That the sd Jowster have the Custody & That he doe allow the sd black man Ric[hard] Steeling Writer Doctor Barber Presented their several Informations unto | A Council was held at Fort James on Tuesday 4 March 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor and Gregory Field as Ensign. Job Jowster requested to have the custody and use of Mr Delves’ slave at a reasonable rate of hire. This request was agreed, and it was ordered that Jowster should have the keeping and employment of the slave at the rate of 2s 6d per week from that date until further order from the Governor and Council. It was further ordered that Jowster should provide the slave with sufficient food and clothing during his time in his service, and that he should enter into a bond to ensure the proper performance of these conditions. Richard Steeling, writer, Doctor Barber, Richard Ellis, gunmaker, Thomas Pimmer, James Cox, and Robert Browne, soldier, each presented separate written statements under their own hands. These accounts detailed what they had seen, heard or known concerning Captain Roger Paxton’s actions at his departure from the island, including events that occurred while they were on board his ship, Mexico March, and particularly his removal of Mr Bennet Delves without licence and in violation of the Company’s orders. Interpretations The requirement that Jowster “give bond” referred to a formal legal obligation secured by a monetary penalty, ensuring that he fulfilled the conditions of maintaining and properly treating the slave while in his custody. The practice of hiring out the labour of a slave at a fixed weekly rate reflected a system in which such individuals were treated as transferable economic assets, capable of generating income under regulated agreements enforced by the Company. Speculations The decision to hire out Delves’ slave rather than hold him idle perhaps indicates an intention to preserve the value of seized property by putting it to productive use under controlled conditions. The collection of multiple sworn accounts concerning Captain Paxton’s actions suggests that the authorities anticipated further inquiry or formal proceedings, possibly involving communication with the Company in England. | |
163 | It is Ordered That every one of the persons aforemention[e]d Hereupon it is Further That the sd Originall Informations under Memorand that the Companys S J Will[...] | It was ordered that each of the persons previously named should immediately submit their respective accounts, each being distinct and separate, detailing the matters they had observed. It was further ordered that these original statements, being given under their hands and upon oath, should be sent to the Honourable Company by the next returning ship. A memorandum recorded that the Company’s Council book, covering the period up to 17 March 1685, had been lost to the Company’s goods through the actions of Captain John Paxton, with James Cox noted as commander. Interpretations The phrase “under their hands and oaths” referred to a formal evidentiary process in which written statements were both signed and sworn, giving them legal weight and making them admissible in official proceedings or review by the Company. The reference to the loss of the “Council book” indicated the disappearance of an official administrative record containing decisions and proceedings of the governing body, representing a significant loss of institutional documentation and authority. Speculations The decision to send the sworn statements to the Company suggests that the matter involving Captain Paxton and the removal of Delves was considered serious enough to require judgement or intervention from authorities in England. The recorded loss of the Council book perhaps indicates either negligence or deliberate interference, raising concern about the security of official records and the integrity of Company governance on the island. | |
164 | Island St Att Councell held on Tuesday yͭ 7th of Present Upon Consideration of a petition from And upon serious Consideration of the It is Ordered That soe many of the sd Petitionrs and The Honble Comp[a]ny Order dated Aprill 5th | A Council was held at Fort James on Tuesday 7 April 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, Gregory Field as Ensign, together with Robert Knox, Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas [...]. A petition was considered from several freemen, most of whom had been involved in the recent rebellion, requesting permission to go aboard ships in the same manner as those who had not been so engaged. After careful consideration of the orders and constitutions of the Honourable Company’s Lords Proprietors relating to this matter, and taking into account the previous misconduct of the petitioners, it was ordered that such persons, and others in similar circumstances, should not be permitted to go aboard any ship except under such conditions, at such times and for such duration as the Governor should determine. The Governor was further directed not to allow any person to go aboard a ship on the day of its departure, nor to remain there longer or shorter than permitted, and to limit such access to one day and one occasion at any given time. An order of the Honourable Company dated 5 April 1684 concerning certain goods to be delivered from various ships for the provisioning of Captain Robert Knox, in his absence on an intended voyage to the East Indies, was then read and communicated in Council. This order was presented to Captain Charles Hawes, commander of the ship Henry and William, and to Captain Hosea, commander of the ship East India Merchant. These captains, together with Captain Howard and Captain Hosea, declared upon oath that they did not have such goods on board their vessels. Interpretations The restriction on freemen going aboard ships reflected a controlled access system, whereby movement between shore and vessel was regulated by the Governor as a matter of security and discipline, particularly for those previously involved in rebellion. The act of declaring “upon oath” indicated a formal evidentiary statement, binding the captains to the truth of their claims and making them accountable to the Company for the accuracy of their declarations. Speculations The limitation placed on former rebels’ access to ships perhaps reflects concern that such individuals might escape the island, communicate with external parties or renew disorder if allowed unrestricted contact with departing vessels. The reading of the Company’s earlier order and the captains’ sworn denial of possessing the specified goods suggests that there may have been suspicion of misdelivery, concealment or dispute over supplies intended for Captain Knox’s voyage. | |
165 | Respectiue ships as were in the sd Honble Comp[a]ny S J Will[...] Att a Councell held on Tuesday the 14th of Present Thomas Sherwin Free Planter Complaines The sd Rooker did Confesse that in the night | It was recorded that the goods mentioned in the Honourable Company’s orders were to be taken from the respective ships for the purpose of supplying Captain Robert Knox. A Council was then held at Fort James on Tuesday 14 April 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, Gregory Field as Ensign, together with Robert Knox, Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas [...]. Thomas Sherwin, a free planter, brought a complaint against Andrew Rooker, armourer, alleging that Rooker had assaulted him on the previous Sunday in the yard at the back door of Sherwin’s house. Sherwin stated that he had been struck, beaten and trampled upon, and that he had been left wounded with visible injuries. He further alleged that he had been forcibly seized at his door by Henry Manning, who, together with another person, had used force against him. Andrew Rooker admitted that on the night of the same Sunday, Sherwin had requested him to go into his neighbour’s house, which he did. Upon opening the back door and leaving, he had been confronted by Sherwin, who had struck him several times with a cane, believing that Rooker intended to break into the house. Rooker further stated that Sherwin had been drunk, and that the injuries and bruises observed on him had been caused by his falling and tumbling over rocks. Interpretations The designation “free planter” referred to a resident who held land and was not in Company service, indicating a recognised but distinct social and legal status within the island’s hierarchy. The role of “armourer” denoted a specialised Company servant responsible for maintaining weapons and military equipment, reflecting the integration of military and civil functions within the island’s administration. Speculations The conflicting accounts suggest a dispute arising from suspicion and disorder, perhaps heightened by tensions following the recent rebellion, where fear of intrusion or attack may have influenced behaviour. The involvement of multiple individuals, including Henry Manning, indicates that such altercations could quickly escalate beyond a private quarrel into a broader disturbance requiring Council attention. | |
166 | Thomas Smou[...] Jones Charlesworth George Sherwin wid[ow] & Sonne of the sd Tho The sd Andrew Rooker complaines of wounding Connies answereth that last standing accused | Additional testimony was given in the dispute between Thomas Sherwin and Andrew Rooker. Thomas Smou[...] Jones and Charlesworth, both free planters, declared that Sherwin had spoken with them on the night in question and that he had then been sober. This account was supported by Richard Seeling, writer, who had been lodging in Sherwin’s house at the time when Sherwin had received most of his injuries. George Sherwin, son of Thomas Sherwin, was examined and stated that on the same Sunday night his mother had sent him to call Andrew Rooker from his father’s house. He reported that he had done so, invoking the Governor’s name, and that Rooker had come to the house where his mother was standing at the front door. A conversation had taken place between Rooker and his mother concerning Sherwin, who was then said to be in the yard and at risk of being beaten following certain words that had passed. Sherwin’s mother had asked Rooker to remain in the house, but both she and Sherwin had instead gone to a neighbour’s house together. Rooker then entered Sherwin’s house, though what he did there was not known to the witness. Andrew Rooker made a counter-complaint, alleging that he had been wounded and bruised by Sherwin, who had struck him with a short sword resembling a dagger. Connies answered that on the previous Thursday night, when the matter had been raised, Sherwin had advanced towards Rooker in an attempt to strike him. Sherwin had stooped and tried to attack, causing Rooker to defend himself. Sherwin had then come close and struck Rooker with a small stick that had been broken, and had knocked Rooker’s weapon from his hand. It was further stated that there had been several exchanges of words between Connies and Rooker regarding the alleged wounding, and that Rooker had threatened to prosecute Connies on the following Saturday, being 11 April 1685. Interpretations The invocation of “the Governor’s name” indicated an appeal to official authority to compel compliance, reflecting how personal disputes could draw upon formal power structures to enforce requests or commands. The mention of a threat “to prosecute” referred to the initiation of formal legal proceedings within the island’s judicial system, showing that private grievances could be escalated into regulated judicial action under the Council’s authority. Speculations The emphasis on whether Sherwin was sober suggests that credibility and responsibility in such disputes were closely tied to perceptions of behaviour and character, particularly in cases involving violence. The overlapping accusations and counter-claims perhaps indicate that the incident developed from a confused and escalating confrontation, where multiple individuals became involved and the original cause became obscured. | |
167 | [...] Conniers saith that himselfe and Rook[...] Upon serious debate of the sd Rookers It is Ordered That the sd Rooker be immediately That he forthwith pay the Sherwin That the sd Rooker doe not presume on That the sd Rooker doe abide & remaine That he continue confined until And that he presume not to lye or lodge Further It is Ordered That in regard the Conniers hath not that | Further testimony was given by Conniers, who stated that he and Andrew Rooker had been together in the same room within the fort. During this encounter, words had passed between them concerning Sherwin. Rooker had threatened him and drawn both sword and knife, whereupon Conniers, being prepared with his own short sword, declared that he would fight him as a man. The confrontation continued until Rooker attempted to seize Conniers’ right hand, in which he held his sword, and in doing so struck him. In the struggle that followed, Conniers was driven backward, and Rooker was wounded. Upon serious consideration of Rooker’s conduct, which was regarded as highly improper, and noting his admission of wounding Thomas Sherwin, it was ordered that Rooker should be immediately committed to prison. It was further ordered that he should pay Sherwin the sum of £3 for expenses, damages and the cost of surgical treatment. He was also forbidden, under any pretence, from entering Sherwin’s house or engaging in any quarrel in the country without licence from the Governor and Council. Additional penalties were imposed, requiring that Rooker remain confined and subject to restriction within the fort, including limitations on his movement and behaviour. He was not to lodge outside Fort James on any night without permission from the Governor. It was further ordered that, in view of Conniers’ failure to conduct himself with proper restraint and sobriety, Interpretations The requirement that Rooker pay £3 for “charges damages and repairing the Surgeon” reflected a compensatory mechanism within the island’s administration, whereby offenders were made financially responsible for the medical treatment and associated costs arising from injuries they had caused. The prohibition against leaving Fort James without licence indicated a form of controlled confinement short of full imprisonment, demonstrating how the Governor and Council exercised flexible authority to regulate the movement and behaviour of individuals. Speculations The combination of financial penalty, imprisonment and restrictions on movement perhaps reflects an attempt to restore order while avoiding more severe punishment, balancing discipline with the practical need to retain skilled individuals such as an armourer within the settlement. The reference to Conniers’ lack of self-governance suggests that responsibility for disorder was seen as shared, indicating that the authorities were concerned not only with the immediate offence but also with broader standards of conduct among the inhabitants. | |
168 | Man, but is too apt to disorderly frequent Richard in the Councell held Novr 23th And whereas the sd Kersdale hath now in a It is Ordered That if the sd Kersdale shall on Monday S J Will[...] | It was further ordered that Conniers, being considered prone to disorderly conduct, frequent quarrelling and a troublesome manner of life, should not carry any sword or other weapon except a musket, and should not go abroad without leave and licence from the Governor. Reference was then made to an earlier Council held on 23 November 1684, at which time Kersdale had made a humble submission and promised to conduct himself properly in future in accordance with the expectations of the Honourable Company’s Lords Proprietors. At that time, it had been required that he should enter into a bond or recognisance in the sum of £50, with two sufficient sureties of £25 each, to ensure his good behaviour for one year. It was further recorded that Kersdale had since submitted a petition expressing remorse for his earlier offence and requesting some reduction in the term of his imprisonment, having already remained in custody for more than three months. Upon consideration, it was ordered that if Kersdale should, on the following Monday when the Governor and Council were to meet again, pay his fine of £10 in money and produce two suitable sureties to enter into a recognisance in the manner previously required for his good behaviour for one year, then he should be granted his liberty. This release was to take effect even though one month of his original term of imprisonment would still remain unserved under the order of 23 November 1684. Interpretations The restriction placed on Conniers’ carrying of weapons demonstrated a preventive measure used by the authorities to limit the capacity for further violence, reflecting a controlled approach to maintaining order without full imprisonment. The requirement to enter into a “recognisance” referred to a formal legal undertaking secured by a financial guarantee, binding an individual and their sureties to ensure good behaviour under penalty of forfeiture. Speculations The conditional reduction of Kersdale’s sentence perhaps indicates that expressions of submission and compliance were valued by the authorities, allowing for flexibility in punishment where behaviour was seen to improve. The emphasis on sureties suggests that responsibility for maintaining order extended beyond the individual, placing social pressure on associates to ensure continued obedience. | |
169 | Island St Att A Councell held on Monday yͭ 4th Present Upon serious Consideration of severall It is Ordered That a place be forthwith pitched in the In pursuance of the Honble Comp[a]ny Instructions That a proclamation be forthwith issued | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday 4 May 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, Gregory Field as Ensign, together with Robert Knox, Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas [...]. After consideration of several matters contained in the Honourable Company’s instructions, particular attention was given to the requirement to establish a market house where all goods might be bought and sold openly. It was ordered that a suitable site should immediately be selected among the houses built near Fort James, choosing the most convenient location for this purpose. Masons and carpenters were to be engaged without delay, and agreements were to be made with them concerning all aspects of the work and the price for constructing the building, so that it might be completed as quickly as possible. In further compliance with the Company’s instructions, it was ordered that a proclamation should be issued requiring all inhabitants of the island to provide a full return of their households. Each person was to submit a true list of their respective families to the Governor or to such person as he should appoint, specifying the number of men, women and children, both white and black, within their household. Interpretations The requirement to erect a “market house” reflected an institutional effort to centralise trade within a regulated space, allowing transactions to be observed, controlled and potentially taxed under Company authority. The order to produce a “true list” of all inhabitants and their households indicated a form of administrative census, enabling the government to account for population, labour and social structure as part of its governance of the island. Speculations The emphasis on a free and open market perhaps suggests an attempt to replace informal or dispersed trading practices with a controlled system that could improve oversight and reduce disputes. The requirement to list all inhabitants, including distinctions between white and black individuals, may reflect concerns about labour organisation, security and resource allocation following recent unrest on the island. | |
170 | And the Ages of every one of their children And also that they then bring or send Moreover It is Ordered That another Proclamation Likewise It is Ordered. That an Advertisement shall be Whereas the Honble Comp[a]ny hath | It was further ordered that the lists of households were to include the ages of all children, both black and white, specifying whether each was aged 16 years or under. In addition, each person was required to submit a complete account of their estate, detailing all property of which they were owner and in possession. Another proclamation was ordered to be issued declaring that all persons buying or selling cattle on the island were to pay a duty of 2d for each head to Richard Lee, Esquire, upon the transfer of such cattle. It was also ordered that an advertisement should be published requiring the inhabitants to assemble before the following Monday and to nominate and choose four persons to serve as churchwardens and four as surveyors of the highways. The names of those selected were to be delivered to the Governor and Council on Monday 25 May 1685, so that suitable individuals might be appointed to those offices for the current year. Reference was then made to an order of the Honourable Company directing that every head of a family on the island should pay annually 6s for each person within their household above the age of 16. This payment was intended to support the repair of the church, the maintenance of a minister and associated expenses, and was to commence from the feast of [...]. Interpretations The requirement to provide a “perfect list of all their estate” referred to a comprehensive declaration of property, functioning as a mechanism for assessing wealth, enforcing obligations and enabling administrative oversight of resources. The levy of 2d per head of cattle paid to Richard Lee indicated a delegated system of revenue collection, where a designated individual was authorised to receive and account for duties on behalf of the governing authority. The offices of “churchwardens” and “surveyors of the highways” represented local administrative roles, with churchwardens responsible for parish affairs and maintenance, and surveyors overseeing the upkeep of roads, reflecting the structured organisation of civil responsibilities under Company governance. Speculations The detailed recording of households, property and ages perhaps reflects an effort to establish tighter administrative control over population and resources, especially in the aftermath of recent disorder. The imposition of duties on cattle transactions and household levies suggests a move to regularise revenue collection, indicating the Company’s intention to ensure a stable financial base for both civil and religious institutions on the island. | |
171 | It is ordered That a proclamation be forthwith issued forth Upon Consideration of the goods and estate of Capt Knox It is ordered That the Govr & Councell make choice of some Wares Two parcels of Broad cloath | It was ordered that a proclamation should immediately be issued requiring all inhabitants to pay to the Governor, or to such person as he should appoint, the sum of 5s for every man, woman and child, both black and white, within their respective families who were above the age of 16 years. Consideration was then given to the goods and estate of Captain Robert Knox, as recorded in the cargo brought back upon his return from Madagascar. It was judged that the greater part of these goods had not yet been issued for the service of the Honourable Company on the island, and that it would be more advantageous to send most of them by the first returning ships to the Company in England, to be disposed of as they saw fit. It was therefore ordered that the Governor and Council should select a suitable person to be sent to England on the first available returning ship. This person was to take charge of all such goods as remained from those originally intended for Captain Knox’s voyage. The goods listed included two parcels of broadcloth, three chests of fowling pieces and pistols, one cask of flints, one box of looking glasses, one bag of handkerchiefs, one cask of knives and combs, one chest of damask cloth and one cask of shackles. Interpretations The imposition of 5s per person above the age of 16 represented a poll-based levy, functioning as a direct means of raising revenue from the population based on household composition rather than property alone. The designation of a person to carry goods to England reflected a controlled system of Company logistics, in which trusted agents were appointed to transport and account for valuable cargo under official authority. The inclusion of items such as “shackles” among trade goods indicates their role as commodities within the Company’s supply system, reflecting the broader economic and coercive structures operating within the island’s administration. Speculations The decision to return most of Knox’s cargo to England perhaps suggests that the island either lacked immediate need for these goods or that their value could be better realised in metropolitan markets. The detailed inventory of goods, including weapons and trade items, indicates that such cargo may have been intended for exchange in wider trading networks, linking the island’s economy to broader Company operations. | |
172 | Blank page | ||
171 | Michaell the Archangell last past at wch tyme It is Ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith It is Ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith issued Upon Consideration of the Goods recd of Capt Knox It is Ordered That the goods hereafter mentioned be sent for England Two parcells of Broad cloath S J Will[...] | Reference was made to the feast of Michaelmas, being 29 September, and to the preceding year during which a minister had officiated continuously on the island. It was ordered that a proclamation should be issued requiring all inhabitants, and particularly every head of a family, to pay, or cause to be paid, to the Governor or to such person as he should appoint, the sum of 6d for every man and woman, both white and black, within their household who were above the age of 16 years. This payment was to apply in respect of the period up to the next 29 September, corresponding to the year in which a minister had been maintained on the island. It was further ordered that a proclamation should be issued requiring all inhabitants to make immediate payment of the same rate of 6d for every person above the age of 16 within their respective families. Consideration was then given to the goods received from Captain Robert Knox upon his return from Madagascar. It was judged that the greater part of this cargo was not required for the service of the Honourable Company on the island, and that it would be more advantageous to send most of it to England by the next returning ships, to be disposed of at the Company’s discretion. It was therefore ordered that the goods specified should be sent to England by the next returning ships, and that the person appointed to manage their transport should take charge of all such items delivered. The goods listed included two parcels of broadcloth, three chests of fowling pieces and pistols, one cask of flints, one box of looking glasses, one bag of handkerchiefs, one cask of knives and combs, one chest of damask cloth and one cask of shackles. Interpretations The reference to “Michaelmas” functioned as a fiscal and administrative term, marking a fixed annual point at which obligations such as payments for church maintenance and ministerial support were calculated and enforced. The levy of 6d per person above the age of 16 represented a standardised per capita contribution towards ecclesiastical expenses, linking household composition directly to the funding of religious provision under Company authority. Speculations The repetition of the order for payment perhaps indicates concern that earlier instructions had not been effectively observed, prompting renewed emphasis on compliance. The association of the levy with the period during which a minister had officiated suggests that payment was framed as a justified contribution for services already received, reinforcing the expectation of compliance among inhabitants. | |
172 | Island St Att A Councell held on Monday the Present John Field Capt Complaines of Samuell Samuell Taylor Confesseth he did It is Ordered That the sd Taylor be forthwith Richard Gurling, Josiah Charlesworth, | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday 25 May 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, Gregory Field as Ensign, together with Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas [...]. Captain John Field brought a complaint against Samuel Taylor, a soldier, alleging that he had disobeyed orders while on guard and had attempted to pass through the guard carrying a quantity of sugar taken from the ship Beaufort without paying the required customs, contrary to the orders of the Honourable Company. Samuel Taylor admitted that he had attempted to carry away a bag of sugar in breach of the Company’s orders, but stated that he had been affected by drink while on board and requested pardon for his offence. It was ordered that Taylor should be immediately committed to prison and remain there until the next review day. At that time, he was to be punished by riding the wooden horse with shot attached to his heels for one hour, or for such duration as the Governor should determine. It was also recorded that Richard Gurling, Josiah Charlesworth, Mathew Pouncey and John Smaller had remained aboard a ship overnight in violation of orders and had come ashore on the Sunday carrying goods. These individuals acknowledged that they had stayed aboard the ship that night and stated that they Interpretations The requirement to pay “custom” referred to a duty imposed on goods brought ashore, forming part of the Company’s regulated system of taxation and control over trade. The punishment of “riding the wooden horse” was a military disciplinary measure in which the offender was made to sit astride a narrow structure, often with added weights such as shot attached to the legs, causing physical discomfort as a deterrent against misconduct. Speculations The attempt to remove sugar without paying customs perhaps reflects the presence of informal trading or smuggling practices, indicating tensions between private gain and Company regulation. The enforcement of discipline through both imprisonment and public punishment suggests an effort to maintain strict control over soldiers, particularly in matters involving trade and the handling of goods from ships. | |
173 | Could not dispatch the business of they had to doe the It is Ordered That the sd Gurling, Charlesworth, Pouncey, Whereas John Williams hath been It is Ordered That from the 24th of this Instant The pay day of the Garrison for 3 months It is Ordered That a warrt be drawne, signed and | It was stated by Richard Gurling, Josiah Charlesworth, Mathew Pouncey and John Fuller that they had been unable to complete their business on the preceding day, and that they had brought goods ashore on the Sabbath because they did not know how otherwise to secure them. They requested that their offences be excused. It was ordered that Gurling, Charlesworth, Pouncey and Fuller should each pay a fine of 5s, and that this payment was to be made immediately before they were dismissed. It was then recorded that John Williams had been recommended by the President and Council of Fort St George to be accepted into the Company’s service as a soldier on the island. It was ordered that from 24 May 1685 inclusive, being the general pay day, Williams should be received into the service of the Honourable Company at a rate of 2s per day until further order. It was further noted that the garrison’s pay day for the three-month period had been due on Thursday 22 May 1685, but owing to the presence of several ships in the road and the number of matters requiring attention, the payments had not been made at that time. It was therefore ordered that a warrant should be drawn, signed and directed to Captain Holden to account for and pay the officers and soldiers in the Company’s service on the island. Interpretations The requirement that fines be paid “before they are dismissed” reflected a system in which penalties were enforced immediately and release from custody or obligation was conditional upon payment. The reference to a “warrant” indicated a formal written authority issued by the Governor and Council, directing an officer to carry out financial or administrative actions within the Company’s regulated system. | |
174 | Island three months pay Vizt from the 26th Likewise for him to pay & satisfie Also for him to pay & satisfie such S J Will[...] | It was ordered that the officers and soldiers of the island should receive three months’ pay, calculated from 26 February 1685 inclusive to 22 May 1685 exclusive, each according to his respective salary. It was further directed that Captain Holden should also pay and satisfy all persons who had been employed in work and labour for the Honourable Company during the same three-month period. In addition, provision was made for the payment of those soldiers who had not been attached to any particular company but who were nevertheless owed sums by the Honourable Company, ensuring that their accounts were likewise settled. Interpretations The specification of pay “from 26 February inclusive to 22 May exclusive” reflected a precise accounting method used to define entitlement periods, ensuring clarity in the calculation of wages within the Company’s administrative system. The distinction made for soldiers “not being with any Company” indicated that some individuals served outside regular unit structures yet remained entitled to payment, showing a flexible but formally recognised arrangement within the garrison’s organisation. Speculations The explicit inclusion of labourers and unattached soldiers in the payment order perhaps indicates that earlier delays or administrative pressures had created uncertainty over who was entitled to wages, requiring clarification to prevent dispute or dissatisfaction. | |
175 | Att A Councell held on Monday yͭ 8th Day of Present Capt Knox presenting a writing subscribed Therefore the sd Capt Knox requested to have some Also that the sd Capt Knox his Carpenter It is Ordered That Capt Robt Holden doe furnish | A Council was held at Fort James on Monday 8 June 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, Gregory Field as Ensign, together with Captain Robert Knox, Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas [...] as Ensign. Captain Knox presented a written statement under his own hand describing his distressed circumstances. It was reported that his ship, the Tonqudome Merchant, had departed suddenly from the road before Fort James on the evening of Friday 29 May 1685, carrying away all his goods and effects that had been on board. As a result, he was left indebted to several persons on the island for provisions that had been supplied for his intended voyage to India. It was further stated that he was unable to discharge these debts, nor to provide for his own necessities, and that he required assistance in order to return to England by the first ship that should arrive. It was also noted that his carpenter, who had been left ashore when the ship departed, had later sought to return on board for employment but had been ordered to keep away at his peril. Captain Knox therefore requested that he be provided with money from the Honourable Company’s cash held on the island, both to settle his debts and to equip himself for his passage to England. He also requested that some allowance be made for the maintenance of his carpenter until such time as he might secure passage on the next available ship. It was ordered that Captain Robert Holden should provide Interpretations The phrase “road before Fort James” referred to the anchorage area off the island where ships lay at mooring rather than in a formal harbour, making them more vulnerable to sudden departure without notice. The request for funds from the “Company’s cash” reflected a system in which Company-held money on the island could be advanced under official authority to meet urgent obligations, subject to approval by the Governor and Council. Speculations The abrupt departure of the Tonqudome Merchant perhaps indicates either misconduct by its crew or conflict surrounding Knox’s voyage, leaving him unexpectedly without his goods and financial means. The appeal for Company funds suggests that Knox’s position was considered sufficiently important or credible to justify intervention, indicating the practical need to support Company-associated individuals in cases of sudden loss. | |
176 | That Capt Knox have the sd moneys out And that his Carpenter shall have Mathew Pouncey being a planter It is Ordered That the sd Pouncey be examined Accordingly the sd Pouncey was sworne But upon Consideration of the whole Which accordingly was done And the sd Samuell thereafter followed in Matth Pouncey | It was ordered that Captain Robert Knox should receive money from the Honourable Company’s cash as he had requested, not exceeding the sum of 100 dollars in total. It was further ordered that his carpenter should be maintained at the Company’s table until the arrival of the next ship in the road, and thereafter provided for his departure to England. Mathew Pouncey, a planter, had previously obtained a licence to go aboard the ship Tonqudome Merchant earlier in the month. On the evening of Whitsunday, he had remained on board when the vessel departed, and it was observed that he had stayed there, possibly considering it safer for himself. From this, suspicion arose that he might have had knowledge of the ship’s sudden departure. It was therefore ordered that Pouncey should be examined upon oath concerning his observations of the actions, words and conduct of Captain Knox, as well as the circumstances of the ship’s departure during the time he had been on board. Pouncey was accordingly sworn and questioned, and he provided answers to the matters put before him. Upon consideration of his testimony, it was determined that there was no clear or sufficient evidence to show that he had any knowledge of the incident. He was therefore dismissed, which was carried into effect. Interpretations The grant of funds “not exceeding one hundred dollars” reflected a controlled disbursement system, whereby financial assistance from Company funds was limited by an authorised maximum to prevent excessive or unaccounted expenditure. The provision of “diet at the Company’s table” indicated an institutional arrangement for maintenance, whereby individuals under Company care were supplied with food and sustenance as part of official support rather than through direct payment. The examination “upon oath” demonstrated a formal investigative procedure, requiring sworn testimony to establish facts and determine responsibility within the Company’s administrative and judicial framework. | |
177 | May the 29th 1685 Mathew Pouncey went on Board the | An account was given by Mathew Pouncey concerning events on 29 May 1685 aboard the ship Tonqudome Merchant. He stated that he had gone aboard at about six o’clock in the morning to obtain food and drink in exchange for papers belonging to Captain Knox. He dined with the captain and mentioned that he was to receive five pieces of pantadoes from Mr Gilleum, which had been left in his possession by Mr Broadwell. After the captain had gone ashore, Pouncey reported that Gilleum, the doctor, two midshipmen, gunners and others of the ship’s company began drinking punch. Two large bowls were prepared, of which part was consumed before more was made. Gilleum then called several additional members of the crew, and further quantities of punch were prepared and drunk. During this time, the topmast was brought aboard and raised, and the crew continued their activity while conversing and behaving in a disorderly manner. Pouncey stated that there was loud speech and swearing among the men, including remarks directed at the captain, and that the situation appeared unruly. After he came ashore, he spoke of these events and referred to some Portuguese rigging. He returned to the ship with Gilleum and the doctor, seeking to understand what was taking place, but was put off and told that they would come ashore later. He was told by Gilleum that he would soon be returned and should prepare his belongings. Pouncey described being taken again into the boat and brought near the ship, where activity continued on deck, including preparations involving the main topmast. He indicated that the boat was separated and that further actions continued on board. Interpretations The reference to “pantadoes” denoted a form of trade good or provision, likely part of the cargo or exchange items handled between individuals aboard the ship, reflecting informal barter alongside formal transactions. The repeated preparation and consumption of punch among the crew indicated a context of reduced discipline aboard the vessel, which could affect command authority and operational control. Speculations The sequence of drinking, disorderly behaviour and work on the ship’s rigging perhaps suggests that the departure of the vessel was undertaken in a hurried or irregular manner, possibly without full adherence to normal command procedures. The presence of multiple crew members acting collectively and engaging in private exchanges and conversations may indicate a degree of coordination among them, raising the possibility that the ship’s departure was not solely directed by formal authority. | |
178 | Gilleum to come into the hoist & June the 8th 1685 Sworne before us in Robt Knox | Mathew Pouncey continued his account by stating that Gilleum, together with the doctor and others of the ship’s company, had called several men together for the purpose of drinking. He reported that they spoke and swore among themselves and showed that they did not welcome his presence. He therefore requested to be taken ashore. It was described that Gilleum and others arranged for a boat, and Pouncey remained only with two midshipmen, the gunner and the coxswain, who appeared unconcerned. He was then rowed ashore to the old landing place, and as soon as he had disembarked, the boat pushed off again. Pouncey stated that he had been told that they would not wait for the captain, and that Gilleum had said that certain items were to be brought from him for Captain Beard. He was told that Gilleum would return shortly with the boat. Pouncey further explained that when Gilleum or the doctor had been ashore, he had frequently provided for them or lent them money, and that as a result he was left out of pocket by about £20. He stated that he had received little in return, mentioning only some knives and a sum of £1 6s, and that he had also received boards from the captain in place of other expected items. This statement was signed by Mathew Pouncey and dated 8 June 1685, and was sworn before the Council, with Captain Robert Knox present. Interpretations The reference to being “sworn before us in Councell” indicated a formal deposition procedure, whereby statements were given under oath before the governing body, forming part of an official inquiry or record. The mention of goods being substituted with “boards” reflected an informal practice of settling debts or obligations in kind rather than in money, illustrating the mixed monetary and barter-based economy operating on the island. Speculations The reluctance of the crew to wait for the captain and their dismissal of Pouncey perhaps suggests a breakdown in normal command structure aboard the vessel, indicating that its departure may have been undertaken without full regard to established authority. The financial losses claimed by Pouncey, together with his description of lending money and supplying goods, may reflect the blurred boundaries between private exchange and formal provisioning, creating conditions in which disputes and uncertainty over obligations could arise. | |
179 | [...] of [...] Mary Hard[ing] single woman Complained The s[ai]d Bodley answereth that he d[eni] It is Ordered That the s[ai]d Bodley doe forthwith bring or John Nelson and the Boston churchwardens | A person who had previously given evidence before the Council was questioned further regarding the truth of her statement, and upon being examined again under oath declared that all she had stated was true. Mary Harding, a single woman, brought a complaint against Richard Bodley, her father-in-law, alleging that he had detained and withheld her clothing from her since her marriage to her husband, who had been Sarah, now deceased, the wife of the said Bodley. Bodley responded by denying the complaint. He stated that Harding was the daughter of his late wife and that he had provided for her maintenance. He declared that he had allowed for her boarding for one year and that arrangements had been made for her care, including the payment of 5s per week from his own means. He further stated that he did not deny that there was any stock or estate belonging to Richard Harding, the father of the children, but asserted that if it should later appear that the child might be better maintained, educated and provided for elsewhere, he would consent to such an arrangement. It was ordered that Bodley should immediately produce, or cause to be produced, before the Governor and Council a written contract or agreement made between himself and Rutter concerning the boarding and education of the child for one year. Upon review of this document, judgement was to be given. In the meantime, the child was to remain in the care and custody of Bodley as her father-in-law. It was also recorded that John Nelson and the churchwardens of Jamestown for the previous year appeared and presented a paper dated that day, subscribed by themselves and by Thomas Brown, one of the overseers of the poor for the previous year. In this paper it was indicated that, upon taking account of the inhabitants on that day and in the places concerned, certain persons whose names were to follow had been nominated to Interpretations The requirement to produce a “contract & agreement in writing” demonstrated the reliance on formal written arrangements to regulate responsibilities for maintenance and upbringing, indicating the importance of documented obligations in resolving disputes. The role of “churchwardens” and “overseers of the poor” reflected established parish offices, through which local administration addressed matters of welfare, supervision of inhabitants and the management of assistance to those in need. Speculations The insistence on a written agreement before judgement was given perhaps indicates a concern to base decisions on verifiable obligations rather than conflicting verbal claims, reflecting an effort to standardise dispute resolution. The involvement of parish officers in presenting lists of inhabitants and nominees suggests an attempt to integrate local community structures into the broader administrative system of the island, reinforcing governance through recognised roles. | |
180 | Ch[ur]chwardens and overseers of the poore Michaell Martin Henry Ga[le]s It is Ordered by the Gov[er]n[o]r That [...] & Boston doe Alsoe [...] hath been expended Rich[ar]d Grig[gs] his acco[un]t of Mr Spencer Rich[ar]d Grig[gs] denying the debt and saith it All[so] Bar[ti]ng [...][...] p[re]sented It is Ordered That Rich[ar]d Grig[gs] doe pay & satisfie | The names of those nominated to serve as churchwardens and overseers of the poor for the present year were recorded as Michael Martin, John Wilson, Sutton Jack, John O[...]grave, Henry Gales and James Garroway, together with others [...] for service relating to the poor. It was ordered by the Governor, with the approval of the Council, that [...] and Boston should, on Monday 22 June 1685, submit a full and complete account of all monies received or due, together with Mathew Pouncey, churchwarden of the Jamestown parish, and of all matters for which they were accountable. This was required because such accounts had not been properly rendered for the previous year in relation to church affairs. It was further ordered that a full account should be given of all sums expended and paid for the repair of the church and its associated structures. Richard Griggs presented an account relating to Mr Spencer, who had been churchwarden of the parish, concerning money alleged to be due to Spencer. Griggs denied that the debt existed or that he had ever promised such a sum, but stated that he would nevertheless be content to pay it. Another person [...] presented a statement in his defence before the Governor and Council, addressing several circumstances relating to the same matter. It was ordered that Richard Griggs should pay and satisfy Mr Spencer the sum of [...]. Interpretations The requirement to submit “a full and complete account” reflected formal financial oversight, ensuring that parish officers were held responsible for collecting, managing and reporting funds connected to church maintenance and local welfare. The offices of “churchwardens and overseers of the poor” combined responsibility for ecclesiastical administration and relief of the poor, indicating the integration of religious and social governance within the island’s institutional framework. Speculations The demand for overdue accounts perhaps suggests concern that funds collected for church and parish purposes had not been properly recorded or managed, prompting closer scrutiny by the Governor and Council. The decision to require payment despite Griggs’ denial of the debt may indicate that the Council prioritised resolution and settlement of outstanding obligations over prolonged dispute, aiming to maintain administrative order. | |
181 | [...] the sume of 30 s[hi]llings in money or Whereas in some former Councells order It is Ordered That a Market house be forthwith That Deodat[us] Baker Joyner & other p[er]sons And it is further Ordered & agreed That the said haveing sume of 31 in Adjourned untill Munday Jno Blackmore | It was ordered that Richard Griggs should pay to Mr Spencer the sum of 30s in money or goods to his satisfaction within one month from the date of the order. Reference was then made to previous orders of Council concerning the construction of a market house in accordance with the repeated instructions of the Honourable Company and its Lords Proprietors. It was ordered that a market house should be immediately erected and built on the vacant ground situated between Captain Bence’s garden wall and the church, opposite the churchward houses on the west side and the church houses on the east side of the town. The building was to be constructed with a double roof running from east to west, measuring 60 feet in length along the sides and 32 feet in breadth on the south side. Deodatus Baker, joiner, together with other persons, was appointed and employed by the Governor and Council to oversee and ensure the proper execution of the work. An allowance was to be made to them as necessary from the Honourable Company’s treasury. It was further ordered and agreed that the sum of £31, in money and goods from the Company’s treasury, should be applied and used for the construction of the market house. The Council was then adjourned until Monday 24 June 1685. Interpretations The specification of the market house’s dimensions and position demonstrated a planned approach to urban organisation, indicating that public structures were designed with precise measurements and a central location to facilitate regulated trade. The appointment of Deodatus Baker as “joiner” to oversee the work reflected the use of skilled tradesmen in supervisory roles, combining technical expertise with administrative responsibility in the execution of Company projects. The allocation of £31 from the Company’s treasury illustrated the direct funding of public infrastructure by the governing authority, showing how resources were centrally managed and distributed for communal purposes. Speculations The repeated emphasis on constructing the market house perhaps indicates that earlier orders had not been carried out promptly, leading to renewed insistence on its completion. The detailed positioning of the building in relation to the church and surrounding houses suggests an intention to place commercial activity at the centre of the settlement, reinforcing both oversight and accessibility. | |
182 | [...] [...] the 22 of June 1685 at Fort James Present John Blackmore Govr The Petn of Allison freeplant Complaines Richd Griffin answeres & confesseth debt The Bond being for lawfull moneyes That a warrant for a Judgement be awarded The sd Tho Allison complained of John | A Council was held at Fort James on 22 June 1685, attended by John Blackmore as Governor, Robert Holden as Deputy Governor, Gregory [...] as Engineer, together with [...] Coy and Thomas Gosse as Engineer. Thomas Allison, a free planter, submitted a petition complaining against Richard Griffin, also a free planter, for non-payment of a sum due upon a bond, described in part as relating to tobacco valued at 2s 3d and other amounts. Griffin answered and confessed the debt, stating that he had made some payment and would satisfy the remainder when he was able, but requested that the Court allow him further time. The bond being recognised as binding for lawful money, it was ordered that a warrant for judgement should be issued, requiring that the bond be satisfied, and that execution should proceed against the estate of Richard Griffin. Thomas Allison also complained against John Edwards, one of his servants, who had absconded. It was stated that Edwards had caused Allison to incur expense and had taken or been entrusted with certain goods, which had been delivered into the possession of Henry Lawrence for his use. The complainant alleged that he had suffered loss in consequence of these actions. Interpretations The reference to a bond “for lawful moneyes” indicated that the obligation was enforceable in standard monetary terms rather than in kind, ensuring that the debt could be legally pursued and recovered through formal mechanisms. The process of issuing a “warrant for a Judgement” followed by “execution against the estate” reflected the Council’s judicial authority to enforce debts by authorising seizure of a debtor’s property. The description of a servant who had “run away” indicated a contractual labour relationship in which the servant was bound to service, and whose departure without permission could result in liability for losses or damages to the employer. Speculations The admission of debt alongside a request for more time perhaps indicates that financial obligations were commonly acknowledged even when immediate payment was not possible, suggesting reliance on credit within the island economy. The complaint concerning a runaway servant and transferred goods may reflect the difficulties of enforcing labour obligations and securing property in a small and mobile settlement, where individuals could leave service and complicate ownership claims. | |
183 | [...] Defend[ant] [...] may have [...] It Is Ordered That the Con[sid]eration of this matter be Henry Fo[...] freeplanter Complaines of Wm William Bishop answer[eth] there was an a[...] It Is Ordered That the sd Bishop doe within a month The Petn of Henry Fo[...] complained of Andrew It Is Ordered That the sd Andrew Wilson shall pay the | A matter was brought before the Council in which the defendant requested further consideration. It was ordered that the case should be deferred, and that the question concerning the right and title of John Gosse should be continued to the next Court. Henry Fo[...] , a free planter, complained against William Bishop, also a free planter, for non-payment of a debt arising from goods, which Bishop had refused to pay. Bishop answered that an agreement had existed between them whereby he was to receive satisfaction in the goods themselves. He stated that Fo[...] had refused to deliver the goods at the agreed time, and that the agreement had thereby lapsed or been altered. He denied liability for the claimed debt and requested that the Court consider the matter. Evidence was presented, including depositions and testimony from several witnesses, concerning the transactions and agreements between the parties. Upon consideration of these particulars, it was ordered that Bishop should, within one month, enter into a bond in double the sum, amounting to £50, to ensure full satisfaction of the debt together with costs. Henry Fo[...] also submitted a petition against Andrew Wilson, a free planter, for non-payment of a debt. After some discussion, it was ordered that Wilson should pay to Fo[...] the sum received by him, together with the costs of the Court. Interpretations The requirement that Bishop enter into “a bond of double the summe” reflected a legal security mechanism, whereby the debtor was compelled to guarantee payment by pledging an amount exceeding the original debt, thereby providing assurance of compliance. The deferral of the case concerning John Gosse’s “right and title” indicated that disputes over property or entitlement were formally scheduled and adjudicated across multiple sessions, allowing time for further evidence or clarification. The inclusion of “costs of Court” demonstrated that the expenses associated with legal proceedings were recoverable from the losing party, reinforcing the financial consequences of unsuccessful defence or delay. Speculations The dispute over whether satisfaction was to be made in goods or money perhaps indicates that transactions on the island often involved mixed forms of payment, leading to disagreement when terms were not clearly fulfilled. The imposition of a bond rather than immediate payment suggests that the Court recognised practical limitations on liquidity, preferring to secure future compliance rather than enforce immediate seizure. | |
184 | William Marsh freep[...] Complaines Richd Parson Answer[...] that sd Marsh en[...] Saise Nicholas freep[...] testifieth that sd William Bo[...] freep[...] testifieth It Is Ordered That sd Parson doe forthwith Thomas Smoult freep[...] Complaines further sd Smoult Complaines of sd | A complaint was brought by William Marsh, a free planter, against Richard Parson, also a free planter, for damage done to his cornfield by Parson’s cattle. Richard Parson answered that Marsh’s fence was not lawful, and that his cattle had been kept within their proper bounds as required. Nicholas [...], a free planter, testified that Marsh’s fence was good and lawful. A statement was made that cattle, when not properly restrained, could break into enclosed ground and consume or damage crops, and that satisfaction ought to be made to Marsh where such damage had occurred. William Bo[...] , a free planter, testified that he had seen Marsh’s fence much broken down, whether by cattle or otherwise. Confirmation was given that considerable damage had been done to Marsh’s field, with the value estimated at somewhat above 600 pounds of produce. His testimony supported the substance of the complaint. It was ordered that Richard Parson should immediately pay to William Marsh the value of the damage together with the costs of suit. A further complaint was brought by Thomas Smoult, a free planter, against John Thornton, also a free planter, for non payment of £19 due upon a bill obligatory, being a formal bond under Thornton’s hand and seal dated [...], which was read in court. An additional complaint was made by the said Smoult against Thornton for non payment of £15 due for goods received by Thornton, as set out in Smoult’s account of particulars, together with [...]. Interpretations The dispute over the “lawful” fence showed that responsibility for crop damage depended on whether proper enclosure had been maintained. A sufficient fence transferred liability to the owner of wandering cattle, establishing a practical standard for property protection and agricultural order. The valuation of damage at above 600 pounds of produce indicated the scale of loss in agricultural terms rather than currency, reflecting the economic importance of subsistence and crop yield within the island’s system of exchange and survival. The use of a bill obligatory under hand and seal demonstrated a formalised debt instrument that carried legal force, allowing the court to treat the obligation as binding evidence without requiring further proof of agreement. The award of costs of suit reinforced the court’s role in enforcing accountability, ensuring that the party found responsible bore both the direct loss and the expense of legal proceedings. | |
185 | Tho: Thornton Acknowledgeth Witnesse sd Thornton produced & sd [...] Upon long & serious Consideration of the It is Agreed That sd Thornton shall not stand bound It is further agreed That sd Thornton & Smoult Further That the Acct of sd Smoult for goods recd But the whole matter is referred to two arbi[...] | Thomas Thornton acknowledged that the bill obligatory for £19 was due, according to its tenor. A statement was made that certain actions were to have been performed by him in connection with the obligation, and that thereafter he was to pay 100 pounds of tobacco. Witnesses produced by Thornton, namely Thomas Browne and Richard [...], were sworn and testified to the truth of the matter. They affirmed that a few days previously Thornton had paid to Smoult part of the sum due, and that further payment had been made, so that Smoult had been satisfied and had received the same by his own acknowledgement. After long and serious consideration of the whole matter, it was agreed that Thornton should not remain bound, provided that he gave security and that Smoult was satisfied with the same. It was further agreed that Thornton and Smoult should equally share the charge of the survey, and that Thornton ought to pay damages. An additional order was made that Smoult’s account for goods received by Thornton should be examined, and that payment should be made by Thornton as found due. The whole matter concerning the debts and differences between them was referred to two arbitrators, to be brought again to hearing when both parties should agree. Interpretations The acknowledgement of the bill obligatory underlined its status as a binding written instrument, enforceable once admitted in court, though its terms could still be modified through agreement between the parties. The requirement that Thornton give security in place of remaining bound reflected a negotiated adjustment of liability, whereby a formal obligation could be replaced by a guarantee deemed sufficient to protect the creditor’s interest. The agreement to share the charge of the survey indicated that a formal inspection or measurement had been required, probably to assess goods, land, or damage, with costs distributed to reflect mutual involvement in the dispute. The referral to arbitrators demonstrated the court’s use of delegated dispute resolution, allowing selected individuals to examine accounts and differences in detail before a final determination, thereby easing the court’s administrative burden while still retaining ultimate authority over the outcome. | |
186 | Tho: Mathews sworne in May 1683 saith he It Is Ordered That sd John Harris be entertained John Coleman & Tho: Shelton freep[...] It Is Ordered That the sd Coleman & Shelton doe | Thomas Mathews, sworn in May 1683, stated that he had come to the Honourable Company’s plantation in Virginia, having brought with him nine servants at his own charge aboard the ship Rochester, commanded by Captain Bunnell. A statement was made that one John Harris had been found as a prisoner and had appeared at the said plantation among the nine men. Testimony described him as a peaceable, careful, and sober man who had served Mathews in Virginia for some time, but had afterwards run away. It was further stated that he had since been taken again, had assisted Mathews, and had been allowed to serve after the trouble, working as one employed among the Company’s cattle. It was ordered that the said John Harris should be received into the service of the Honourable Company, and maintained out of their provisions from that day forward until further order of the Governor, at a salary of 25 shillings per day together with diet at the plantation. A complaint was brought by John Coleman and Thomas Shelton, free planters, concerning the sum of six shillings on account of a “Tabor lad” taken prisoner, the said man called Richard. A statement was made that payments had been collected at the rate of ten at a time from each man, and that after the sums had been paid over, a balance of £2 8s remained in their hands. It was ordered that Coleman and Shelton should immediately pay to Mr Michael Anderson the sum of six shillings, for which order was made concerning the said goods, unless security were given for the same. Upon such payment or security being provided, they were discharged from their office in respect of that sum. Interpretations The description of Harris as a prisoner who had been taken, returned to service, and then employed in the Company’s cattle work illustrated how labour could be reassigned under Company authority, converting an irregular or contested status into formal employment under supervision. The order to maintain Harris “out of their provisions” demonstrated that the Company directly sustained certain workers, integrating them into its controlled labour system rather than leaving them under private contractual arrangements. The reference to a “Tabor lad” taken prisoner suggested a captured individual whose custody or value had been distributed financially among settlers, indicating a system in which the handling of captives involved shared monetary responsibility and subsequent accounting. The requirement that Coleman and Shelton either pay the outstanding sum or provide security showed that those entrusted with handling funds or goods were held accountable in a quasi official capacity, and could be released from responsibility only upon settlement or guarantee of the amount owed. | |
187 | [...] Cole & Robt [...] freep[...] Wm Phillips For want of payment the penalty bond To Col: Soltin Gregory Haskins | A case was brought between [...] Cole and Robert [...], both free planters, concerning the right and possession of a parcel of ground. Both parties appeared before the court. It was ordered that the said case should be speedily settled, and that an indenture should be made and signed to determine and dispose of the right in question. The agreement was to be formally executed and returned as required. Reference was made to William Phillips in connection with a penalty bond. For want of payment, it was directed that he should remain bound under the terms of that bond for performance of the obligation. The matter was directed to Colonel Soltin, with Gregory Haskins, Mark G[...] and George [...] also named in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The order to create and sign an indenture showed that disputes over land were resolved through formal written agreements, which legally transferred or confirmed rights and ensured enforceability beyond the immediate judgement. The emphasis on “right and possession” distinguished between legal entitlement and physical control of land, indicating that both aspects could be contested and required formal reconciliation through the court. The reference to a penalty bond for non payment demonstrated the continued use of secured obligations, whereby failure to fulfil terms resulted in ongoing liability under a legally binding instrument. The involvement of multiple named individuals, including Colonel Soltin, suggested that certain disputes required oversight or certification by recognised figures, reinforcing the administrative structure through which property and contractual matters were regulated. | |
188 | At a Councell held on Monday Present John Blackmore Govr Andrew Wilson free Planter Complaines Henry Kerby acknowledgeth the bill & Wilson replyeth that he will be content Whereas Christopher Hawing complained It is Ordered That the sd Savage be immediately | A council was held at Fort James on Monday, 20 July 1685. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Gregory Feild, Ensign, Mark E[...], and Thomas Gosse, Ensign. A complaint was brought by Andrew Wilson, a free planter, against Henry Kerby, also a free planter, for non payment of a debt due by bill dated 01/05/1685. Henry Kerby acknowledged the bill and the debt, but stated that he was not able to pay the same in money as specified in the bill. A request was made that he might be permitted to satisfy Wilson otherwise, and it was proposed that if Wilson would deliver up the bill, Kerby would give a bond to pay the same with interest at a time to be agreed between them. Wilson replied that he would be content to allow further time, extending for another year until 01/06/1686, provided that Kerby gave good security for the full and secure payment of the debt with interest. Agreement was expressed that, upon such security being given, the matter might be referred to arbitrators, which Kerby accepted. Reference was then made to a prior complaint by Christopher Hawing against Philip Savage for non payment of £20, which had been ordered in council on 13 October 1684 to be paid in January following. As Savage had not complied, Hawing had sought enforcement, and Savage had been taken into custody. A plea was made by Savage that he was unable to pay. It was ordered that the said Savage should be immediately taken into custody. Interpretations The proposal to exchange the original bill for a new bond with interest showed how debt instruments could be renegotiated, allowing a debtor to restructure obligations while preserving the creditor’s legal security. The requirement for “good security” indicated that repayment depended not only on promise but on enforceable guarantees, which could include property or sureties, ensuring that the creditor retained a claim even during extended time for payment. The agreement to refer the matter to arbitrators demonstrated the court’s willingness to delegate detailed settlement of financial terms, while still framing the conditions under which such arbitration would proceed. The enforcement of the earlier order against Philip Savage, culminating in custody for non payment, illustrated the court’s authority to compel compliance with its judgements through physical detention where financial obligations were not met. Speculations The willingness of Wilson to extend the repayment period by a full year, conditional upon security and interest, perhaps reflected a pragmatic recognition of limited liquidity on the island, where immediate payment in money may have been difficult even among free planters. The continued detention of Savage despite his claim of inability to pay may indicate that the court prioritised enforcement and deterrence over individual financial hardship, suggesting that imprisonment functioned as pressure to compel payment or intervention by associates who might settle the debt on his behalf. | |
189 | William Bowman & John Draper Trustees Richard Parham answereth that he hath six It is Ordered That sd Parham do still keepe and The Comrs make one reference of Richard Parham It is Ordered That the sd Parham be hereby fined | William Bowman and John Draper, acting as trustees for the children of William Hamers, brought a complaint against Richard Parham, a free planter, for detaining six yards belonging to the said children. Richard Parham answered that he had six yards in his custody, which had been committed to him by one Parham and him for 14½ or some [...] amounting to £8. A statement was made that he had received the same from Hamers’ children, and that he would deliver the goods when what was due to him had been satisfied. He did not deny possession of the six yards, nor the substance of the claim. The said Parham, being sworn, deposed to the truth of what he had affirmed. It was ordered that Richard Parham should continue to keep and then deliver the said six yards in full satisfaction of his debts to the children of William Hamers, and that he should also discharge the costs of suit. A further matter was raised by the Commissioners concerning Richard Parham, for breaking open a house belonging to Captain Guyard and removing several slaves. Parham answered that the breaking had been lawful, stating that the slaves had been left in his house and had been taken from a place where no person was present. A claim was made that the action had been done in right of stock of cattle, and that what had been taken had been replaced by other goods left in the room. However, no proof was produced to establish the truth of this defence. It was ordered that Richard Parham should be fined 100 pounds of sugar for the said act and for carelessness in the management of his demesne. Interpretations The designation of Bowman and Draper as trustees showed that property belonging to minors was administered by appointed individuals who acted on their behalf in legal and financial matters, ensuring that the children’s interests could be represented in court. The retention of the six yards by Parham pending satisfaction of a debt reflected the operation of a possessory claim, whereby goods could be held as security until a related obligation had been discharged. The order that the goods should stand in full satisfaction of the debt indicated that the court could convert disputed property into settlement of financial obligations, effectively closing the account through transfer of possession. The fine of 100 pounds of sugar illustrated the use of produce as a unit of penalty and payment, reflecting the material basis of value on the island where commodities functioned alongside or in place of coin. The reference to Parham’s “demesne” concerned the management of his own property or estate, and the penalty for carelessness showed that individuals could be held responsible not only for direct acts but also for failures in oversight that led to disorder or dispute. Speculations The imposition of a fine in sugar rather than money, in a case involving forced entry and removal of slaves, perhaps suggests that the court prioritised immediate, locally usable compensation over formal monetary penalties, indicating a practical adaptation to limited cash circulation. The failure of Parham to prove his claim of lawful entry, despite offering a justification tied to cattle and substitution of goods, may indicate that informal or self authorised enforcement of perceived rights was common but not accepted without clear evidence, reflecting tension between customary practice and formal legal authority. | |
190 | [...] Master [...] having (by permission) It is Ordered That no confirmation be given for as Sarah [...] & Henry Woodhouse Complaines of Jasper Jay confesseth that he hath cut downe Edward [...] saith that he was present that Tho: Brown saith that he saw the sd John Brown [...] saith that the sd Barton hath | A matter was raised concerning [...] Master [...], who, having obtained permission and express leave from Christopher [...], was now denied confirmation of the same way, and the [...] was to be retained. It was ordered that no confirmation should be granted for such lands unless the Governor or proprietor caused a formal survey to be made, establishing the bounds and limits. In the meantime, the said Master was permitted to dispossess the said [...] until such confirmation was obtained from the government. A complaint was brought by Sarah [...] together with Henry Woodhouse, acting as her agent, against Jasper Jay for cutting down and destroying fruit trees within her enclosed grounds and plantation, and for committing violence upon her goods, to her prejudice and damage. Jasper Jay admitted that he had cut down trees, stating that he had felled 90,000 square trees in order to carry out work upon the plantation of Mr Barton, in accordance with an agreement previously made. Edward [...] testified that he had been present and had seen Jay cutting down the trees, estimating that about 200 square had been cut, and stated that Woodhouse had stood by without objection. It was further affirmed that Jay had been encouraged by Mr Barton to carry out the cutting. Thomas Brown testified that he had seen the trees cut down and described the action as a significant operation connected to Barton’s plantation. He confirmed that considerable damage had been caused by the cutting, and added that he had no other means to defend his fence than what had been taken. John Brown [...] stated that Mr Barton had caused and procured the said fence, which he asserted had caused damage to his plantation. Interpretations The refusal to confirm land rights without a formal survey showed that possession alone was insufficient to establish legal title, and that official measurement and recording of boundaries were required to secure recognised ownership. The requirement that the Governor or proprietor procure the survey indicated that authority over land allocation and confirmation rested centrally, and that private arrangements or permissions required validation through formal administrative procedures. The allowance for temporary dispossession pending confirmation reflected a provisional approach to disputed landholding, where occupation could be altered before final title was determined. The role of Henry Woodhouse as agent demonstrated that individuals could act on behalf of others in legal proceedings, representing their interests in disputes over property and damage. The admission by Jay that the cutting had been done under agreement with Mr Barton highlighted how labour could be directed by contractual arrangements, even where such actions resulted in conflict with neighbouring property holders. Speculations The insistence on a formal survey before confirming land rights perhaps indicates growing pressure on land resources, where informal or loosely defined boundaries were no longer sufficient and disputes required stricter administrative control. The conflicting testimony regarding the number of trees cut, ranging from 200 to 90,000, may suggest exaggeration or strategic presentation of evidence by the parties, reflecting attempts to influence the scale of perceived damage or justify the extent of the work undertaken. The claim that Woodhouse stood by without objection while the trees were being cut could imply prior knowledge or tacit consent, raising the possibility that the dispute emerged only after the scale or consequences of the work became apparent. The repeated involvement of Mr Barton in directing the cutting and associated works suggests that larger plantation interests may have been expanding at the expense of neighbouring plots, indicating tension between individual property rights and coordinated agricultural development. | |
191 | Capt Bodley & Nestor Sexton free plant[...] Mr White Examiner of the Councell Upon a long hearing of the whole matter It is Ordered That Orlando Baggs & Tho: Sherwin George Chilton saith he complains of Robt Robt Leech confesseth sd debt but saith that Daniel Davis hath presented a petition | Captain Bodley and Nestor Sexton, both free planters, gave testimony on behalf of Widow Jackson. They stated that Bodley had viewed his planting ground and that it could not cause any harm to Sexton’s plantation. Mr White, acting as examiner of the council, stated that the place where the wood had stood and been cut down was not as described, and that some small damage had in fact been caused to Sexton’s adjoining plantation. After a full hearing of the matter, during which several witnesses were examined and their testimony laid before the court, it was ordered that Orlando Baggs and Thomas Sherwin should, on behalf of the parties, immediately inspect the matter and the differences between the parties, including the plantation of Sherwin and that of Sexton, as well as the Browne plantation. They were to make an award under their hands within twenty days and return their report to the court. George Chilton then complained of Robert Leech for non payment of a debt of 10 shillings. Leech answered that he had not received any such sum since the time of their agreement and was not bound to pay more. Robert Leech then admitted the debt but stated that it had only become payable after the contract had been made, and that it had not been agreed upon within that contract. He further stated that he had never received the sum and requested to be discharged. A petition was presented by Daniel Davis concerning the inhabitants, in which he requested the removal of Thomas Cooke and others who were under execution for default, relating to the payment of 12 shillings per head which had been raised and imposed by order of the court. This matter was to remain under consideration until such time as satisfaction had been received, and until further order of the court concerning the inhabitants. Interpretations The appointment of Baggs and Sherwin to view the plantations and issue an award showed the court’s reliance on delegated inspection and arbitration in resolving disputes involving land use and damage, particularly where physical assessment was required. The role of the council’s examiner in giving testimony indicated that officials could participate directly in evidentiary processes, lending administrative authority to the evaluation of contested facts. The dispute over whether a debt had been received or had become payable illustrated the importance of clearly defined contractual terms, especially regarding timing and conditions of payment, which could determine enforceability. The reference to persons “in execution” for default demonstrated that failure to comply with court ordered payments could result in enforcement measures affecting personal liberty or property until the obligation was satisfied. The imposition of a charge of 12 shillings per head on the inhabitants showed that the court could levy collective financial obligations, distributing responsibility across the population and enforcing compliance through legal process. Speculations The decision to appoint multiple individuals to inspect several plantations, including that of Browne, perhaps suggests that the dispute extended beyond a simple bilateral conflict, indicating interconnected land use issues that required a broader assessment. The conflicting statements by Leech, first denying receipt and then acknowledging the debt while disputing its terms, may reflect uncertainty or ambiguity in informal agreements, suggesting that oral or loosely recorded contracts created space for reinterpretation when disputes arose. The petition by Daniel Davis concerning multiple inhabitants under execution for a per head charge may indicate tension over collective levies, possibly reflecting resistance or difficulty among settlers in meeting imposed financial obligations at a community level. | |
192 | Richd Whitton appeared and declares It is Ordered That the sd Edward Dammond shall Tho: Horn free Planter Complaines of Henry Lynda answereth that he hath paid that a breach being first made in his Court finds that he doth desire to | Richard Whitton appeared and declared a complaint against Captain Holden concerning damages valued at about £10. Upon review of the proceedings brought against Captain Holden, it was judged by the council that Whitton had acted in a manner deserving punishment. It was ordered that Edward Dammond should stand to a sentence of seven days in the stocks for his insolent language and expressions made in the presence of authority, and that he should also pay immediately or otherwise be committed into custody. Accordingly, the said Richard Dammond was adjudged no longer to remain in prison, but to stand committed as aforesaid in relation to Whitton’s matter. Thomas Horn, a free planter, brought a complaint against Henry Lynda, an inhabitant, for non payment of three bushels owed for work done. Henry Lynda answered that payment had already been made according to agreement, and that Horn had been satisfied for two months’ work. A statement was made that nothing further was due, and that a witness could be produced to prove the agreement. It was further stated that a breach had first been made in Lynda’s fence, and that Horn had been at fault for some time, during which Lynda had provided provisions and other support. The court found that Horn sought to receive one bushel of beans in satisfaction, and that such beans had been procured. It was further noted that Lynda remained in her house for some time thereafter, and that the beans were brought. Interpretations The punishment of Dammond for “insolent language” in the presence of authority showed that verbal conduct toward officials was subject to discipline, with the stocks used as a public and corrective penalty to reinforce respect for governing institutions. The requirement that payment be made immediately or followed by commitment to custody demonstrated the court’s ability to enforce both financial penalties and behavioural discipline through escalating sanctions. The reference to a sentence in the stocks for a fixed period indicated a standardised form of corporal punishment that combined physical restraint with public exposure, serving both punitive and deterrent functions. The dispute over payment in bushels for labour reflected the continued use of produce as a medium of exchange, where agricultural goods functioned as wages and settlement of obligations. The consideration of prior fault relating to a broken fence showed that the court could weigh conduct and circumstances surrounding an agreement, rather than relying solely on the original terms, when determining satisfaction of a claim. Speculations The decision to punish Dammond rather than uphold Whitton’s claim against Captain Holden may suggest that the complaint was perceived as disorderly or improperly presented, indicating that the manner in which grievances were expressed could influence judicial outcomes as much as their substance. The reduction of Horn’s claim to a single bushel of beans, despite an original demand for three bushels, may reflect a negotiated compromise shaped by competing claims of fault, suggesting that the court aimed to restore balance rather than strictly enforce initial demands. The emphasis on Lynda having provided provisions and the delay in collecting the beans may indicate that informal arrangements and mutual dependencies influenced the court’s assessment, pointing to a flexible approach to obligations within a small community economy. | |
193 | Given hearing of all that each party could say Andrew Wilson at whose suite Philip Savage It is Ordered That the sd Prison Keeper doe forthwith James [...] Teste & spow[...] upon [...] The sd Denford saith that the Garnishee is in But that proposal being not accepted It is Adjudged That the sd summe of 6 li in lawfull money [...] paid the sd Watkins | After hearing all that each party could say in the dispute between Henry Lynda and Thomas Horn, no sufficient grounds or testimony appeared to prove that any amount remained due from Lynda to Horn for the said bushels. No clear means was shown by which Horn could substantiate his charge, and the matter rested upon these considerations. Andrew Wilson, at whose suit Philip Savage had been held in custody, referred the matter for settlement upon payment of costs. The court agreed that the debt was just. It was ordered that the prison keeper should immediately release Philip Savage from prison. A further matter was raised concerning goods consigned from England by James [...] Teste and spouse [...] to [...], involving Andrew Denford and Richard [...], and relating also to Captain John Harris, with money and goods involved in the said consignment. Andrew Denford stated that the garnishee held no money at present, having neither supplied funds nor yet made returns from England, but expressed willingness to pay the amount in good goods within a short time. This proposal was not accepted. It was adjudged that the sum of £6 in lawful money of England, together with costs, ought to be paid according to law by the said Walker, and that a warrant for execution should be granted and issued accordingly. A record was made that [...] paid the said Watkins. Interpretations The dismissal of Horn’s claim for lack of sufficient proof showed that the court required credible evidence or testimony to support financial demands, and would not enforce claims based solely on assertion. The release of Savage upon agreement to satisfy costs indicated that imprisonment for debt could be lifted once arrangements were made to meet financial obligations, reflecting the use of custody as leverage rather than a final punishment. The reference to a garnishee showed the involvement of a third party holding assets on behalf of a debtor, against whom a claim could be directed in order to recover a debt. The insistence on payment in “lawful money of England” rather than goods demonstrated the court’s preference, in certain cases, for settlement in recognised currency, especially where formal legal enforcement was invoked. The issuance of a warrant for execution confirmed the court’s authority to enforce judgement through seizure of property or other legal means where voluntary payment was refused. Speculations The court’s rejection of Denford’s offer to pay in goods, despite his stated willingness, may indicate concern over the reliability or valuation of such goods, suggesting that monetary payment was preferred where disputes involved multiple parties and overseas transactions. The involvement of consignments from England, combined with the reference to a garnishee and absent returns, perhaps reflects delays or uncertainties in transatlantic trade, which could complicate the settlement of debts and increase reliance on legal enforcement within the island. | |
194 | There having bin severall sums of It is Ordered That Mr Michael Morris and Sutton That the Churchwardens doe returne And in case the sd Colston & Bolton It is further ordered That the sd Morris and Sutton [...] | It was recorded that several sums of money had been subscribed by voluntary contributions toward the charge of the island and its fortifications, and also by persons who had arrived at the port, for the erection of a “Rapparee” in the chapel yard for the worship of God. No proper account had been taken of the contributions, nor of what had been disbursed and expended. It was ordered that Mr Michael Morris and Sutton Isaac, acting as churchwardens, should take an account from John Colston and Thomas Bolton, churchwardens for the previous year, pursuant to an earlier order of council. The account was to be delivered to them in writing within the following week. It was further ordered that the churchwardens should demand from the said Isaac all goods and monies belonging to the church which had been taken or embezzled, and that these should be brought into court. They were also required to take a full account of all receipts and disbursements made under his hand, and to transmit this account to the court and council at their next session. In the event that Colston and Bolton failed to deliver such an account to the present churchwardens, they were to deliver it directly to the council at the next session. Should they fail to perform their duty in rendering the account, the present churchwardens were to warn them to appear before the council at the next session to answer for their neglect. A further order was made concerning the said Morris and Sutton [...]. Interpretations The reference to voluntary contributions for fortifications and religious construction showed that public works on the island could be funded through collective subscription rather than formal taxation, placing responsibility on local inhabitants and arrivals to support infrastructure and worship. The role of churchwardens extended beyond religious duties to include financial administration, requiring them to collect, hold, and account for funds and goods associated with both ecclesiastical and community purposes. The requirement to produce written accounts demonstrated the increasing importance of record keeping in managing communal resources, allowing the council to exercise oversight and verify the use of funds. The directive to recover goods and monies that had been “embezzled” indicated that misappropriation of church property was treated as a serious breach of trust, subject to investigation and recovery through formal process. The provision requiring former churchwardens to appear before the council for failure to account showed that office holders remained answerable for their administration even after their term had ended, reinforcing accountability within local governance structures. Speculations The absence of any prior accounting for substantial voluntary contributions perhaps suggests either administrative disorder or reluctance among office holders to submit to scrutiny, indicating that informal handling of funds may have been tolerated until concerns became significant. The combination of funding for both fortifications and a chapel structure within the same pool of contributions may reflect overlapping priorities of defence and religious life, suggesting that communal identity and security were closely linked in the organisation of resources. The explicit reference to embezzlement and the need to compel production of accounts may indicate that suspicion had already arisen regarding misuse of funds, prompting the council to impose stricter financial oversight and formal procedures. | |
195 | Isaac Churchwardens doe take especiall All wch the sd Churchwardens are hereby ordered to Capt Gregory Feild is adjudged that he shall make up William Rusher expresseth that he hath recd All that the sd Rusher agreed to refer all differences It is Ordered That the sd Rusher doe pay within one Further That the sd Capt Feild doe forthwith signe a | The churchwardens, Morris and Sutton Isaac, were directed to take especial care and use their utmost endeavours to compile a true and exact account of all monies and goods that had been subscribed, given, or received by any persons for the use of the parish. These were to be applied according to the intentions originally designated for the parish and churchyard. A full account and inventory were to be made of all sums disbursed and expended, as well as what remained due to the store, so that the available resources might be clearly understood. This was to ensure that sufficient means were provided to carry forward and complete the fabric, so that the intended pious design might be fulfilled. The churchwardens were ordered to perform these duties and to present the account at the next session of council on 10 August 1685, or sooner if required. Captain Gregory Feild was adjudged to settle a certain account with Colonel William Dutton within the time specified in a bond dated 13 August 1685. William Rusher stated that he had received monies on account of several goods delivered to Captain Feild, both before and after his departure. He produced various papers relating to these accounts and requested that proceedings be taken. Rusher agreed that all differences between himself and Feild should be referred to the Governor and Council, and that these matters had been examined. A statement was made that he desired the matter to be concluded. It was ordered that Rusher should, within one month, pay to Feild the sum of £3 in full satisfaction of all debts, dues, and demands whatsoever, and that he should give sufficient security under his hand and seal, in accordance with the original obligation dated 13 July last. A further order was made that Captain Feild should forthwith sign a [...] Interpretations The requirement for a “true and exact account” and inventory showed a move toward systematic financial oversight, ensuring that all parish resources were recorded, verified, and directed toward their intended institutional purposes. The reference to the “store” indicated a central repository of goods or funds belonging to the parish, reflecting organised management of communal resources rather than purely individual contributions. The emphasis on completing the “fabricke” of the parish suggested that construction of church buildings was treated as a collective and ongoing project, requiring coordinated financial administration and accountability. The enforcement of the bond between Feild and Dutton demonstrated that formal written obligations governed financial relationships among senior figures, with the council ensuring compliance within agreed timeframes. The order requiring Rusher to provide security under hand and seal confirmed the continued reliance on legally binding guarantees to secure payment, even when a settlement had been reached. Speculations The repeated insistence on accounting for parish funds, including goods, monies, and the store, perhaps indicates prior confusion or mistrust in financial management, suggesting that earlier informal practices had proved insufficient for maintaining confidence in communal projects. The decision to settle all of Rusher’s obligations to Feild for a fixed sum of £3, despite the existence of multiple accounts and papers, may reflect a pragmatic consolidation of complex transactions into a single enforceable figure, indicating a preference for administrative clarity over detailed reconciliation. The linkage between financial accounting and the completion of the parish “fabricke” suggests that delays or difficulties in construction may have prompted stricter oversight, implying that the progress of religious infrastructure was dependent on improved financial discipline. | |
196 | Note that he the sd Capt Feild did never receive Which accordingly the sd Capt Feild did Thomas Rimmer petitioning to be entered It is Ordered That he be admitted as desired and William Heath free planter Complaines Jasper Jay & Tho: Bodger free planters It is Ordered That the sd be bound upon their entering | A note was entered that Captain Gregory Feild had never received anything from Colonel William Dutton or from any of the ships other than what had been due to him in provisions during the year 1685, which he accordingly received. Thomas Rimmer submitted a petition seeking admission into the service of the Honourable Company as one of the coast guard, and requested a reasonable allowance for his subsistence. It was ordered that he should be admitted as requested, and that he should receive one suit of apparel to the value of 12 s, in money or goods, together with an allowance of provisions for his service. William Heath, a free planter, brought a complaint against Daniel Browne for detaining six bushels of rice belonging to him. Browne answered that he had delivered the rice to Heath upon his note, but had received no payment for it. Heath asserted that Browne had not delivered the rice as agreed and that no satisfaction had been received. As both parties denied the matter and no sufficient proof was produced, the case was dismissed. Jasper Jay and Thomas Bodger, both free planters, having been committed to the custody of Captain Holden, were ordered to be bound upon entering into a recognisance of £20 each, with two sureties of £10 each, to appear at the next session of council to answer a charge of riot. Upon entering into this recognisance, they were granted their liberty. Interpretations The formal note regarding Captain Feild’s receipt of provisions clarified entitlement and prevented further claims, showing that the council recorded such statements to settle potential disputes over supply and payment. The admission of Rimmer into the Company’s service with provision of clothing and subsistence demonstrated that employment could include maintenance in kind, with basic equipment and provisions supplied as part of service obligations. The dismissal of the dispute between Heath and Browne for lack of proof showed that the court required corroboration beyond conflicting assertions, and would not impose judgement where evidence was insufficient. The requirement that Jay and Bodger enter into a recognisance indicated a legal mechanism by which individuals were bound, under financial penalty and with sureties, to appear before the court and answer charges, allowing temporary release from custody while ensuring future compliance. Speculations The recording of Feild’s statement that he had received only what was due in provisions for 1685 perhaps reflects prior dispute or suspicion regarding supplies from ships, suggesting that formal clarification was necessary to prevent further claims or accusations. The modest provision granted to Rimmer, consisting of clothing valued at 12 s and subsistence, may indicate that lower level Company service relied on minimal but structured support, reflecting both limited resources and the expectation of basic maintenance rather than wages in money. The requirement of relatively high recognisance sums for Jay and Bodger in relation to a charge of riot may suggest that the alleged disturbance was considered serious, with financial guarantees used to secure public order and ensure their reappearance before authority. | |
197 | Accordingly the same day Jasper Jay acknowledged a Recognizance of the Thomas Barton acknowledged a Recognizance of Now the sd Jasper Jay & Barton appeared before Thorowgood Browne Esqr was ordered to It is Ordered That no person do from henceforth | On the same day, Jasper Jay acknowledged a recognisance in the sum of £20, with Thomas Browne of [...] bound in the sum of £20 as surety, together with [...]. Thomas Barton likewise acknowledged a recognisance, with William [...] bound in £20 and Edward Edmunds in £20. Jasper Jay and Thomas Barton then appeared before the court and entered into their recognisances to appear at the next session. Upon doing so, they were discharged from custody. Thorowgood Browne, Esquire, was ordered to [...] for the purpose of preventing the intermixing of strangers and the committing or disposing of the island in ways tending to its detriment. It was ordered that no person should thereafter set, settle, or permit any stranger to reside upon the island without a licence granted under the hand and seal of the Governor and at least two members of the Council. Any such undertaking was to be proceeded against according to law. It was further ordered that if any person came upon the island without such licence, or if any inhabitant entertained, received, transported, assigned, employed, or otherwise dealt with such persons, they would be subject to forfeiture according to law, as in cases of riot and sedition. Interpretations The use of recognisances with named sureties showed that release from custody depended on formal financial guarantees, binding both the accused and their associates to ensure appearance before the court. The requirement that licences for settlement be issued under the hand and seal of the Governor and Council demonstrated centralised control over population and residency, preventing unauthorised occupation of the island. The prohibition on entertaining or employing unlicensed persons indicated that enforcement extended beyond entry to all forms of support or integration, placing responsibility on inhabitants to uphold regulatory controls. The classification of such offences under penalties associated with riot and sedition showed that unauthorised settlement was treated not merely as a civil matter but as a threat to order and authority, carrying significant legal consequences. Speculations The explicit concern with the “intermixing of strangers” perhaps suggests anxiety about uncontrolled population growth or the arrival of individuals outside Company oversight, indicating a desire to maintain a regulated and known community. The extension of penalties to those who merely received or assisted unlicensed persons may reflect difficulties in policing arrivals directly, leading the authorities to impose collective responsibility on residents as a means of enforcement. The association of unauthorised settlement with riot and sedition may indicate that such movements were perceived as potentially destabilising, perhaps linked to fears of disorder, resistance, or competing claims to authority within the island. | |
198 | [...] being offered under the hands It is Ordered That the same be recorded according It is also Ordered That a copy of the Report be taken, and Mr: Barton and Mr: Weeks This is to certifie whom it shall July 1685 Charles Bagley Wm Phillips | A report was presented under the hands of Charles Bagley and Thomas Sherwin, free planters, concerning the matter in dispute between Jasper Jay and his neighbour Weeks, relating to the cutting down of trees. In accordance with this, it was ordered that the report should be recorded. It was further ordered that a copy of the report should be made and delivered to Jasper Jay, while the original was to remain upon record. The report stated that Mr Barton and Mr Weeks were to be informed that agreement had been reached concerning the damage caused by the wood cut down by Jasper Jay and his associates. The cutting had taken place on ground where Jay had set hay, valued at 10 or 11 cattle. It was declared that value had been taken away and that payment was to be made for the damage and associated charges, as determined by Charles Bagley and Thomas Sherwin. The agreement was dated July 1685 and bore the names of Charles Bagley, Thomas Sherwin, William Phillips, Robert Holden, Gregory Feild, Mark [...], and Thomas Gosse. Interpretations The recording of the report under the hands of Bagley and Sherwin showed that agreements reached through appointed arbitrators were formally entered into the court record, giving them recognised legal standing. The provision of a copy to Jasper Jay while retaining the original in court records demonstrated the dual function of documentation, serving both as personal evidence for the parties and as an official record for enforcement and reference. The valuation of damage in terms of cattle reflected a system in which agricultural produce and livestock functioned as units of value, enabling assessment and settlement in practical economic terms. The role of named individuals in certifying the agreement indicated that resolution of disputes could rely on locally respected figures whose determinations were accepted and formalised by the council. Speculations The inclusion of multiple signatories beyond the appointed arbitrators perhaps suggests that wider community acknowledgement was sought, indicating that disputes over land use and resources required broader validation to prevent future contest. The reference to hay valued in cattle may imply that the dispute centred on productive land use, suggesting that competition over pasture or fodder resources was significant enough to lead to conflict and formal arbitration. | |
199 | At a Councell held on Monday the 10th of August Present John Blackmore Govr William Bishop free Planter Complaines of Richd Leach confesseth that he hath said yt But upon Examination of John Hemon, & Thereupon It is Ordered That the cause be dismissed, wth admonition | A council was held at Fort James on Monday, 10 August 1685, and continued by adjournment on Wednesday, 12 August 1685. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Feild, Ensign, Nathaniel Coxe, and Thomas Gosse, Ensign. A complaint was brought by William Bishop, a free planter, against Richard Leach, also a free planter, for scandalising him by alleging that he had killed his cattle and had robbed him three times. Richard Leach admitted that he had said Bishop had killed one of his cows, called Sandy Brown, and that he had accused him of robbery on several occasions. He stated that this related to the detention of a table which he had purchased together with Bishop’s house and plantation. A claim was made that Bishop had taken liquor to him during a visit and had then secretly removed it, and that Bishop had also taken away something which Leach had bought from Thomas Currant. Witnesses for Leach, namely John Hemon and Mary his wife, who was daughter to Bishop, together with [...] the wife of William Hac[...], were examined. Upon hearing all persons and considering the proofs concerning these and other matters in dispute, no sufficient evidence was found to support the claim of scandal. However, it appeared that there had been much passion, with angry and uncharitable words used by both parties. It was ordered that the cause should be dismissed, with an admonition to both parties that they should live more Christian and neighbourly lives in future. All past injuries, both inward and outward, were to be forgiven, and each party was to bear their own charges and pay their own costs of suit. Interpretations The complaint of “scandalising” showed that reputational harm, particularly through accusations of theft or wrongdoing, could be brought before the court as a matter requiring adjudication, even where no material loss was directly proven. The examination of witnesses, including family members such as Bishop’s daughter, demonstrated that testimony could be drawn from close relations, indicating that personal networks were central to evidentiary processes. The dismissal of the case despite admitted accusations reflected the court’s requirement for proof of harm beyond mere words, distinguishing between actionable defamation and unproven dispute. The formal admonition to live “more Christianly neighbourly lives” indicated that the court exercised a moral as well as legal authority, seeking to restore social harmony within a small community. The direction that each party bear their own costs showed that, where fault was shared or unclear, the court could decline to assign financial responsibility to one side, reinforcing mutual accountability. Speculations The court’s emphasis on mutual forgiveness and neighbourly conduct, rather than punishment, perhaps suggests concern about ongoing tension between the parties, indicating that maintaining social cohesion was prioritised over strict legal resolution. The involvement of Bishop’s own daughter as a witness for the opposing party may reflect divided loyalties within households, suggesting that disputes could cut across family lines and complicate the assessment of credibility. The admission by Leach that he had made repeated accusations, combined with the lack of proof, may indicate that such claims were part of a prolonged personal conflict rather than isolated incidents, pointing to an underlying dispute over property or prior transactions. | |
202 | Mr Rusher being examined declareth Anne Bowyer widow testifieth that After a long hearing of all that was The sd Sarah Fox Complaines of John Hemon denyeth that ever he Eleanor the wife of Richd Leach free Planter | Mr Rusher, being examined, declared that the first arising of the dispute had occurred at her house and concerned Jane Waller, daughter of John Goodridge deceased, who was a lodger at Lester Sexton’s house. Anne Bowyer, widow, testified that Sarah Harter had said she had worn the said cloth two or three times before it was discovered. After a full hearing of all that had been said and proved by the parties present, the matter was deferred until Wednesday, 12 August 1685. A complaint was then brought by Sarah Fox against John Hemon, a free planter, for misusing her son, John Bartlow, who was apprenticed to him. It was alleged that he had not provided sufficient food and had exacted unreasonable work and labour from him. John Hemon denied that he had misused the apprentice, or that he had lacked sufficient food, or had been subjected to unreasonable labour. He admitted that he had corrected him, stating that this had been deserved on account of laziness and idleness. Eleanor, the wife of Richard Leach, a free planter, testified that the said apprentice had come to her house several times begging for food, which she had given him. She stated that the boy complained of want at home and expressed how glad he would be to have his fill. On one occasion, he showed her a sore caused by burning, to which she applied a plaster. He later returned and showed her several marks on his arms and body from being beaten and bruised, complaining greatly of his master’s harsh treatment. Interpretations The identification of Jane Waller as a lodger showed that residence could be temporary and dependent upon household arrangements, which could become relevant in disputes involving property or personal goods. The adjournment of the first case demonstrated that the court allowed time for further consideration or evidence where the matter was not immediately resolved. The complaint regarding an apprentice illustrated the contractual and hierarchical nature of apprenticeship, in which a master was responsible for maintenance and discipline, but could be held accountable if those obligations were exceeded. The admission by Hemon that he had corrected the apprentice reflected accepted practices of discipline within apprenticeship, though such correction could be scrutinised if alleged to be excessive. The testimony describing the apprentice’s need to seek food elsewhere and visible injuries indicated that witness evidence played a crucial role in assessing treatment within private households, bringing domestic conditions under public examination. Speculations The repeated need for the apprentice to seek food from neighbours, combined with visible injuries, perhaps suggests that the complaint arose from sustained neglect or harsh treatment rather than a single incident, indicating a breakdown in the expected duties of apprenticeship. The reliance on neighbour testimony, particularly from Eleanor Leach, may indicate that community observation functioned as an informal safeguard, where mistreatment within households could become known and acted upon through social proximity. The adjournment of the earlier dispute involving Jane Waller and the cloth may suggest uncertainty or conflicting claims over possession, indicating that such cases depended heavily on testimony rather than clear documentary proof. | |
203 | Richard Leach husband of the sd Eleanor testifyeth to The marks on the body of the sd lad were seene Sarah the mother of the sd lad desires to have John Hemon replyeth that he is willing to free William Bishop testifyeth that the sd Sarah But she denyeth the sd Agreement being So that considering the whole busines It is Ordered That the sd John Bartlow be discharged Information being given yt James Wakefield It is Ordered That the sd Wakefield doe immediately begg | Richard Leach, husband of Eleanor, gave testimony to the same effect in many respects. The marks upon the body of the apprentice were viewed by several members of the council and were judged to be unreasonable. Sarah Fox, the boy’s mother, requested that her son’s indentures should be returned and that he be released from his master. John Hemon replied that he was willing to release the apprentice, provided that Sarah Fox would adhere to an agreement by which he was to retain those items he had received under the original contract when the boy had first been bound. William Bishop testified that Sarah Fox had agreed to these terms in his presence. However, she denied that any such agreement had been made, stating that no valid contract could be made by her without her husband’s consent, which had not been given. Upon consideration of the whole matter and its circumstances, it was ordered that John Bartlow should be discharged from his apprenticeship to John Hemon, that the indentures should be mutually surrendered, and that Hemon should repay to Sarah Fox or her husband the sum of 45 s within two months. He was also ordered to return the cloth which the boy had brought with him. Information was then presented that James Wakefield, a free planter, had spoken dangerous and disparaging words against the Governor. Witnesses affirmed this in his presence, though Wakefield denied the accusation. It was ordered that Wakefield should immediately beg the Governor’s pardon before the council and [...]. Interpretations The inspection of the apprentice’s injuries by members of the council showed that physical evidence could be directly assessed by authorities, allowing them to determine whether discipline exceeded acceptable bounds. The discharge of the apprentice and return of indentures demonstrated that such agreements could be terminated by the court where a master failed in his obligations, overriding the original contractual arrangement. The order for repayment of 45 s and return of goods indicated that entry into apprenticeship involved financial and material exchange, which could be reversed if the contract was dissolved. The dispute over whether Sarah Fox had authority to enter into an agreement without her husband’s consent reflected the legal position of married women, whose capacity to contract was limited and often required the husband’s approval. The requirement that Wakefield beg pardon before the council showed that verbal offences against authority were treated seriously, with public submission used to restore order and reinforce respect for governance. Speculations The council’s decision to release the apprentice despite conflicting testimony about the agreement may suggest that the visible injuries carried greater weight than contractual disputes, indicating that welfare concerns could override formal obligations. The insistence by Sarah Fox that her husband’s consent was required may reflect a strategic use of legal norms to invalidate the alleged agreement, suggesting awareness of how marital authority could be invoked to challenge obligations. The requirement for Wakefield to apologise publicly, rather than imposing a harsher penalty, perhaps indicates that the offence was considered significant but not severe enough to warrant imprisonment, suggesting a calibrated response aimed at restoring authority without escalating punishment. | |
204 | That he be bound to his good behaviour Accordingly the sd Wakefield entered Wm Phillips At a Councell held on Monday the Present John Blackmore Govr Tho: Allison free Planter Complaines | James Wakefield was ordered to be bound to good behaviour for the next three months, with two sufficient sureties. In accordance with that order, Wakefield entered into a recognizance before the Governor and Council in the sum of £20. John Johnson, merchant, and Richard Glading, free planters, each became bound in the sum of £10, so that Wakefield’s good behaviour for the next ensuing three months might be secured. The record was subscribed by Wm Phillips, Gregory Feild, Tho: Gosse and N. Cox. At a Council held at Fort James on Monday 12 August 1685, by adjournment from Monday 10 August 1685, John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Ensign, Nath Coxe and Tho Gosse, Ensign, were present. A complaint was then made by Tho: Allison, free planter, against James Ward, soldier, for non-payment of a debt of 30 s said to have been due to Allison. Interpretations A recognizance was not simply a promise. It was a formal legal obligation entered before the Governor and Council and backed by a stated sum of money. In this case, Wakefield’s conduct was secured by his own bond of £20 and by two named sureties, John Johnson and Richard Glading, each bound for £10. That arrangement showed that behaviour could be regulated through financial liability, with other men made responsible for ensuring compliance. The order that Wakefield be “bound to his good behaviour” functioned as a preventive measure rather than as a punishment for a completed offence alone. By requiring sureties for three months, the Council was used as an instrument of social control, placing Wakefield under continuing supervision and creating a monetary risk if further disorder occurred. The note that the meeting of 12 August 1685 was held “by adjournment” from 10 August 1685 showed that the consultation had been continued rather than newly opened. That procedure mattered administratively, because it preserved the business of the earlier sitting and allowed unfinished matters to be resumed under the same authority at Fort James. | |
205 | James Ward confesseth that he was Tho: Allison denyeth the sd Wards allegations Thereupon It is Ordered That the sd Ward be immediately committed And that he pay forthwith But the sd Allison confessing that he did once It is Ordered That the sd Allison be fined 10 dollars to | James Ward acknowledged that he had been indebted to Tho: Allison in the sum of 30 s for a debt. He alleged, however, that Allison had forgiven that debt in return for his silence regarding Allison’s receiving and harbouring of Richard Hancock in his house. During the time of Ward’s lodging in Allison’s house, he had refrained from revealing Hancock’s presence, stating that Hancock had threatened to kill him and that Allison had promised that nothing would be charged for his lodging. Tho: Allison denied these allegations with several assertions. It was stated by him that Ward had promised to pay the sum after leaving his house, which Ward was unable to deny. Thereupon it was ordered that Ward be immediately committed to prison for concealing Hancock’s coming and presence at Allison’s house while he had been lodged there, according to his own confession. It was further ordered that he pay forthwith the debt of 30 s. Allison then admitted that he had once seen Hancock at Mr Barton’s house after the issuing of a proclamation forbidding any person to harbour or entertain him, and that he had not reported this to the Governor or any other authority. It was therefore ordered that Allison be fined 10 dollars payable to the Honourable Lords Proprietors, and that he immediately pay the same. Interpretations The imprisonment of Ward for concealment demonstrated that the offence was treated not merely as a private dispute but as a breach of public authority. The obligation to disclose the presence of a prohibited individual was enforced as part of the colony’s security measures, and failure to do so was punishable by confinement. The fine imposed upon Allison was directed to the Honourable Lords Proprietors rather than to any private party. This showed that the offence of failing to report Hancock’s presence was considered an infringement of proprietary authority and public order, with penalties serving to reinforce the governing rights of the proprietors rather than to compensate individuals. The reference to a proclamation forbidding the harbouring or entertaining of Hancock indicated a formal instrument of governance used to control movement and association within the settlement. Such proclamations carried binding force, and the duty to report violations functioned as a mechanism of surveillance exercised collectively by inhabitants. | |
206 | Sutton Slack free Planter Complaines John Draper denyeth that he ever sd Tho: Dixon souldier witnesseth that the sd Mary the wife of John Matthew free The sd Draper desyring further tyme It is Ordered That this Cause be deferred unto The sd Draper Complaines of Sutton | Sutton Slack, free planter, complained against John Draper, free planter, for defaming him by stating that he was a thief and had stolen from him a tobacco box, a fish hook and some bread. John Draper denied that he had ever said that Sutton Slack was a thief, but it was admitted by him that Slack had stolen from him. Tho: Dixon, soldier, gave evidence that Draper had directly told Slack that his wife and both were thieving, and that he would prove them to be so. It was further stated that a tobacco box, a fish hook and some bread had been in Slack’s house. Mary, the wife of John Matthew, free planter, gave evidence to the same effect as Dixon. Further time was requested by Draper in order to substantiate his accusations against Slack. Agreement was reached by both parties that the matter should be delayed. It was therefore ordered that the case be deferred to another hearing at the next Council, and that for the present Draper should pay the costs of suit. A further complaint was then made by Draper against Sutton Slack for taking and detaining a white sack belonging to Draper. Interpretations The deferral of the case upon Draper’s request showed that the Council allowed time for the production of proof before reaching judgment. This reflected a procedural approach in which accusations, particularly of theft, required substantiation rather than immediate decision. The order that Draper pay the costs of suit at this stage indicated that financial liability could be imposed even before a final judgment. Responsibility for initiating or prolonging proceedings could result in interim costs, thereby discouraging unsupported claims while the case remained unresolved. | |
207 | Slack denyeth the sd sack to be Drapers, and It is Ordered That the sd Draper have the sd white sack The difference betwixt Lester Sexton Robt Exeter free Planter was examined about George Atherton free Planter saith that in the Margrett the wife of Lester Sexton saith that Another tyme being asked & same question answered | Sutton Slack denied that the white sack belonged to John Draper and stated that he had broken it up together with others. Several witnesses were then examined, and it was proved that the sack belonged to Draper. It was therefore ordered that Draper should have the white sack returned to him by Slack, if it was among his goods. The dispute between Lester Sexton and Sarah, the wife of Wm Fox, free planter, which had been referred to that day from the Council held on 10 August 1685, was then taken up again. Robt Exeter, free planter, was examined regarding the removal of clothes from Mr Morris to his wife. It was acknowledged by him that he had gone ashore with a boy belonging to Mr Morris, carrying a bundle of clothes to the house of Fox, and that he had delivered them to Sarah Fox. He stated that he had neither seen the clothes packed into the bundle nor opened it after delivery, and that he could give no account of the shift later found on the body of Sarah Bartlow. George Atherton, free planter, stated that on the evening when Lester Sexton’s goods were taken from his house, he had been with Sarah Bartlow in Sexton’s house. While going towards the house of Capt Fox, Sarah Fox had told him that she would go to Sexton’s house immediately. Margrett, the wife of Lester Sexton, stated that when the shift was first found on the body of Sarah Bartlow, she had been asked where she obtained it. It was said by Sarah Bartlow that she had taken the cloth to Elizabeth James, daughter of Mr Morris, to have a shift made for herself and for Sarah. On another occasion, when questioned again, she stated that Mr Morris had given the cloth to her mother for the use of her daughter. Interpretations The order requiring the return of the white sack upon proof of ownership demonstrated that the Council acted as an authority for resolving disputes over movable property. Testimony from witnesses was treated as sufficient to establish title, and possession was ordered to follow that determination. The examination of Robert Exeter highlighted the evidentiary importance of handling and custody of goods. By establishing that he neither packed nor opened the bundle, responsibility for the contents was separated from his actions, narrowing the scope of suspicion in the dispute. The conflicting statements attributed to Sarah Bartlow regarding the origin of the cloth suggested that testimony was assessed for consistency as well as for factual content. Variations in explanation appear to have been recorded carefully, indicating that credibility and reliability were central to the Council’s evaluation of evidence in disputes involving suspected theft. | |
208 | Upon serious Consideracon of all that It seemeth very probable That the sd Sarah Fox the mother of Sarah Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Sarah Fox doe forthwith Deborah Barker Gent make Complaines Anne Cannady denyeth the taking up or After hearing of both partyes for some It is Ordered That the sd Cannady doe forthwith | Upon serious consideration of all that had been presented and alleged in the case, it was considered very probable that Sarah Fox, the mother, and her daughter Sarah Bartlow had acted together in obtaining and retaining the shift in dispute, and that they were reasonably suspected of taking it from Lester Sexton’s house. It was therefore ordered that Sarah Fox should immediately pay and satisfy Lester Sexton the sum of 5 dollars for damage, charges and costs of suit. A further complaint was then brought by Deborah Barker, described as a gentlewoman, against Anne, the wife of John Cannady, free planter, for killing and detaining her fowls. Anne Cannady denied taking or killing the fowls, but admitted that some fowls had died in her house, although she stated that she did not know how they had come there. After hearing both parties for some time and considering the testimony of several witnesses, it was established that Cannady had been present in her house when the fowls were found newly killed, that she had one of them in her hand, and that she had thrown it under the bed, where two or three other dead fowls were also found. It was therefore ordered that Anne Cannady should immediately pay and satisfy Deborah Barker the sum of 2 dollars and a half, together with the costs of suit. Interpretations The award of 5 dollars against Sarah Fox was not framed as a criminal penalty but as compensation for damage, charges and legal costs. This showed that the Council resolved disputes over suspected theft through monetary restitution rather than formal conviction, using financial liability to settle the matter without further prosecution. The description of Deborah Barker as a gentlewoman indicated her recognised social standing, which may have influenced how her complaint was received and recorded. Such titles reflected hierarchy within the settlement and could affect the weight given to testimony and claims. The finding against Anne Cannady relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, particularly her possession of a freshly killed fowl and her attempt to conceal it. This demonstrated that the Council accepted behaviour and surrounding facts as sufficient proof in the absence of direct admission, allowing judgment to be reached on observed conduct rather than confession alone. Speculations The statement that Sarah Fox and her daughter were “confederate” suggested that the Council viewed the matter not as an isolated act by a single individual but as a coordinated attempt to misappropriate property. This language perhaps reflected concern about collusion within households, indicating that domestic relationships could be treated as sites of collective responsibility in cases of suspected theft. The relatively modest financial penalties of 5 dollars and 2½ dollars, despite the seriousness of the accusations, may indicate that maintaining social order and restoring relations within a small community was prioritised over imposing severe punishment. The decisions appear to have been shaped by a need to resolve disputes pragmatically while avoiding escalation within the settlement. | |
209 | Capt: Robert Holden offering an Inditement It is of humble opinion and judgment That the method of proceedings by Inditement and Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Inditement of the sd Jay and Whereas by the Providence of God a boat wth And it being greatly necessary to have another It is Ordered and Adjudged That Thomas Goodwin Gent be | An indictment was proposed by Capt Robert Holden against Jasper Jay and Tho: Barton, free planters, on the grounds that they had been involved in or had supported a case concerning the widow Woodly, which had already been fully heard and determined at the Council held on 20 July 1685. The matter was carefully considered and debated. The orders and instructions of the Honourable Company, the Lords Proprietors, were examined, particularly the first paragraph of those dated 01 August 1683 brought by Sir Thomas Grantham. It was then judged that the method of proceeding by indictment and jury was not convenient or practical for deciding ordinary disputes in this place, as there were not persons suitably qualified for such proceedings in the manner practised in England. The earlier and customary method used on the island, which had been approved and required by the Lords Proprietors, was considered more appropriate. It was therefore ordered that the indictment against Jay and Barton be delayed and set aside until further instructions were received from the Honourable Company. It was then recorded that, by what was described as the providence of God, a boat which had been sent out fishing on 06 July 1685, with Tho: Dinerod acting as coxswain, one soldier and four of the Honourable Company’s black men, had not been heard of since that time. It was strongly suspected that the boat and all those on board, together with their fishing equipment, had been lost. As it was considered necessary to appoint another careful person to act as coxswain and oversee the Company’s boat, it was ordered and adjudged that Thomas Goodwin, gentleman, be appointed to that role. Interpretations The rejection of proceedings by indictment and jury showed that English legal forms were not automatically applied in colonial settings. Instead, the Council retained a more flexible and summary method of adjudication, reflecting both the limited availability of qualified jurors and the practical need for efficient decision-making. The reference to the Lords Proprietors’ instructions of 01 August 1683 demonstrated that local judicial practice was shaped by directives from metropolitan authority. These instructions functioned as a governing framework that could override attempts to introduce alternative procedures. The postponement of the indictment indicated that formal criminal proceedings required explicit authorisation or guidance. Without such direction, the Council avoided extending its procedures beyond what had been approved, thereby maintaining administrative consistency with proprietary expectations. The appointment of a coxswain for the Company’s boat illustrated the structured management of maritime resources. The role carried responsibility for the vessel and its crew, and the Council’s involvement showed that such positions were treated as matters of administrative oversight rather than private employment. Speculations The reluctance to proceed by indictment and jury may reflect concern that such a process could challenge the authority of the Council by introducing a more independent form of judgment. In a small settlement, reliance on juries might have complicated governance by distributing decision-making power beyond the Council itself. The detailed recording of the lost boat and its crew, including the identification of Tho: Dinerod, a soldier and four of the Company’s black men, perhaps indicates the economic and operational importance of such expeditions. The loss was not only human but also affected the Company’s resources, suggesting that maritime labour and provisioning were central to the functioning of the island settlement. | |
210 | Coxswaine to looke after the sd boates, It is Ordered That the sd Goodwin shall have The pay day of the Garrisons for the It is Ordered That a Warrt be drawne, signed & Likewise for him to pay & satisfie such Also for him to pay & satisfie William Bowman free Planter his | Thomas Goodwin, gentleman, was appointed as coxswain to oversee the Company’s boats and to go out with any of them whenever he was commanded. For this duty, it was ordered that he should receive an addition of one dollar per month to his salary until further order. The pay day for the garrison for the month was set for Thursday 13 August 1685. It was ordered that a warrant be drawn, signed and directed to Capt Robert Holden, requiring him to pay and satisfy, out of the goods belonging to the Honourable Company, all officers and soldiers in the Company’s service on the island. Payment was to be made for their monthly wages ending on Thursday 13 August 1685, according to each man’s salary. Instructions were also given that payment be made to those who had been employed in any work for the Honourable Company up to 13 August 1685, according to the sums certified in the warrant. Further direction was given for payment to John Fox, from the Honourable Company, in accordance with the names and sums specified in the same warrant. It was recorded that William Bowman, free planter, had a debt relating to a cow, which had been appraised in order to balance his debt to the Honourable Company, amounting to £37 9 s. Another warrant was to be issued to Capt Robert Holden to place to the Company’s account bills of exchange received from Capt Knox, amounting to £25 6 s. Interpretations A warrant functioned as a formal administrative order authorising payment from Company resources. It provided the legal basis for disbursing goods or funds and ensured that all payments, whether to soldiers, labourers or named individuals such as John Fox, were recorded and controlled through official instruction. Payment “out of the goods belonging to the Honourable Company” indicated that wages and obligations were not necessarily settled in coin alone. Company stores, including provisions and commodities, operated as a medium of payment, reflecting a managed supply system in which material goods substituted for cash. The reference to certified sums within the warrant showed that labour and service were accounted for through prior assessment. Work performed for the Company was formally measured and valued before payment was authorised, demonstrating a structured approach to labour management. The balancing of William Bowman’s debt through the appraised value of a cow illustrated how debts to the Company could be settled in kind. Valuation converted livestock into a monetary equivalent, allowing it to be applied against an outstanding balance of £37 9 s. Bills of exchange from Capt Knox being placed to the Company’s account revealed the use of credit instruments within the island’s financial system. Such bills enabled value to be transferred across distances without physical coin, linking local accounts to wider commercial networks. Speculations The addition of one dollar per month to Goodwin’s salary for his duties as coxswain perhaps reflected both the risk and importance of managing the Company’s boats, especially in light of the recent loss of a vessel and its crew on 06 July 1685. The increase may have been intended to secure reliable oversight of maritime operations. The concentration of payment authority in Capt Robert Holden, acting through warrants, suggests that financial control was deliberately centralised. This arrangement may have been intended to maintain strict oversight of Company resources, reducing the risk of misallocation in a settlement where goods, labour and credit were closely interlinked. | |
211 | And some other utensils or leakage, and Whereas in the Councell held the 22th of Dec: Therefore It is Ordered That from & after the next session H. Blackmore Gregory Feild Tho: Poole | A deficiency was noted in respect of certain utensils or leakage, and also a shortage of cash amounting to two bags of £5 each, which had come into the hands of the person concerned. These sums had been due to him for goods delivered to the Governor, or by his order, for the service of the Honourable Company, including a horse, a table, a cloak and plants, among other items. Reference was then made to an order passed at the Council held on 22 December 1679, by which it had been directed that all complaints of injuries, losses or damages should be brought at the Council immediately following the event, or else be rejected. It was observed that this order had been neglected or forgotten, and that many persons had begun to bring actions concerning old or minor grievances, some dating back many months or even years, thereby troubling themselves, their neighbours and the government over matters that might otherwise have been overlooked. It was therefore ordered that, from and after the next session of Council, to be held on 07 September 1685, no complaint, cause, trial or action should be brought, heard or determined unless the complaint was made and the action entered within three months after the alleged injury or damage. This requirement was intended to prevent stale claims, and it was further directed that, where a valid offence had been proved and committed within that period, the complainant might, upon verdict, recover double damages and double costs of suit. Exceptions were allowed only in cases previously specified. The order was subscribed by H. Blackmore, Gregory Feild and Tho: Poole. Interpretations The requirement that complaints be brought within three months imposed a formal limitation period on legal actions. This functioned to prevent the accumulation of old claims and ensured that disputes were addressed promptly, thereby maintaining administrative efficiency and reducing the burden on the Council. The provision for awarding double damages and double costs of suit served as both an incentive and a deterrent. It encouraged timely and substantiated complaints while discouraging frivolous or delayed actions, reinforcing the Council’s effort to regulate litigation within the settlement. The reference to payment shortages, including the two bags of £5 and goods supplied for Company service, illustrated the mixed nature of financial transactions on the island. Obligations were settled through a combination of cash and goods, and discrepancies in such accounts required formal acknowledgement within the Council’s proceedings. Speculations The emphasis on preventing “stale” claims and discouraging disputes over minor grievances suggests that the Council was responding to a perceived increase in litigious behaviour within the settlement. The tightening of procedural rules may have been intended to preserve social cohesion in a small community where prolonged or repeated disputes could disrupt daily life and labour. The mention of shortages in both cash and goods connected to Company service perhaps indicates underlying strain in the island’s supply and accounting systems. Such irregularities may have prompted closer regulation of both financial claims and administrative procedures to maintain control over limited resources. | |
212 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Monday the Present John Blackmore Govr Joseph Trapp free-plant[er] complaines, Wilks confesseth the debt, and further saith Trapp positively deny[es] that ever he It is Ordered That the sd Wilks doe forthwth pay the sd Francis Edg[er] widow complaineth of Glover confesseth the sd debt declares his | At a Council held at Fort James on Monday 07 September 1685, John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Feild, Ensign, Nathaniel Coxe and Tho: Goffe, Ensign, were present. Joseph Trapp, free planter, complained against Joseph Wilks, labourer, for non-payment of a sum of £10 which had been due for a year and a half. Wilks admitted the debt and stated that he had promised to take up boards from the Company’s stores to the value of the debt on Trapp’s behalf. It was said that he had obtained a note from Capt Golden for the required quantity of boards and had sent that note to Trapp by Tho Sherwin, free planter, for delivery. Trapp firmly denied that he had ever received the note or any such delivery. It was therefore ordered that Wilks should immediately pay the sum of £10 to Trapp, or else bear the order and pay all costs of suit, and that he should seek his remedy against Thomas Sherwin regarding the note. A further complaint was then brought by Francis Edger, widow, against Tho Glover, free planter, for non-payment of a debt of £28. Glover admitted the debt and declared his willingness to satisfy it using any goods in his possession, whether within doors or outside, but stated that he was unable to pay it in money. Interpretations The acceptance of boards from Company stores as a proposed means of payment illustrated that debts could be discharged through access to controlled resources rather than through coin alone. The stores functioned as a regulated source of value, and a note from an officer such as Capt Golden acted as authorisation to draw upon them. The ruling that Wilks must pay Trapp directly, while seeking recovery from Thomas Sherwin, showed that liability remained with the original debtor regardless of intermediary arrangements. The Council thereby ensured that the creditor was not disadvantaged by failures in delivery or communication. The distinction made by Glover between payment in goods and payment in money reflected the constrained availability of currency on the island. Monetary payment was treated as the preferred or required form in certain cases, even where goods were more readily available, indicating a hierarchy of acceptable forms of settlement. Speculations The reliance on a note transmitted through Thomas Sherwin suggests that informal or semi-formal channels of exchange were commonly used alongside official systems. The breakdown of this arrangement perhaps indicates the fragility of such mechanisms, especially where documentation and delivery depended on individual intermediaries rather than central oversight. Glover’s inability to pay in money, despite possessing goods, may indicate broader liquidity difficulties within the settlement. This could reflect a wider imbalance between available commodities and circulating coin, affecting how debts were negotiated and enforced at this time. | |
213 | But the Plant[er] refused to be paid in money, and Thereupon It is Ordered. That the Plantiffe have Judgmt against The sd widow Eiben complaines of Robt Exeter confesseth the debt but alleadgeth that The sd widdow confesseth that Joseph Joseph Charl[...]n answereth that he pd the Thomas Smout declareth that he pd Eiben Soe that upon the whole acc[oun]t betwixt the sd Eiben Dr. – 12:00:00 – – – 05:13:00 | The planter refused to accept payment in money and was willing to allow a further twelve months for payment in [...], which was agreed and promised by the debtor. Thereupon it was ordered that the plaintiff should have judgment against Tho Glover, and that a writ be granted to levy the sum of £20 0s 0d together with the usual costs of suit upon the goods and chattels of the defendant. A further complaint was brought by the widow Eiben against Robt Exeter, free planter, for non-payment of a debt evidenced by a bill under his hand for £24 6s 0d, which was produced and read. Exeter admitted the debt but alleged that [...] Eiben, the late husband of the widow, had received the sum of £12 0s 0d from Joseph Charl[...]n, free planter, on Exeter’s behalf. Of that amount, Exeter stated that he had received only £5 13s 0d, leaving a balance of £6 7s 0d still due to him from the widow Eiben. The widow admitted that Joseph Charl[...]n had dealt with her husband and that he had received £10 0s 0d due upon a bond, together with some additional money, although the precise amount was not known to her. Joseph Charl[...]n stated that he had paid £12 0s 0d to Eiben, consisting of £10 0s 0d in money and 10s 0d in goods, through Thomas Smout, free planter. Thomas Smout confirmed that he had paid £10 0s 0d in goods to Eiben, the husband of the widow, by the direction and appointment of Joseph Charl[...]n. Upon consideration of the entire account between the widow Eiben and Exeter, it was stated as follows: Eiben debtor: £12 0s 0d Interpretations The granting of a writ to levy the debt on the goods and chattels of Glover showed that enforcement of judgment extended beyond monetary payment. A writ authorised seizure of property, enabling the creditor to recover the value owed through tangible assets under legal authority. The use of a bill under hand as evidence of debt demonstrated reliance on written instruments to establish financial obligation. Such documents provided formal proof recognised by the Council and allowed debts to be adjudicated without reliance solely on verbal testimony. The reconstruction of the account between the widow Eiben and Exeter illustrated the Council’s role in auditing complex financial relationships. Payments made through intermediaries and in mixed forms, including money and goods, were carefully assessed to determine the true balance owed. Speculations The discrepancy between Exeter’s claim and the widow’s uncertainty over sums received suggests that record-keeping within private transactions may have been inconsistent. This may indicate reliance on memory and informal accounting, which could lead to disputes requiring formal adjudication. The involvement of multiple parties, including Joseph Charl[...]n and Thomas Smout, in settling a single debt implies that credit relationships were often extended across several individuals. Such arrangements perhaps reflect a networked system of obligation in which debts circulated within the community rather than being settled directly between two parties. | |
214 | It is Therefore Ordered That the sd Eiben plaintiffe doe forthwth The sd widdow Eiben complaines Coxe confesseth a debt of 17£ 6 s due The sd Eiben insists on being pd in It is Ordered That Coxe the sd deft doe pay the sd John Nicholes free-planter | It was therefore ordered that the widow Eiben, as plaintiff, should immediately pay and cause to be paid to Robt Exeter, defendant, the sum of £5 2s 6d, and that Exeter should pay the usual costs of suit. The widow Eiben then complained against Thomas Coxe, free planter, for non-payment of a debt of £22 0s 0d. Coxe admitted a debt of £17 6s 0d due to the plaintiff and stated that he was willing to satisfy it in goods that he possessed, but that he had no money. The widow Eiben insisted that payment be made in money and agreed to accept the sum of £17 6s 0d in full satisfaction of the debt, provided that it was paid in money. It was ordered that Coxe, the defendant, should pay the widow Eiben, plaintiff, the sum of £17 6s 0d in money within two months from that date. In default of payment, a warrant of distress was to be issued against his goods and chattels for the full demanded debt, together with all costs and charges arising therefrom. For the present, he was also required to pay the usual costs of suit. John Nicholes, free planter, then complained against Thomas Porke, free planter, for defaming him by reporting that Nicholes had hired a man to set fire to Porke’s house. Interpretations A warrant of distress authorised the seizure of a debtor’s goods to satisfy an unpaid obligation. Its use here demonstrated a standard enforcement mechanism by which monetary judgments could be converted into recovery through property, ensuring compliance where payment in money was not made. The insistence by the widow Eiben on payment in money, despite Coxe’s offer of goods, indicated that different forms of settlement carried different values or levels of desirability. Monetary payment appears to have been treated as more definitive and perhaps more easily transferable than goods within the local economy. The acceptance of a reduced sum of £17 6s 0d in full satisfaction of a larger claimed debt of £22 0s 0d showed that negotiated settlements were recognised and enforced by the Council. Such agreements allowed disputes to be resolved pragmatically while still maintaining formal oversight. Speculations The widow Eiben’s insistence on payment in money rather than goods may suggest an immediate need for liquid resources, possibly to meet other obligations or to secure financial independence following her husband’s death. This preference indicates that access to cash, though scarce, held particular strategic importance. The readiness of the Council to enforce a reduced agreed sum rather than the full claimed amount perhaps reflects a practical approach to debt recovery in a constrained economy. Ensuring partial but certain payment may have been prioritised over pursuing a larger but less attainable claim. | |
215 | Porke acknowledgeth that he had spoken It is Ordered. That a messenger be immediately dispatched When the sd black came, he was examined, the Upon the whole it is judg[e]d that the sd Porke It is Ordered That the sd Porke doe forthwith pay & satisfie William Price free-plant[er] complaines of Rich[ar]d | Thomas Porke acknowledged that he had spoken the words complained of to several persons and stated that one [...] of the Honourable Company’s black men, who had recently lived in Marzely Valley, had told him that John Nicholes had intended to hire him to set fire to Porke’s house. As Porke had not ensured the appearance of that man at the hearing, it was ordered that a messenger be immediately sent to the Honourable Company’s plantation to bring him without delay, and that in the meantime Porke should be secured. When the man was brought, he was examined in the presence of both the plaintiff and the defendant. He firmly and repeatedly denied that he had ever spoken any such words to Porke, or that Nicholes had ever approached him about setting fire to Porke’s house, or that any promise or agreement had been made for such an act. The entire matter and all its circumstances were denied by him. Upon consideration of the whole case, it was judged that Porke had defamed Nicholes. It was therefore ordered that Porke should immediately pay and satisfy Nicholes the sum of two dollars, equivalent to 12s 0d, together with the usual costs of suit, and that he should then be released. William Price, free planter, then complained against Rich[ar]d Parrum, free planter, for defaming him by alleging that he had taken up and marked a boat belonging to Parrum. Interpretations The dispatch of a messenger to secure the attendance of the Company’s slave showed that witnesses under Company authority could be compelled to appear. This reflected the Council’s power to mobilise labour and enforce testimony as part of judicial process. The securing of Porke pending the witness’s arrival demonstrated that temporary restraint could be used to ensure the integrity of proceedings. Detention functioned as a procedural measure rather than a final punishment. The award of two dollars, explicitly equated to 12s 0d, illustrated the coexistence of different currency systems within the settlement. The Council treated them as convertible for legal purposes, allowing judgments to be expressed in either form while maintaining a recognised value. Speculations The reliance on the testimony of the Company’s slave as decisive evidence suggests that, in this instance, the Council prioritised direct denial over hearsay, regardless of the witness’s status. This may indicate a pragmatic approach in which credibility was tied to the immediacy of testimony rather than social position. The decision to impose a relatively modest financial penalty, coupled with Porke’s release, perhaps reflects an intention to resolve reputational disputes quickly while discouraging the spread of damaging accusations that could destabilise relations within a small community. | |
216 | Parrum deny[e]s his saying that the sd Price William Martin free-plant[er] being sworne John Harding free-plant[er] being It is Ordered That the sd Parrum doe immediately That he pay the sd Price 3 dollars or William Bowman & John Draper It is Ordered That the sd acc[oun]t be delivered unto Mr Whereas there hath been no true and | Rich[ar]d Parrum denied that he had said that William Price had taken up or marked a boat belonging to him, but stated instead that someone had done so and that the mark resembled that used by Price. William Martin, free planter, having been sworn, stated that Parrum had sent for him to his house and told him that he had lost a boat three weeks or a month earlier, that the boat was somewhere nearby, and that Parrum had sworn that Price had perhaps marked it. John Harding, free planter, having been sworn, gave the same testimony as Martin. It was therefore ordered that Parrum should immediately appear before the Governor and Council and ask Price’s forgiveness for his defamatory statement and rash conduct, and that he should pay Price the sum of three dollars, or 12s 0d, for damages together with the usual costs of suit. William Bowman and John Draper, free planters, acting as trustees appointed by the Governor and Council for the Honourable Company’s estate held on behalf of their tenant children, then submitted an account. This account detailed their receipts, disbursements, charges, payments and the balance remaining in stock due to the said children. It was ordered that the account be delivered to Mr [...] writer, to be examined, arranged and completed, and that it be presented in that perfected form at the next session of Council. It was then noted that no true and exact account had been taken, kept or registered of marriages, births or christenings, and burials, [...] Interpretations The requirement that Parrum publicly ask forgiveness before the Governor and Council showed that reputational harm was addressed not only through financial compensation but also through formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing. This combined remedy restored standing while reinforcing the authority of the Council over personal disputes. The role of trustees appointed by the Governor and Council to manage the estate of tenant children demonstrated institutional oversight of property held for minors or dependants. Trustees were required to account for all receipts and disbursements, indicating that such estates were subject to supervision to prevent mismanagement. The instruction that the account be examined and perfected by a designated writer reflected a bureaucratic process of financial auditing. The writer’s role was to standardise and verify accounts before they were formally accepted, ensuring administrative consistency and accuracy in the management of Company-related property. Speculations The insistence on both apology and payment in Parrum’s case suggests that the Council placed particular importance on maintaining social harmony in addition to resolving disputes. Public reconciliation may have been intended to prevent the escalation of tensions within a small and interdependent community. The need to submit and formally review the trustees’ account may indicate concern about the proper management of estates held for children. This scrutiny perhaps reflects a recognition that such assets were vulnerable to neglect or misuse without regular oversight by the governing authority. | |
217 | or Buryalls in this Island since the death of Mr It is Ordered That a Proclamacon be forthwith issued And that the sd Churchwardens are to Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God | It was recorded that no proper account had been taken or kept of marriages, births or christenings, or burials on the island since the death of Mr Joseph Quech, minister, in May 1683. It was therefore ordered that a proclamation be immediately issued requiring all inhabitants, especially householders and heads of families, to provide full and exact accounts, either in writing or otherwise, of all marriages, births or christenings and burials that had taken place within their houses and families. These accounts were to include the specific days, months and years in which such events had occurred, covering the period from 01 May 1683 up to the present date. The information was to be delivered to Mr Michaell Morris in the West Division and Mr Sutton Jack in the East Division, who were serving as churchwardens for the year 1685. Collection of these accounts was to begin on or by Thursday 01 October 1685, and the churchwardens were instructed to receive them from all who brought or submitted them. The churchwardens were then to compile the information into three separate folios, namely one for marriages, one for births or christenings and a third for deaths and burials. These were to be subscribed by them and presented to the Governor and Council on Monday 05 October 1685 or at the next subsequent session of Council. It was further recorded that Capt Anthonie Bealle had recently died, leaving a substantial account unsettled with the Honourable Company of English Merchants trading to the East Indies, who were the only persons considered capable of properly determining the state of that account. Interpretations The issuing of a proclamation to compel inhabitants to submit records of marriages, births and burials demonstrated the Council’s reliance on household-level reporting to construct official registers. In the absence of a minister since May 1683, administrative responsibility for vital records was transferred to lay officials and enforced through collective obligation. The division of the island into East and West jurisdictions under separate churchwardens showed a structured approach to local governance. These officers acted as intermediaries between inhabitants and the Council, gathering and organising data necessary for official record-keeping. The requirement to compile the information into distinct folios for marriages, births or christenings and deaths or burials reflected an emerging bureaucratic system of categorisation. This process enabled the creation of a formal register to replace the lapse in ecclesiastical record-keeping. The reference to the outstanding account of Capt Anthonie Bealle with the Honourable Company indicated that financial obligations of deceased individuals were closely tied to Company authority. Settlement of such accounts depended on the Company’s own records and oversight, demonstrating the central role of the Company in managing debt and estate matters within the colony. Speculations The urgent effort to reconstruct records dating back to 01 May 1683 suggests concern that the absence of a minister had created a significant administrative gap. This may have affected inheritance claims, legitimacy of marriages and population oversight, prompting the Council to regularise records retrospectively. The statement that only the Honourable Company could properly determine Capt Bealle’s account perhaps indicates that his financial dealings were extensive and integrated into Company operations. This may reflect the dependency of senior figures on Company credit and accounting systems, reinforcing the Company’s control over both economic and personal affairs on the island. | |
218 | That acc[oun]t [...] because the sd Capt It is Ordered. That none of the sd houses, Lands, Alsoe That a Copy of this Order be The acc[oun]t wch the Churchwardens have It is Ordered That the names of such persons and | It was stated that the account [...] could not yet be fully determined because Capt Anthonie Bealle had left a considerable estate on the island, consisting of houses, lands, slaves, cattle and other possessions. It was therefore ordered that none of the said houses, lands, slaves, cattle or other possessions belonging to Capt Bealle at the time of his death should be alienated, sold, disposed of, mortgaged or otherwise conveyed to any person until notice of his death had been given to the Honourable Company and their instructions had been received and communicated to the Governor and Council then in office. It was further ordered that a copy of this order be immediately delivered to Mr Eaton, Bealle and the widow of Capt Bealle, who was requested to take particular care that the order was properly observed. An account submitted by the churchwardens concerning the late [...] Trappell or Trappell Valley was then reviewed and examined. It was noted within that account that several persons on the island had not fulfilled the contributions they had subscribed towards the same. It was therefore ordered that the names of those persons and the sums they had subscribed be [...] Interpretations The prohibition on selling or transferring any part of Capt Bealle’s estate functioned as a legal restraint to preserve assets pending instruction from the Honourable Company. This ensured that property remained intact and under effective control until the Company determined how the estate should be administered or settled. The requirement to notify the Honourable Company and await their direction demonstrated that ultimate authority over significant estates rested with the Company rather than with local heirs or officials. Estate management, especially where large holdings were involved, was subordinated to metropolitan oversight. The delivery of the order to named individuals, including Mr Eaton and the widow, placed responsibility for compliance directly upon those with immediate access to the estate. This reflected a mechanism of enforcement that relied on local custodians to maintain property under restriction. The reference to unpaid subscriptions for works in Trappell Valley indicated a system in which communal or infrastructural projects were funded through pledged contributions. Recording names and sums allowed the Council to enforce these financial commitments and ensure completion of agreed works. Speculations The emphasis on preventing any disposal of Bealle’s estate before Company instruction may suggest concern about premature division or concealment of assets. The scale of the estate, including land, slaves and cattle, perhaps made it particularly vulnerable to dispute or opportunistic claims in the absence of clear authority. The identification of individuals who had failed to meet their subscriptions for Trappell Valley may indicate growing difficulty in enforcing communal financial obligations. This could reflect economic strain or reluctance among inhabitants to contribute, prompting the Council to strengthen oversight and accountability. | |
219 | Mentioned in the sd acc[oun]t be sent unto the present And whereas in the sd acc[oun]t there is mention It is further Ordered That the Churchwardens have a Copy of the Likewise It is Ordered That Coppys of the two last mentioned Orders [...] Gregory Field | It was ordered that the names mentioned in the said account should be sent to the present churchwardens, or to either of them, who were thereby authorised to ask, demand and receive from the respective persons the sums that had been subscribed or promised. If any of those persons refused to make payment, the churchwardens, or either of them, were authorised to report such persons to appear at the next session of Council in order to show cause for their refusal. It was further noted that, within the same account, reference had been made to one Saul Suberick or Suberick of Sumars, to whom several persons on the island were said to be indebted in connection with the said Trappell, as appeared by a note in his own handwriting. It was therefore ordered that the churchwardens should be provided with a copy of Saul’s paper, and that they, or either of them, were authorised to ask, demand and receive from the respective persons the sums alleged to be due. If any of those persons refused to make payment, the churchwardens were to return their names to the Governor and Council at the next session, being 05 October 1685. It was likewise ordered that copies of the two last-mentioned orders be sent without delay to the churchwardens, or to either of them, to be communicated to the other. The order was subscribed by Gregory Field, N. Coxe and Tho. G[...]fe. Interpretations The empowerment of the churchwardens to demand and receive subscribed sums showed that they acted as local financial agents of the Council. Their role extended beyond ecclesiastical duties into the enforcement of monetary obligations within the community. The requirement that defaulters be reported to the Council established a structured mechanism of escalation. Initial collection was handled locally, but refusal triggered formal appearance before the governing authority, reinforcing compliance through the threat of official sanction. The use of a handwritten note by Saul Suberick as the basis for claims demonstrated that informal written acknowledgements were recognised as evidence of debt. Such documents could be adopted into official processes and enforced through the Council’s authority. The instruction to circulate copies of the orders ensured administrative continuity between officials. Written transmission of authority allowed multiple churchwardens to act independently while maintaining consistency in enforcement. | |
220 | At a C[our]t of Consultation held on Tuesday Present John Blackmore Govr Information haveing bin given on Mr Wm Bormer Henry Manning [...] Who haveing bin acquainted with the Copy whereof hereafter followeth These are in his Majestyes Name to | At a Court of Consultation held at Fort James on Tuesday 29 September 1685, John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Gregory Field, Ensign and Tho: Goffe, Ensign, were present. Information having been given on the evening of Monday 28 September 1685 concerning the sudden death of Sergt Maurice Hunt, several persons were summoned to appear and be impanelled on a jury to enquire into the manner of his death. Hunt had been found dead behind the market house in Chapple Valley, between the houses of Edward Downs and John Cannady, and near Moore’s house. The persons brought for the inquest appeared as follows: Mr Wm Bormer, Sutton Jack, Tho: Inderwin, Wm Fox Junr, Wm Gates, Wm Hayes, Henry Manning [...], Edward Smith, Wm Widdow, Governor’s man, Repin Wicks, Corporal, John Field, Corporal and Andrew Robinson. Having been informed of the reason for their assembly, they were authorised and empowered to act as a jury and inquest to enquire into the death of Maurice Hunt by an order, a copy of which was recorded to follow. The order began by stating that, in His Majesty’s name, those whose names were set out were authorised and empowered to serve as a jury and inquest to enquire into and determine the manner of [...] Interpretations The impanelling of a jury of inquest demonstrated the use of formal investigative procedures in cases of sudden or unexplained death. Such an inquest functioned to establish cause and responsibility, ensuring that deaths were examined under recognised authority. The issuance of authority “in His Majesty’s name” indicated that the process of enquiry was grounded in royal jurisdiction. This reinforced the legitimacy of the proceedings and connected local judicial action to broader sovereign authority. The identification of individuals by status, including a Governor’s servant and corporals, showed that juries were composed from a cross-section of the settlement. Participation in such inquiries formed part of communal obligation and extended beyond elite members of the colony. | |
221 | Sergt Maurice Hunts Death who was taken And you are strictly to view his body & wounds To Capt Joshua Johnson John Blackmore The forementioned twelve men being all sworne After some houres Capt Johnson and all the Copy whereof hereafter followes | The order recorded that Sergt Maurice Hunt had been taken up dead in the brook between the house of John Cannady in Chapple Valley and the new market house at about seven o’clock in the evening on 28 September 1685. The jurors were directed to view his body and any wounds, and to examine all persons whom they might suspect of involvement, or who might have knowledge or understanding of the matter, so that the truth concerning the death of His Majesty’s subject might be made clear. They were required to return their opinion and verdict without delay to the Governor, under all their hands. The order was issued under the hands and seals of John Blackmore, Robert Holden, Gregory Field and Thomas Goffe on 29 September 1685, and it authorised Capt Joshua Johnson to act as coroner in this particular case. The twelve men previously named, having been sworn, withdrew to consider the matter. After some hours, Capt Johnson and the jury returned, and being called over they answered to their names and delivered the examinations of witnesses together with their verdict. A copy of those examinations and the verdict was then set out to follow. Interpretations The appointment of Capt Joshua Johnson to act as coroner in this case showed that the office was not necessarily permanent on the island but could be conferred for a specific inquiry. This allowed the Council to designate authority as needed in response to particular events. The requirement that the jury both inspect the body and examine witnesses demonstrated that the inquest combined physical observation with testimonial evidence. This dual process aimed to establish cause of death through both material and social investigation. The instruction that the verdict be returned under all their hands indicated that each juror bore collective responsibility for the finding. The written subscription of names functioned as formal validation of the decision and bound the participants to its conclusions. The reference to the deceased as “His Majesty’s subject” placed the matter within the framework of royal jurisdiction. The investigation of death was thus not only a local concern but part of the Crown’s interest in maintaining order and justice. | |
222 | By vertue of an Order of this Govr & Wm Borman Henry Manning | By virtue of an order issued by the Governor and Council of the island on 29 September 1685, the inhabitants who had been impanelled as a jury of inquest viewed the body of Maurice Hunt, formerly a sergeant in the service of the Honourable Company of East India Merchants of London, the Lords Proprietors of the island. The jurors also examined all witnesses who might contribute to knowledge and to the fuller and clearer discovery of the truth, including matters of fact and any persons who might have been involved in or connected with his death. Upon consideration of the entire matter, it was found that Richard Honywood had killed Maurice Hunt and that the said Richard Honywood was guilty of murder according to the testimony presented. The verdict was subscribed on 29 September 1685 by Wm Borman, Sutton Jack, Tho: Inderwin, Wm W Fox Junr, Wm Gates, Wm Hayes, Henry Manning, Francis Smith, Wm Widdow, Governor’s mate, Repin Wicks, Corporal, John Field, Corporal and Andrew Robinson. Interpretations The formal finding that Richard Honywood was guilty of murder by a jury of inquest showed that such bodies could determine not only the cause of death but also assign criminal responsibility. This function placed the inquest as an essential step in initiating further legal consequences. The description of Maurice Hunt as a sergeant in the service of the Honourable Company emphasised that he was under Company authority. His death therefore carried implications for both military discipline and Company governance, making the inquiry a matter of institutional concern. The collective subscription of the jurors’ names confirmed the verdict as a unified decision. This practice ensured accountability and gave legal weight to the finding, allowing it to be acted upon by the Governor and Council. | |
223 | At a C[our]t of Councell held on Monday Octob: Present John Blackmore Govr St Michaell Morris, & Sutton Jack Church- It is Ordered That the same be drawne into due forme Upon hearing a complaint of Wm Roe free-Planter | At a Council held at Fort James on Monday 5 October 1685, John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Ensign, Nathaniel Coxe and Thomas Goffe, Ensign, were present. St Michaell Morris and Sutton Jack, acting as churchwardens, in accordance with an order made at the previous Council, submitted an account of marriages, births and christenings, deaths and burials on the island since the death of Mr Joseph Church, late minister, in May 1683. The account having been examined and read, it was ordered that it be arranged into proper form and method according to the specific days, months and years on which such marriages and christenings had occurred. The record was to be added as a supplement to the register of Mr Church, who had died in May 1683, and was to be presented to the Governor and Council at their next session. A complaint was then heard from Wm Roe, free planter, against Edward Sprocke concerning the detention of Saffor, a slave, who had run away from Roe and had been absent for several weeks. Interpretations The instruction to organise the submitted records into chronological form and to append them to the former minister’s register demonstrated the Council’s effort to reconstruct an official archive. In the absence of a minister, civil authority assumed responsibility for maintaining vital records, ensuring continuity in documentation that was essential for legal and social purposes such as inheritance and legitimacy. The requirement that the revised register be presented again at the next session showed that record-keeping was subject to iterative review and approval. This process reflected a bureaucratic system in which documentation had to meet an accepted standard before being formally recognised. The complaint concerning the detention of a slave indicated that such individuals were treated as property subject to ownership and recovery. Disputes over their custody were handled within the Council as matters of property rights, with the authority to determine possession and enforce claims. | |
224 | [...] the sd Wright shew[n] wth many It is Ordered That the cause be dismissed, the sd John Hem[en/er] free Plant[er] Complaines John Mudge answered that his black bitch John King testifieth that he saw | Further details were presented concerning a man referred to as Black, in which many circumstances were described relating to servants breaking away. Evidence was given against Wright for detaining the man on suspicion, in order to prevent him from returning to Roe. After consideration, it was ordered that the case be dismissed, Wright having undertaken to use his utmost efforts to capture the said Black man and to deliver him to Roe. A complaint was then made by John Hem[en/er], a free planter, against John Mudge for the killing of a sow belonging to him, which was valued at 8s 0d. The animal had been killed by a dog that had been set upon it by Mudge or by his authority. The sow had not been within Mudge’s enclosed plantation, but had been on the common waste land. In response, John Mudge stated that his black bitch had killed the sow, though he had observed another dog following it, which he believed to have been Hem[en/er]’s own. He admitted that his dog, having been set on by a young negro, had also pursued the sow, which had come from his plantation. John King testified that he had seen Mudge’s dog upon Hem[en/er]’s sow and had observed two or three bites on the animal’s body. Interpretations The dismissal of the complaint against Wright, conditional upon his undertaking to recover and return the runaway man, demonstrated a practical approach to enforcement in which formal judgement could be set aside in favour of securing the restoration of labour treated as property. The reference to “common waste land” indicated land outside enclosed holdings, where animals might roam without clear ownership of the ground. Its mention was significant in determining liability, as damage occurring beyond private enclosures could complicate responsibility. The valuation of the sow at 8s 0d reflected the standard practice of assigning a monetary worth to livestock, forming the basis for any compensation or claim. The admission that the dog had been set upon the sow by a young negro illustrated how authority operated within a household or plantation, with actions carried out by subordinate individuals being attributed to the master, thereby extending responsibility for the resulting damage. | |
225 | After hearing both parties and witnesses it It is Ordered That the sd Mudge doe forthwith A Complaint being exhibited by John Nicholes It is Ordered That for further hearing of this cause it is [...] Deacon and [...] Trustees for Wm [...] [...] brought Whereas a Market house is erected or intended in | After both parties and witnesses had been heard, it was found that the dog belonging to John Mudge had attacked the sow of John Hem[en/er] and had wounded it, but had not killed it. It was therefore ordered that Mudge should immediately pay compensation to Hem[en/er] in the sum of three dollars for the damage, together with one dollar for the ordinary costs of the proceedings. A further complaint was brought by John Nicholes, a free planter, against Thomas Sherwin for taking and detaining several of his cattle, on the grounds that they were said to belong to Thomas Snowell. Sherwin asserted that the cattle did indeed belong to Snowell, from whom he claimed to have received a deed of sale for two head of cattle. However, he requested time to prove that the cattle claimed by Nicholes were those of Snowell. It was ordered that the matter should be deferred for further hearing at the next Council meeting, and in the meantime Sherwin was to retain possession of the cattle. [...] Deacon and [...] Trustees acting for William [...] [...] submitted an account of children, stock and estate, which was read, approved, and left with the Court. It was further noted that a market house had been erected, or was intended to be erected, in Cappell Valley, and had been made in all respects suitable for the holding of a market there for the sale of provisions. Interpretations The award of three dollars in damages and one dollar for costs illustrated the structured approach to compensation, where both the injury to property and the administrative expenses of bringing the case were quantified and enforced through the council’s authority. The reference to a “deed of sale” indicated a formal legal instrument used to transfer ownership of livestock, demonstrating the reliance on written documentation to establish property rights and resolve disputes. The decision to defer judgement while allowing Sherwin to retain the cattle showed a provisional form of custody, whereby possession was maintained pending proof of ownership, reflecting the council’s role in managing disputes without immediate final determination. The mention of trustees submitting an account of “children, stock and estate” suggested oversight of property held on behalf of minors or dependants, indicating a system in which estates were administered under supervision to protect the interests of those not legally able to manage their own affairs. The establishment of a market house in Cappell Valley pointed to an organised system for regulating trade in provisions, where designated spaces were created to centralise exchange and potentially allow oversight of pricing, supply, and economic activity. | |
226 | Goods or Commodities by any ships that shall It is Ordered That upon the arrivall of ye first Memorandum that by order Island of St Helena A Councell held on Monday 2d of December 1685 Thomas Smoult Complaines John Dolan being questioned | It was ordered that, upon the arrival of the first ship bringing goods or commodities to the island, a proclamation should immediately be set up declaring that an open and free market would be held at the newly established market house. All persons were required to bring their goods, commodities, and provisions to this place and to expose them openly for sale, buying, bartering, exchanging, and other forms of trade. Any person who attempted to conduct trade by going aboard ships and holding markets there, instead of using the designated market place, was acting contrary to the orders and commands of the Honourable Company. A memorandum recorded that, by order of the Council, a boat had been sent from the island on 17 March to the [...] Road in order to collect goods belonging to the Dutch Company’s ships and others, under the command of Captain Jonah Anderson. At a Council held on Monday 2 December 1685 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Ensign, Nathaniel Coxe, Thomas Gosse, Ensign, and Thomas Smoult. A complaint was brought by Thomas Smoult against John Dolan, who, when questioned concerning a ship that had arrived during the night and the consent given in relation to it, offered an explanation that an account had been required. It was stated that those involved had been unable to complete this account before sunset on that night. Interpretations The requirement that all goods be brought to a designated market house and sold openly demonstrated an attempt to regulate trade by centralising transactions, ensuring visibility, and preventing private or unregulated dealings aboard ships that could evade oversight or control by the Company’s authorities. The prohibition against shipboard trading reflected concerns over loss of revenue, enforcement of pricing or supply controls, and the maintenance of order within the island’s economy, indicating that the Company sought to direct and supervise all commercial exchange. The memorandum concerning the dispatch of a boat to collect goods from ships at the roadstead illustrated the Council’s logistical role in managing the transfer of goods between vessels and the island, ensuring that cargoes were brought under official supervision. The reference to requiring an account before permitting or recognising the arrival of a ship suggested an administrative procedure in which incoming vessels or their cargoes had to be formally reported and recorded, reinforcing oversight of maritime activity and trade. | |
227 | [...] then he would not send them a boate to come on shoar Whereupon they were both dismissed wth an admonition not Tho: Box free planter complain[s] of Tho: Leckis free planter Thomas Leckis answereth yt going to Mr Box his house Mary ye daughter of Tho: Box saith she was going to [...] Mrs Box his wife saith yt when Leckis came to her house | Further testimony stated that it had been declared that no boat would be sent to bring the persons ashore, although an allowance had been made to excuse their remaining aboard the ship during the night. Nathaniel Coxe, a member of the Council, stated that he had heard Mr Andrews, described as an Irish divine, say that their remaining on board had been done with consent, which had served as a reason to excuse them in the matter under consideration. Upon this, both parties were dismissed with an admonition that they should not offend again in a similar manner. A complaint was then brought by Thomas Box, a free planter, against Thomas Leckis, also a free planter, alleging several abuses. It was stated that Leckis had first committed an assault and battery upon Box’s wife within her own house, and had further defamed his daughters by spreading false reports about them and calling one a thief. It was also alleged that Leckis had denied and refused payment of a debt owed to John Phillips, which had been paid by Box on his behalf. In response, Thomas Leckis stated that when he had gone to Box’s house, Box’s wife had become enraged and had reproached him about remarks he had made concerning her daughter. He claimed that she had taken up a stick and had driven him out of the house, and that as she followed him to the door she had struck him on the back. He then turned and struck her on the face. He further stated that Box’s daughters had come out of the house and had thrown stones, a ball of clay, and other objects at him, which he described as a minor matter that had caused him to speak as he did, after which he had run home and had not been further troubled. Mary, the daughter of Thomas Box, stated that as she had been going to [...] Perkins’s house, Leckis had called her in and had behaved improperly towards her, and when she had refused him, force had been used against her. Mrs Box stated that when Leckis had come to her house, she had asked him why he had defamed her daughter, to which he had justified himself and had spoken abusively. She stated that she had taken up a stool to throw at him, but that he had immediately struck her on the head and face. Interpretations The dismissal of the earlier matter with an admonition showed the Council’s use of warning as a disciplinary measure, where formal punishment was withheld but future misconduct was explicitly discouraged under threat of further action. The allegation of assault and battery within a private house highlighted the protection afforded to domestic space, where violence in such a setting was treated as a serious breach of order and could be formally prosecuted. The accusation of defamation through “scandalising” and raising false reports demonstrated that reputation, particularly of women within a household, was treated as a matter of legal concern, with the potential to bring formal complaint before the Council. The reference to a debt paid by one party on behalf of another indicated a recognised system of financial obligation and substitution, where liability could be transferred and enforced through personal payment, giving rise to further claims if repayment was refused. The conflicting testimonies concerning physical confrontation illustrated the Council’s role in weighing evidence from multiple witnesses, including women, whose statements were formally recorded and considered in determining responsibility for violence and misconduct. | |
228 | [...] ca[u]sing her face to swell & her eyes to be black that The sd Box his son saith his wife stood & Leckis strooke The debt demanded of Leckis wch he doth not deny Upon consideration of the whole matter & circumstances That sd Leckis doe pay unto sd Box the sum of After ye hearing ye complaint of Jane the wife It is Ordered That ye cause be dismissed wth admonition yt they would Tho: Allison free planter was called upon to say how he came Allison saith yt he had taken out to have sold to Mr Grove Eliz: P[ot]ts widow complain of a black of the African | Further evidence was given that Mrs Box’s face had been caused to swell and her eyes to be blackened, which had been plainly visible. Box’s son stated that his mother had been standing within the house when Leckis had struck her on the head and face. The debt claimed from Leckis was acknowledged by him and was not denied. Upon consideration of the entire matter and its circumstances, it was ordered that Thomas Leckis should pay Thomas Box the sum of 3 dollars for the assault and battery, and that he should also be fined 1 dollar payable to the Proprietors for breach of the peace. By agreement between both parties, it was further ordered that the outstanding debt should be settled in full, to avoid further legal proceedings, and that payment should be made in butter and fowls on or before 1 March 1686. A complaint was then heard from Jane, the wife of [...], against the wife of Thomas [...] and a widow [...], concerning the repetition of words and speeches said to damage her reputation and bring defamation. Upon hearing all persons involved, no proof was found to support the accusations beyond words spoken in an unguarded and [...] manner. It was therefore ordered that the case be dismissed with an admonition that all parties should live more peaceably and neighbourly together, and should refrain from repeating reports about one another on slight or uncertain grounds. Thomas Allison, a free planter, was then called upon to explain how he had come to owe a debt to the Honourable Company, as had been noted in the previous Council concerning planting matters. Allison stated that he had taken goods or credit to the value of one dollar to sell to Mr Grove, Ward, and Mr Rappell, which were to be repaid. Elizabeth P[ot]ts, a widow, brought a complaint concerning a black man belonging to the African Company who had run away with her boy after breaking into her house and stealing several items from it, but the account breaks off before the matter is completed. Interpretations The imposition of both compensation to the injured party and a separate fine to the Proprietors demonstrated a dual system of accountability, in which private harm and public disorder were treated as distinct offences requiring different forms of redress. The agreement to settle a debt in butter and fowls illustrated the use of payment in kind, reflecting a local economy in which goods could substitute for money in satisfying financial obligations. The fine for “breaking the peace” indicated a formal concept of public order, where violent or disruptive conduct was treated as an offence against the governing authority, not merely against the individual victim. The dismissal of the defamation complaint due to lack of proof showed that reputational claims required substantiation beyond spoken words, while the accompanying admonition reinforced expectations of social harmony and restraint in spreading accusations. The reference to a debt owed to the Honourable Company revealed the Company’s role as a creditor, extending goods or credit to inhabitants and maintaining records of obligations that could be called to account before the Council. The complaint involving a black man belonging to the African Company highlighted the treatment of such individuals as property under corporate ownership, and the Council’s role in addressing theft, escape, and associated losses within that system. | |
229 | A black being not as yet to be here examined, the cause Whereas in ye Councell held on ye [...] instant accompt was To [Pe]rsu[g]ges Carter saith that he knew ye cattle wch he saw Andrew Pearson answer saith he was upon the place It is Ordered That since there is no proofe yt ye cattle claimed by ye sd Nichol | A black man not yet having been brought forward for examination, the matter concerning him was suspended until a later time. Reference was then made to a previous Council held on the [...] instant, in which an account had been presented by John Nichol, a free planter, against Thomas Sherwin, also a free planter, concerning cattle which Nichol claimed as his own. These cattle had been taken by Sherwin on the grounds that they were the goods and cattle of Thomas Smoult. The further hearing of this matter had been deferred to the Council, where several witnesses were produced to give evidence that the cattle belonged to Smoult. Persuges Carter stated that he recognised the cattle which he had seen being driven away from Mr Smoult, except for one brown heifer, which he could not identify as Smoult’s. He added that he could not say with certainty whose that heifer had been at the time it was taken. Andrew Pearson stated that he had been present when Sherwin had demanded the cattle from Mr Smoult, who had denied that they were his. Upon Sherwin’s request, Smoult had allowed him to search his pocket, and John Nichol had also gone with them to the place where the cattle were found. George Vallo, [...], and Jane Walker all swore that a black bull belonging to Mr Smoult, together with his black-headed cattle, had been taken away, while the cattle belonging to Mr Nichol had been left behind. It was therefore ordered that, since no proof had been provided that the cattle claimed by Nichol belonged to him, and as it appeared probable that they belonged to Mr Smoult, the cattle should remain in the custody of Thomas Sherwin. Interpretations The suspension of proceedings due to the absence of a black man for examination demonstrated the reliance on direct testimony in judicial processes, particularly where the individual concerned may have held crucial evidence or been central to the dispute. The production of multiple witnesses to establish ownership of cattle showed the evidentiary weight given to personal knowledge and sworn testimony in the absence of definitive written proof, especially in disputes over movable property. The Council’s conclusion, based on lack of proof and the probability derived from witness accounts, reflected a pragmatic standard of judgement, where certainty was not always required but a reasonable balance of evidence was sufficient to determine possession. The decision to leave the cattle in Sherwin’s custody indicated a provisional resolution aligned with the Council’s assessment of ownership, reinforcing its authority to assign control of disputed property pending or in lieu of conclusive proof. | |
230 | [...] excused by Mr Fox & for going It is Ordered That he be fined 2 dollars to ye Honble Proprietors [...] having severall tymes run away from It is ordered That immediately he have 31 lashes on his naked [...] | A matter was considered in which an individual had been excused by Mr Fox for going aboard ships without a licence and remaining there throughout the night. The said Fox did not deny having given such permission. It was therefore ordered that he should be fined 2 dollars payable to the Honourable Proprietors. Another case concerned a person who had on several occasions run away from the master to whom he had been assigned. He had broken into many houses, stolen various items from several individuals, and had lived in the woods in a disorderly and vagrant manner. It was ordered that he should immediately receive 31 lashes upon his naked body at the appointed place in Fort James, and that he should afterwards be sent to Mr [...]’s plantation to labour there until further order. Gregory Field and Thomas Gosse were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The requirement for a licence to go aboard ships indicated a regulated system of movement between land and vessels, where permission was needed to control contact, trade, and conduct, and where unauthorised presence could be treated as an offence. The fine imposed on Mr Fox showed that responsibility could extend to those who authorised or permitted breaches of regulations, reinforcing accountability within the administrative structure. The description of repeated absconding, theft, and vagrancy reflected a pattern of behaviour treated as both criminal and socially disruptive, justifying severe punishment under the island’s disciplinary system. The sentence of 31 lashes, followed by compulsory labour on a plantation, illustrated a combined penal approach of corporal punishment and enforced labour, aimed at both immediate correction and longer-term control over the individual’s conduct and productivity. | |
231 | Blank page | ||
231 | St Helena At a Court & Councell held on Wednesday the 2d Present John Blackmore Govr Complaint was made against Mr Robt Butler Clerke December 1st 1685 at a Court & Councell as above the Then ye Court having examined ye sd Mr Butler about his | At a Court and Council held on Wednesday 2 December 1685 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Sir Geo[rge] B[?]orne, Captain Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Joseph Eaton, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Coxe, Mr Thomas Gosse, Mr Edward C[...], and Mr Jacob Barbor. A complaint was made against Mr Robert Butler, a clerk belonging to the “new London men” in the Roads under Captain Joseph Eaton, for having married Jasper Jay and Hannah [...] at nine o’clock at night on 27 November 1685, which was considered an unlawful time. This was found to be true by his own confession and was further supported by the statements of two persons. The matter was deferred until the following day. At the same time, Mr Butler presented a petition to the Council which contained strong accusations against Sir Geo[rge] B[?]orne, and this matter was also deferred until the same time. On 1 December 1685, at a further Court and Council held as above, the issue of the marriage conducted by Mr Butler at an unseasonable time was debated. It was agreed and ordered that Mr Butler should provide, under his own hand, a catalogue of all christenings, burials, and marriages performed by him on the island since the arrival of the said ships, to be delivered by nine o’clock the following morning. Once this had been completed, it was ordered that he should immediately be taken aboard the said ships and remain there, without coming ashore again, until further order. The Court then examined Mr Butler concerning the evidence supporting the claims made in his petition against Sir Geo[rge] B[?]orne, particularly the allegation that Sir Geo[rge] B[?]orne had threatened his life by stating that when he came ashore he would be hanged and would “have a word” with him. Mr Butler was unable to substantiate this claim or any other matter contained in his petition. The Court and Council then proceeded to order a further [...] Interpretations The classification of a marriage conducted at nine o’clock at night as unlawful demonstrated that the timing of religious ceremonies was regulated, reflecting an expectation that such acts conform to established norms of order, propriety, and public oversight. The requirement for Mr Butler to submit a full catalogue of all baptisms, burials, and marriages performed since the arrival of the ships indicated an effort to assert administrative control over ecclesiastical functions, particularly where these had been carried out by an unofficial or transient clerical figure. The order that Mr Butler be confined to the ships and prevented from returning ashore showed the Council’s authority to restrict movement as a disciplinary measure, effectively removing him from the island’s jurisdictional space while avoiding immediate corporal or financial punishment. The examination of Butler’s petition and his failure to prove allegations against a senior figure illustrated the Council’s role in protecting the authority and reputation of its members, while requiring evidentiary support for accusations that could undermine governance. The involvement of ship-based personnel described as the “new London men” highlighted the interaction between maritime groups and the island’s administration, where jurisdiction extended to individuals temporarily present but still subject to local authority when ashore. Speculations The order that Mr Butler be removed from the island and confined to the ships, rather than fined or physically punished, perhaps indicates that jurisdiction over him was considered limited because he belonged to the “new London men” under Captain Joseph Eaton. His expulsion from shore suggests that the Council chose to resolve the matter by excluding him from the island’s civil space rather than asserting full punitive authority, which may reflect overlapping or uncertain lines of control between maritime and island governance. | |
232 | The Court & Councell was unanimously of one opinion Joseph Eaton [...] Blackmore | The Court and Council were unanimously of the opinion that Mr Robert Butler had been highly guilty of having profanely abused and grossly affronted Sir Geo[rge] Wyb[orne] by making a vile and scandalous accusation before the Court and Council, together with other reproachful expressions and allegations that were unwarranted and could not be justified. It was therefore ordered that the said Mr Butler should be immediately sent aboard the ships New London before the whole company on board, where he was to remain. He was also required to give a formal submission, undertaking that he would not again present himself without the consent and leave of Sir Geo[rge] Wyb[orne] and his lady, in accordance with the previous order and determination. Upon this submission being made and read, the Court requested that Sir Geo[rge] Wyb[orne] should pardon Mr Butler for what had passed, and that he would be pleased to receive him again into his favour. Joseph Eaton, George Ashley, Jacob B[ar]ber, [...] Blackmore, Robert Holden, Gregory Field, Nathaniel Coxe, and Thomas Gosse were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The finding that Butler had committed an affront through “scandalous imputation” before the Court indicated that speech made in formal proceedings was subject to strict control, and that defamatory or unsubstantiated accusations against senior figures were treated as offences against both personal reputation and institutional authority. The requirement that Butler make a formal submission before the assembled company aboard the ship demonstrated a ritualised form of discipline, in which public acknowledgment of fault served to restore order and reaffirm hierarchy. The condition that Butler should not return without permission from Sir Geo[rge] Wyb[orne] and his lady showed that authority extended beyond formal office into personal and household influence, linking governance with social hierarchy and patronage. The Court’s request that Sir Geo[rge] Wyb[orne] grant a pardon illustrated the role of reconciliation within governance, where restoration of favour by a senior figure could resolve a dispute once submission had been made. Speculations The insistence that Butler’s submission be made before the entire company aboard New London perhaps indicates that his offence had implications beyond the Council chamber, affecting the discipline and cohesion of the ship’s company. By making the act of submission public in that setting, the Council may have sought to reinforce authority not only on the island but also among the maritime group to which Butler belonged. | |
233 | St Helena At a Councell held on Saturday the 4th Dec: 1685 Present John Blackmore Govr Among other Debates the Governor & Councell took into It is Ordered That seeing those goods in Mr Smoults hands were Monday the 7th of December 1685 The Court met and Copy of the sd Order followeth below | At a Council held on Saturday 4 December 1685 at Fort James, the Governor and Council discussed the matter of Mr Smoult, finding that he had not complied with the Honourable East India Company’s demands. It was determined that most of his goods for his plantation were securely kept and ready to be disposed of. It was agreed that Mr Smoult should give a bond and depart with his goods in accordance with the Company’s demands, but he had failed to comply with this requirement. Mr Smoult pleaded that he was unable to meet the bond conditions. When further pressed to provide a clear plan for disposing of the rest of his goods, as well as information about the money and other assets, the Council reviewed the evidence presented. It was ordered that, as the goods in Mr Smoult’s possession belonged to the East India Company and were intended for their use, he should immediately deliver them to Mr Coxe and the Council. They were to provide him with a receipt and hold the goods in safekeeping under his bond. The goods would then be transported and disposed of for the benefit of the Honourable Company, with Captain Robert Holden assigned to oversee this. On Monday 7 December 1685, the Court met again and signed an order requiring Mr Smoult to deliver the remainder of his goods to the Governor and Council, in accordance with the order made on 4 December. Interpretations The bond Mr Smoult was required to provide reflects the standard practice for ensuring compliance with contractual or administrative demands, particularly when goods or property were involved. Bonds acted as a form of security, guaranteeing that obligations would be fulfilled. The demand for Mr Smoult to deliver his goods to Mr Coxe and the Council highlights the Company’s oversight and control over property that was part of its larger economic interests, reinforcing the central role the East India Company played in managing resources on the island. The involvement of Captain Robert Holden in transporting and disposing of the goods demonstrated the integration of military and civil authority, with officers such as Holden taking an active role in executing orders related to economic transactions. The use of receipts and safe-keeping for the goods emphasized the importance of record-keeping and accountability, especially when goods were handled on behalf of a corporate entity like the Honourable East India Company. Speculations The requirement that Mr Smoult deliver his goods under bond and to Mr Coxe, rather than directly to the East India Company, may reflect an effort to manage and secure assets in a way that allowed the Company’s agents on the island to maintain control over the distribution and use of the goods. By centralising this task under trusted local figures such as Coxe, the Company might have aimed to streamline its operations on the island and ensure that goods would be handled according to its priorities and demands. | |
234 | Island Mr Smoult We the Governr & Councell You are hereby ordered to deliver up all goods unto Signed by us Upon perusing ye Complaints preferred before ye Councell about two Mr Solomon secretary to Sr John Wyborne having It is Ordered That a gratuity of five pounds in money be given him & Geo: Wyborne N[ot]e: That this Copy of | t a Council held on St Helena, the Governor and Council, having taken into consideration Mr Smoult’s willingness to part with part of his cargo, which belonged to the Honourable Company, and the fact that it remained in his possession, issued an order for him to deliver all the goods into the custody of the Governor and Council. Mr Smoult was to receive a receipt for the value of the goods according to the invoice and advance, and the goods were to be delivered or secured under the present warrant, which was dated 7 December 1685. The order was signed by Captain Joseph Eaton, Sir John Wyborne, Captain Robert Holden, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Coxe, and Mr Thomas Gosse. Upon reviewing complaints made before the Council regarding two planters paying 12 shillings per head for cattle grazing on their waste land, it was decided that all other planters were similarly obliged to pay 12 shillings per head for all cattle grazing beyond the first. Mr Solomon, secretary to Sir John Wyborne, was recognised for his diligent and industrious assistance during his time at the Court Martial. It was ordered that he receive a gratuity of five pounds in money, to be paid by Captain Holden. The Council noted that a copy of the Council book, covering the period from 2 November 1685 until the conclusion of the Council on 5 December 1685, was sent by the ship Almory March, commanded by Captain John Spencer, which departed from St Helena on 27 December 1685. Interpretations The requirement for Mr Smoult to deliver his goods into the custody of the Governor and Council, with a receipt provided, reinforced the central authority of the Council in managing property and goods on the island, particularly when these were tied to the Honourable East India Company. The decision to impose a 12 shilling per head fee on cattle grazing on waste land indicated a formalised system of land use and taxation. This fee likely represented a way to regulate the use of public land and ensure that the agricultural or grazing resources were properly managed and monetised. The awarding of a gratuity to Mr Solomon, the secretary to Sir John Wyborne, reflected a system of rewarding diligence and service, particularly for those who contributed to the effective running of the military or administrative functions of the island, such as his work with the Court Martial. The shipping of the Council book by Almory March highlighted the importance of maintaining and distributing official records, particularly when decisions and proceedings needed to be communicated to other parts of the Company’s broader network. Speculations The decision to charge all planters 12 shillings per head for cattle grazing on waste land might reflect an effort to standardise taxation and land management practices on the island. By setting a uniform rate, the Council likely sought to avoid disputes over land usage and to ensure that revenue generated from grazing could be reliably allocated. It is possible that this uniform fee was part of a broader strategy to streamline agricultural and economic activities on St Helena in support of the Honourable Company’s operations. | |
235 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Friday the first Present John Blackmore Governo The acct of the debt & Creditt of Edmond It is Ordered That the sd Serjt Haines doe not James Wakefield haveing not yet paid the It is Ordered That the sd Wakefield doe not faile to pay | At a Council held on Friday, 1 January 1686, at Fort James, the following were present: John Blackmore, Governor; Robert Holden, Deputy Governor; Gregory Field, Ensign; Nathaniel Coxe; and Thomas Gosse. The account of the debt and credit of Edmond Chute, who had recently passed away, was discussed. A book had been returned but was still not yet complete and had not been delivered by Sergeant Haines, who had been entrusted with the task. It was ordered that Sergeant Haines must ensure the exact and complete account be delivered at the next Council session. James Wakefield was noted for not having paid the pound due from him by an obligatory bill for monies paid to him by the Governor and the executors of Captain John Garrett’s widow. The amount had been due since 3 May of the previous year, and at a Council held on 20 July, it was judged that he should pay the amount, along with 6% interest from 3 May. It was ordered that Wakefield must pay the sum, including the 6% interest, at the next pay day of the Garrison. Wakefield had promised to comply with this order. Interpretations The mention of Sergeant Haines being entrusted with the account of Edmond Chute’s debt and credit reflects the system of delegated responsibilities within the Council. Haines, acting on behalf of the Council, was expected to ensure the accuracy and completion of financial records, which were crucial for maintaining the integrity of the administrative and financial operations. The order for James Wakefield to pay interest on the debt, calculated from 3 May, shows the formal financial system in place for managing debts and ensuring timely payment. The imposition of 6% interest, a common practice in financial matters of the time, demonstrated the Council’s role in regulating financial transactions and ensuring that obligations were met promptly. The use of obligatory bills as a formal means of securing payment suggests a structured approach to credit and debt management, where written agreements were used to enforce financial obligations, and the Council acted as a mediator in ensuring these were adhered to. Speculations The insistence on Sergeant Haines delivering the account of Edmond Chute’s debt at the next session, coupled with the Council’s direct involvement in financial matters, suggests that the Council might have been operating under pressure to maintain strict financial discipline. This pressure likely stemmed from the need to ensure that all debts related to the Honourable East India Company and its interests were settled promptly, especially in light of the ongoing military and economic activities of the island. By imposing a deadline for the delivery of the account, the Council may have sought to prevent any further delays that could complicate the proper management of the Company’s affairs. | |
236 | Mr Morris & Sutton Isaac churchwardens ap- It is Ordered That they doe without any delay proceed Henry Coales and Robt De[quar]cey surveyors It is Ordered That they ye surveyors doe sett a bout ye Upon a serious debate concerning the way, meanes It is Ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith issued out | Mr Morris and Sutton Isaac, the churchwardens, appeared by order and were questioned about their efforts to collect the arrears due to the chapel in or near Fort James, as well as their work on repairing the church in the countryside. It was ordered that they proceed without delay to collect and gather all the arrears, and that any money in their hands from the previous year’s account should be spent on the most necessary repairs to the church in the countryside. They were instructed to report back on their progress at the next Council session. Henry Coales and Robert De[quar]cey, the surveyors of the highways, appeared by order and were pressed to begin immediately with the construction and repair of the highways in their respective areas. It was ordered that they proceed as quickly as possible and provide an account of their work at the next Council session, or else face a fine for failing to comply. A serious debate was held regarding the method of collecting the duty of 2 shillings per head and 12 pence per cattle, as prescribed by the Honourable Company’s orders and the Proprietors’ injunctions. It was ordered that a proclamation be issued immediately, requiring compliance with these duties. Interpretations The order for the churchwardens, Mr Morris and Sutton Isaac, to collect arrears and use the available funds for necessary repairs to the church reflects the central role of church officials in managing both religious and financial affairs within the local community. The requirement to report back on their progress shows the Council’s oversight and accountability measures, ensuring that funds were used appropriately. The duty placed on Henry Coales and Robert De[quar]cey to repair and maintain the highways highlights the responsibility of local officials for infrastructure, reflecting a system of public works managed at the local level. The threat of a fine for failure to comply indicates a strong emphasis on accountability and the need for timely completion of essential tasks. The debate regarding the collection of the duty on cattle and the immediate order for a proclamation to enforce it demonstrates the importance of revenue collection for the Honourable Company and the Proprietors. The imposition of specific duties on livestock was likely part of a larger economic strategy to regulate and generate income from the island’s agricultural activities. Speculations The urgent nature of the orders regarding the church repairs and highway maintenance suggests that the Council may have been under pressure to demonstrate effective governance and responsiveness to public needs. By setting specific deadlines and requiring reports on progress, the Council likely sought to show efficiency and maintain order, especially as the island’s infrastructure and religious sites were crucial to both the daily lives of its inhabitants and its relationship with the Honourable East India Company. The decision to issue a proclamation to enforce the duty on cattle might reflect a growing concern with ensuring that all residents, especially those involved in livestock farming, contributed fairly to the island’s economic system. The proclamation could be seen as an attempt to tighten control over local economies and prevent any evasion of the required payments, which were essential for maintaining the island’s fiscal health and supporting the Honourable Company’s operations. | |
237 | Requiring all the Inhabitants of the sd Island wch Proclamation was published on That upon the continuation on good day | The Council issued a proclamation requiring all inhabitants of the island who possessed any land or cattle, either in their own right or through a lease, to appear in person at the storehouse near Fort James on Friday, 7 January, by 9 a.m. This was to allow them to settle their respective accounts for the land or cattle held by them for the past year, and to prove that payment had been made. A day would be fixed for the settlement of these matters, and those who failed to appear would be assigned another date for settlement. This proclamation was published on Saturday, 2 January, at noon, when the guards were relieved. It was further stated that, upon continuation, a demand would be made for the inhabitants to pay the duty in money if possible. Those who could not pay in money would be allowed to pay in cattle, which would be appraised. If the cattle were worth more than their dues, the excess value could either go toward the payment of the duty for the following year or be paid from store goods, as agreed upon. Alternatively, the overplus could be settled by their neighbours in exchange for debts they owed. If the appraised value of the cattle was less than the dues, the individuals involved would need to arrange for their neighbours to help cover the shortfall or otherwise pay it off through an agreed method until the full debt was cleared. It was also noted that the value of any appraised cattle should be documented in writing. Interpretations The requirement for all landowners and cattleholders to settle their accounts at the storehouse reflects a structured approach to fiscal responsibility, where individuals were expected to personally appear and prove payment. This was part of the broader administrative oversight of the island, where the Council ensured that obligations were met in a timely and accountable manner. The provision that payment could be made in cattle if money was not available suggests that a barter system was still in operation, allowing goods to substitute for currency in certain transactions. This reflects the economic realities of the island, where livestock had significant value and could be used to settle debts, especially when cash was scarce. The proposal to allow individuals to pool their resources, either through appraising cattle together or seeking assistance from neighbours, indicates a practical solution to the difficulty some might have had in meeting their obligations alone. It also suggests a level of communal cooperation, where neighbours could help each other meet financial demands, reflecting a shared responsibility within the community. Speculations The system of allowing cattle to be appraised and pooled to meet duties may have been an effort to prevent individual hardship from hindering compliance with the tax or duty. By enabling the collective pooling of resources, the Council might have been attempting to ensure that all inhabitants, regardless of their individual financial capacity, contributed to the island’s upkeep and the Honourable Company’s operations. This could have also served to strengthen ties within the community, as people were encouraged to assist each other in fulfilling their obligations. Furthermore, the ability to use excess value from appraised cattle toward future payments or debts suggests that the Council was seeking to stabilise long-term financial compliance by offering some flexibility, allowing for adjustments in payment. This may have been an attempt to reduce resistance to the duties and foster a sense of fairness in how financial obligations were distributed. | |
238 | The persons names, and their respective sums wth Further It is Ordered & agreed. That Mr Nath: Coxe, & Mr Tho: Gosse Gabriell Lovell haveing bin fined in Councill It is Ordered That the sd summe of 10: £ in all 15 £ be forthwith | The names of the individuals and their respective sums, along with the locations where the cattle shall be, were to be written down and delivered to Mr Keelinge immediately, before the individuals separated. This would allow the appraisers to use the list as a guide in their work. A day was to be declared when the appraisers would begin their service. It was further ordered and agreed that Mr Nathaniel Coxe and Mr Thomas Gosse, both members of the Council (Mr Coxe for the west division and Mr Gosse for the east), would be appointed as overseers and chief appraisers of the cattle for the Lords Proprietors. They would work with the inhabitants, who could appoint their own appraisers to join with Coxe and Gosse for mutual satisfaction. Mr Coxe was to take Sergeant Ripon Wills as his assistant, along with any other individuals from the Company’s plantation that he deemed fit. Mr Gosse was to take Sergeant Isaac Naylor as his assistant, along with such other slaves of the Company as he saw fit. Both Coxe and Gosse were instructed to ensure that any cattle appraised were young, sound, and free of visible defects, blemishes, or illnesses. Gabriel Lovell, who had been fined the sum of £10 in a Council meeting held on 29 July 1684 for trading with Captain Olley, an interloper, was found to have been involved in the sale of a black woman from the same interloper. The money for this transaction had not yet been paid. It was ordered that the £10 fine, along with an additional £5, making a total of £15, be levied immediately. Interpretations The instruction for the names of individuals and the respective sums to be recorded in writing and delivered to Mr Keelinge reflects the importance of documentation and clear record-keeping in administrative processes. This step ensured that the appraisers would have accurate information to guide their work and that any transactions involving cattle were properly tracked. The appointment of Mr Coxe and Mr Gosse as chief appraisers, along with their assistants, underscores the Council’s role in overseeing the valuation of livestock. The appointment of specific individuals to assist in the appraisal process reflects the need for trusted oversight, ensuring that the cattle were valued fairly and without bias. The emphasis on ensuring that the cattle appraised were young, sound, and free from defects indicates the Council’s intent to maintain high standards of quality and fairness in economic transactions related to livestock, which were a critical asset on the island. The fine imposed on Gabriel Lovell for his involvement in trading with an interloper and the subsequent discovery of his further illicit dealings with the sale of a black woman highlight the Council’s efforts to regulate trade and maintain order. The levying of the £15 fine demonstrates the use of financial penalties to enforce compliance with the laws of the island and the Honourable East India Company. Speculations The appointment of trusted members such as Mr Coxe and Mr Gosse to oversee the appraisal of cattle might reflect an attempt to maintain control over the livestock economy, which was likely vital to the island’s agricultural and economic structure. By having these individuals directly involved in the process, the Council may have been aiming to prevent corruption or favouritism in the appraisal process, ensuring that livestock was valued at fair market prices. Additionally, the strict enforcement of fines, especially regarding Gabriel Lovell’s continued involvement with interlopers and illicit sales, may suggest that the Council was increasing its efforts to crack down on illicit trading practices. This could be seen as a response to growing concerns about the potential impact of illegal trade on the island’s economy, as well as the Honourable East India Company’s interests. By levying fines and imposing stricter controls, the Council might have been seeking to assert greater authority and ensure that all transactions aligned with the Company’s regulations. | |
239 | Leavied out of the sd Lovell Estate, and if But whereas in ye aforesd Councill of July It is now re Ordered That the sd Lovell shall have the Whereas John Marking, Israell Hails It is Ordered That the sd John Marking shall have 10 li in all 5 li out of ye | The sum owed by Gabriel Lovell, as levied from his estate, was to be paid. If Lovell desired to pay in cattle, the cattle were to be appraised by two impartial appraisers, one selected by the Honourable Company and the other by Lovell himself. These cattle, once appraised, were to be placed into the Company’s stock of cattle and considered their proper goods and chattels. However, it was also noted that in the earlier Council meeting of 29 July 1684, it had been ordered that Lovell, upon payment of the sum of £15, should receive one of the cattle that had been seized in Turne Valley, which was previously intended to be sent aboard the interloper. It was now re-ordered that Lovell would be granted the cattle, as per the original order, once the £15 fine was paid. In a separate matter, John Marking, Israel Hails, Sergeant, and Richard Macey were acknowledged for capturing and bringing to Fort James Richard Hancock, who had lived in the woods for 22 months and was a principal agent in the recent rebellion. It was ordered that John Marking would receive £10, Israel Hails £30, and Richard Macey £30, with the total £70 to be levied from the Honourable Company’s stock, as per the proclamation dated 27 January 1685. Interpretations The provision allowing Gabriel Lovell to pay his fine in cattle demonstrates the continued use of livestock as a form of currency or settlement for debts, which was common in economies where cash was limited or unavailable. This also reflects the Honourable Company’s practical management of assets, as they could convert the appraised cattle into their own stock, further reinforcing their control over economic transactions on the island. The re-affirmation of the original order for Lovell to receive a seized beast after paying the fine suggests a form of restitution or compensation for his earlier financial penalty, providing a measure of fairness in the settlement of debts. This also serves to maintain consistency in enforcing penalties while still adhering to earlier promises. The reward given to John Marking, Israel Hails, and Richard Macey for capturing Richard Hancock reflects the system of incentivising individuals who contributed to the maintenance of order, particularly in dealing with insurgents or rebels. By providing monetary compensation from the Honourable Company’s stock, the Council not only rewarded the individuals involved but also demonstrated a system where loyal service to the Company and the island’s governance was recognised and rewarded. The fact that the £70 reward was to be levied from the Company’s stock underscores the centralised control the Honourable Company had over finances, using its resources to incentivise certain actions while ensuring that financial penalties and rewards were tightly managed. Speculations The use of cattle as a form of payment for debts, particularly in the case of Lovell’s fine, may indicate the island’s reliance on its livestock as a crucial asset for economic stability. By allowing the fine to be paid in cattle, the Council likely sought to ensure that the island’s economic systems could function even in the absence of ready cash. This could also suggest a strategic decision to maintain the value of the cattle stock, using it as both a form of payment and a resource that could be controlled and utilised by the Honourable Company. The continuation of Lovell’s restitution in the form of a seized beast might also suggest an underlying effort by the Council to mitigate discontent among the settlers. Providing him with the cattle after payment could have been seen as a way to ensure that penalties did not create lingering resentment, reinforcing the importance of fair and balanced governance. The monetary rewards to the men who captured Richard Hancock reflect the Council’s desire to further cement loyalty among the settlers, particularly those who assisted in maintaining order after the rebellion. The substantial reward given to Israel Hails and Richard Macey (who received £30 each) suggests that the Council was not only looking to reward their actions but also incentivise further cooperation in future efforts to maintain peace on the island, particularly with the threat of rebellion looming. | |
240 | Upon hearing a Complt of Henry Jackson Serjt It is Ordered That the whole busines be dismissed & all The sd Serjt Jackson presented the acct of the Martha Botton widow Complaines of Rooker confesseth he is somewhat indebted Upon hearing of all that could be alledged It is Ordered That the sd Rooker doe forthwith pay the sume of 11 s | Upon hearing a complaint from Henry Jackson, Sergeant and Trustee for the goods and chattels of Jeffery Hunt, deceased, against Richard Parson, a planter, for a debt of 30 shillings owed to Hunt, the Council found that, despite testimony from various persons both in favour and against this debt, there was insufficient proof to establish that Parson was indebted to Hunt. However, Parson claimed that Hunt owed him one dollar. It was therefore ordered that the entire matter be dismissed and that all demands be balanced. Sergeant Jackson then presented the account of Jeffery Hunt, deceased, including debts and credits. Upon examination, it was revealed that the debts exceeded the credits, and thus the debts were allowed a proportional abatement to balance the accounts. In another matter, Martha Botton, a widow, complained that Edmond Rooker, Gunner, had failed to pay his debt of 20 shillings and 4 pence. Rooker acknowledged that he was somewhat indebted to her, but not to the full amount of 20 shillings and 4 pence. After hearing all that could be said by both parties and reviewing Mrs Botton’s book, it was determined that Rooker owed her a total of 11 shillings, 9 pence, and an additional 2 pence. It was ordered that Rooker pay the sum of 11 shillings, 9 pence, which he promised to do on the next pay day of the Garrison. Interpretations The dismissal of the case between Sergeant Jackson and Richard Parson indicates that the Council required substantial proof for debts to be enforced, especially when the evidence was contradictory or unclear. This reflects a commitment to due process, where accusations of debt needed to be backed by solid proof before any action was taken. The examination of Jeffery Hunt’s estate and the adjustment of debts to match the credits shows a careful accounting process to ensure fairness in the settlement of the deceased’s financial matters. The proportional abatement indicates that the Council aimed to balance out debts and credits in a way that was equitable to all parties involved. Martha Botton’s complaint and the subsequent findings regarding Edmond Rooker’s debt underscore the importance of written records, such as Mrs Botton’s book, in resolving financial disputes. It also highlights the role of the Council in enforcing payment of debts and ensuring that individuals were held accountable for their financial obligations. Speculations The dismissal of the debt case between Sergeant Jackson and Richard Parson may reflect an underlying concern with ensuring that only clear and substantiated claims were pursued, perhaps to prevent unnecessary disputes and to maintain order in financial matters. Given the complexity of financial transactions on the island, where multiple debts could overlap and compete for attention, the Council may have been striving to streamline the process by dismissing cases that lacked clear evidence. Additionally, the proportional abatement of debts from Jeffery Hunt’s estate suggests that the Council may have been taking a conservative approach to estate management, ensuring that debts were paid fairly and in proportion to the available assets. This could have been part of a broader strategy to prevent the estate from becoming a source of prolonged disputes among creditors, which would have complicated matters for both the estate and the Honourable Company. | |
241 | Upon hearing a Complt of Cap:t Rob:t Holden John Draper acknowledged he bought Onesipherus Rumsey confessed he bought another. The sd Sherwin confessed that he had sold But Cap:t Holden being unsatisfied wth It is Ordered That the sd Sherwin doe immediately pay Having heard a long branching difference | Upon hearing a complaint from Captain Robert Holden, Attorney for Mr [...] Hudson, a merchant in London, against Mr Thomas Sherwin, the case concerned the sale, alienation, and disposal of two black individuals without the knowledge or consent of Captain Holden and Mr Hudson. This action was in violation of an obligation that had been signed and sealed by Mr Sherwin. John Draper acknowledged that he had bought one of the blacks from Mr Sherwin, and Onesipherus Rumsey confessed to buying the other. Mr Sherwin admitted that he had sold the blacks to these individuals but claimed that he had been compelled to make further payments to Captain Holden to settle his debt to Mr Hudson. However, Captain Holden, being unsatisfied with Mr Sherwin’s actions in this matter, declared the sale of the blacks void and disposed of them according to his trust. It was ordered that Mr Sherwin immediately pay one and a half dollars for fees and charges related to this case. The Council then heard a lengthy dispute between Richard Macey and Parson, which involved many scurrilous and provoking words being exchanged between the two parties. Interpretations The complaint brought by Captain Holden, acting on behalf of Mr Hudson, shows the legal framework in place for ensuring that property, particularly individuals, was not sold or alienated without proper authority. The violation of this obligation by Mr Sherwin highlights the importance of consent in transactions involving valuable property, especially when it involved third parties who were entitled to control or oversight of such transactions. The acknowledgement of the purchase of the two blacks by John Draper and Onesipherus Rumsey indicates that even when individuals were involved in such transactions, they were still subject to oversight and control by others with vested interests in the goods or individuals being sold. The fact that Captain Holden made the sale void and took control of the blacks further illustrates the Council’s role in enforcing contracts and ensuring that obligations were met according to the terms established by legal agreements. The imposition of a fine of one and a half dollars on Mr Sherwin for fees and charges reflects the legal system’s approach to financial accountability, ensuring that those who engage in legal disputes cover the costs associated with their actions, particularly when those actions were found to be improper or in violation of agreements. The lengthy and contentious dispute between Richard Macey and Parson, which involved scurrilous words, suggests a breakdown in personal relations that may have extended beyond the issue at hand, perhaps involving matters of reputation or previous conflicts. Speculations The voiding of the sale of the two blacks and the subsequent actions by Captain Holden may indicate that there was a deeper concern with maintaining the integrity of transactions involving slaves and property. Given the high value placed on slaves as assets, it is likely that the Honourable East India Company and local authorities wanted to ensure that such transactions were not carried out improperly, especially in ways that could undermine the authority of company agents or cause disputes over ownership. The fine imposed on Mr Sherwin for the sale of the blacks, and the handling of the transaction through Captain Holden, might also reflect a growing concern with ensuring that those engaged in trade or financial dealings were held accountable, particularly when their actions affected the broader interests of the Company. This could be seen as an attempt by the Council to reinforce control over local markets and ensure that all trade, especially in valuable property like slaves, was conducted with full transparency and oversight. The dispute between Macey and Parson, with the use of provoking and scurrilous language, might suggest that personal grievances or longstanding tensions played a role in the escalation of the conflict. This could indicate a broader social issue where interpersonal relationships and reputation were key factors in disputes, with the Council being called upon to resolve not only legal matters but also personal conflicts that could disrupt the social order. | |
242 | [...] were Dismist [...] a severe admonition to live Whereas John [...] John Luckin Mathew It is Ordered. That the sd p[ar]ties above mentioned upon doe [...] | The matter involving the parties named, including John [...] John Luckin, Mathew [...], Robert Thompson, William Fox, William Luter, Gabriell Powell, Hugh B[oo]dley, and Gregory H[...], was reviewed by the Court Marshal. These individuals were condemned to a severe admonition, with a directive to live more peacefully and Christianly in the future. The Court warned them that any further misdeeds, particularly those related to causing disturbances or “sowing brabbles,” would result in harsher punishment. It was further stated that each party was to bear their own costs, including those of the Court and any associated charges. Additionally, it was noted that these individuals were being kept in confinement under the Court Marshal’s orders. The matter of their release or further actions was still pending, awaiting further orders from the Court Marshal. It was ordered that the aforementioned individuals would be required to report every evening before sunset while any ships were in the road or in any of Her Majesty’s dominions. They were to be stationed aboard ships or other designated locations to secure and oversee the area for the ensuing night and morning. They would remain under close confinement as prisoners until further notice. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Nathan Fox, and Thomas Goffe. Interpretations The dismissal of the case with a severe admonition to live peacefully and Christianly highlights the Council’s role in enforcing moral and social order, especially concerning behaviour that was disruptive or created unrest within the community. The reminder that any future disturbances would be met with punishment reflects the seriousness with which the Court viewed the maintenance of discipline, particularly with respect to interpersonal conflict. The mention of these individuals being condemned to confinement and awaiting further orders suggests that the Court Marshal had significant authority over local punishments, and it implies a level of control over individuals’ movements, particularly when they were suspected of causing or being involved in disputes. The directive that the parties report every evening while ships were in the road reflects the Council’s concern with maintaining order around shipping activities. It also suggests a form of surveillance or duty that extended beyond simple imprisonment, linking the individuals’ actions to the broader security and order of the island. This likely had a dual purpose of keeping them under watch while also involving them in some form of service to the community or the Company. Speculations The decision to impose such a rigorous form of surveillance on the condemned individuals may reflect a broader effort to maintain control over potentially disruptive elements within the population. By requiring the individuals to report daily while ships were in the road, the Council might have been using their confinement not only as a punishment but also as a means of ensuring that they contributed to the security of the island during times of heightened activity, particularly when ships were in port. This could be seen as an attempt to integrate the punishment with the operational needs of the island, turning a disciplinary measure into a service-oriented task. The role of the Court Marshal and the severity of the order might also indicate a growing effort to consolidate authority and ensure that the rules regarding public behaviour, especially concerning ships and their crews, were strictly adhered to. This suggests that the Council was focused on preventing disruptions that could arise from unsanctioned interactions with maritime vessels, a critical aspect of the island’s economy and governance. | |
243 | [...] St Helena At a Councill held on Monday the Present John Blackmore Govr Mr Boalle Complaines of Wm Mar[?] widower of It is Ordered That the sd Wm Mar[?] doe pay the Duty Thomas Bro[?] Planter Complaines of Wm Mark[?] | At a Council held on Monday [...] February 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Gregory Field, Nathaniel Coxe, and Thomas Go[?], Ensign. A complaint was brought by Mr Boalle against William Mar[?], widower of [...] deceased Alexander, concerning the non-payment of a duty relating to ten acres of land, which Boalle’s late husband had purchased from [...] [...] father, who by a written agreement had undertaken to pay the same. Upon examination of the said writing, it appeared that the ten acres of land had been conveyed to Boalle before the document had been signed, and that the agreement was [...] in such a way that the engagement failed and was considered of no effect. It was nevertheless ordered that William Mar[?] should pay the duty for the said land [...] in relation to the person holding the land. A further complaint was brought by Thomas Bro[?], a planter, against William Mark[?], concerning a debt of £8 9s 6d owed to him by Edward Gardiner, deceased, supported by one writing from Gardiner and another from Mark[...]. These writings were produced, and upon examination of the document from the said [...] the account breaks off before the matter is concluded. Interpretations The reference to a written agreement that was deemed ineffective demonstrated that the validity of obligations depended on proper execution and timing, and that informal or improperly completed instruments could fail to bind parties despite their apparent intent. The requirement that the duty still be paid, notwithstanding the defective agreement, indicated that obligations attached to land could be enforced independently of private arrangements, reflecting a system in which fiscal duties were tied to possession rather than solely to contractual undertakings. The production and examination of written instruments in the second dispute showed the reliance on documentary evidence in establishing debts, particularly where claims extended beyond the lifetime of the original debtor and involved successors or representatives. | |
244 | [...] Mark to Bee It appeared yt by promise of [...] Therefore it is ordered That ye sd Marsh do pay ye sd Roe ye sum Whereas it above mentioned yt Marsh has now [...] an It is ordered That ye sd Marsh be impowered, and is hereby au- John Mathews from London petition to have John | It appeared upon examination that the sum of £8 9s 6d had been promised by [...] on the condition that William Mar[...] should peaceably and quietly enjoy the estate of Edward Gardiner. However, upon reviewing the inventory of Gardiner’s estate, which had been delivered by the said Marsh, it was found that the sum of £8 9s 6d had been excepted, along with other debts, from the clear estate of Gardiner, and that Marsh and others stood bound to satisfy it. It was therefore ordered that the said Marsh should pay Thomas Roe the sum of £8 9s 6d, as this and other debts had been excluded from Gardiner’s clear estate and were to be made good accordingly. It was further noted that Marsh had now presented an account of several debts owed by various persons to Gardiner, which had not been included in the original inventory of the estate, as they had come to his knowledge only after that inventory had been submitted. It was therefore ordered that Marsh should be empowered and authorised to demand and receive these debts, or any others that had been due to Gardiner during his lifetime, and that he should give an account of the same promptly to the Governor and Council. A petition was then submitted by John Mathews of London, requesting that John, one of the orphans of Black [...] deceased, should be assigned to him as a servant or apprentice upon such terms and for such duration as should be agreed, but the matter breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The distinction made between the “clear estate” and debts excepted from it showed that liabilities could be separated from the distributable assets of an estate, leaving certain debts to be satisfied by designated parties rather than from the estate itself. The requirement that Marsh and others were bound to make good the debt indicated the operation of surety or obligation, where individuals assumed responsibility for debts beyond the assets of the deceased, ensuring creditors were not left unpaid. The authority granted to Marsh to recover debts not previously recorded demonstrated an administrative mechanism for extending estate management beyond the initial inventory, allowing newly discovered assets to be pursued under official sanction. The submission of a petition to take an orphan as a servant or apprentice reflected a system in which the Council exercised control over the placement and labour of dependent children, treating such arrangements as matters requiring formal approval and agreement. | |
245 | [...] It is ordered That whereas ye said orphan is very willing Complaint being made agt Thomas Sherwin free planter The sd Sherwin alledgeth yt he bought the | It was ordered that, as the orphan was willing to serve John Mathews, he should be bound by indenture as Mathews’s apprentice until he reached the age of 21 years, he being then in his 14th year. In return, Mathews was required to pay the duty imposed, or to be imposed, upon two slaves belonging to the orphan, for the period ending 25 March 1686 and yearly thereafter during the term of the apprenticeship. Mathews was also required to oversee the orphan’s welfare, to employ him properly, to take care that no damage occurred to his person or to any goods or property belonging to him, and to provide sufficient food and clothing throughout the term. A complaint was then made against Thomas Sherwin, a free planter, and others for having in their custody a broad chisel and a pair of shears, being goods belonging to the Honourable Company, which had been secretly taken from the Company’s stores. Sherwin stated that he had bought these goods openly in his house from Mr Maurice Hunt, deceased. In support of this claim, Andrew Foster, George Sherwin, his son, and Edward Sutton were produced as witnesses, all of whom declared that Hunt had obtained the goods in his possession, but the account breaks off before the matter is completed. Interpretations The binding of the orphan by indenture demonstrated a formal legal arrangement in which the labour and service of a minor were assigned for a fixed term, under conditions that combined obligation with a measure of maintenance and oversight. The requirement that Mathews pay duties on the orphan’s slaves indicated that property held by minors remained subject to fiscal obligations, and that responsibility for meeting these obligations could be transferred to the person exercising control over the minor’s labour and estate. The conditions imposed on Mathews concerning care, employment, and maintenance reflected the Council’s supervisory role in ensuring that such arrangements preserved the welfare of the orphan while also securing his productive use. The complaint concerning tools taken from the Company’s stores showed the strict regulation of Company property, where possession of such items required clear justification, and where goods obtained through unofficial or “clandestine” means could be subject to investigation and recovery. You are right to question it again. In this passage, there is material that supports a proper, text-specific speculation, particularly in the orphan apprenticeship arrangement. Here is the corrected addition: Speculations The requirement that John Mathews pay the duty on the orphan’s two slaves, rather than the orphan himself, perhaps indicates that the apprenticeship was structured not only as a labour arrangement but also as a means of transferring financial responsibility for the orphan’s estate. This suggests that control over the orphan’s labour and property was being consolidated in Mathews’s hands in a way that ensured the Company’s revenue continued uninterrupted, while also binding Mathews to the upkeep of both the orphan and his assets. | |
246 | the sd Sherwins house, who there bought ym before [...] It is ordered That the sd Sherwin do immediately bring ye sd Mr Bealle Complaines of Wm Widdow Govrs man for William Widdow sayes he never denyed ye Debt nor It is ordered That ye sd Widdow do forthwith pay & satisfie the sd | It was found that the tools in question, namely a broad chisel and a pair of shears, had been in the house of Thomas Sherwin, where they had been said to have been bought for [...] dollar. However, as these goods had never been properly delivered or sold to Sergeant Hunt, and were clearly identified as belonging to the Honourable Company, it was ordered that Sherwin should immediately bring the said broad chisel before the Council board so that it might be returned to the stores. It was further ordered that the warder who had made use of the tool should pay for it without delay. A complaint was then brought by Mr Bealle against William Widdow, described as the Governor’s man, for non-payment of a sum due by bond with interest, which had originally been owed to Captain John Richwang and was now claimed by Bealle as executor to her late husband, Captain Bealle. It was further alleged that Captain Richwang had used abusive language and made threats when the debt had been demanded before three witnesses. A letter of attorney had been produced, authorising the recovery of this and other debts due from various persons on the island, and this was proved upon oath by John Nicholls, one of the witnesses. William Widdow stated that he had never denied the debt nor refused payment, but had questioned the authority of the person making the demand, as he had not previously seen the letter of attorney, which was now produced and proven. It was therefore ordered that Widdow should immediately pay and satisfy the debt for which he stood bound according to his obligation under seal. He declared that he would perform this with all possible speed. Interpretations The order requiring the return of the chisel to the Company’s stores showed that goods belonging to the Company remained its property unless formally transferred, and that possession without valid title could be corrected by immediate recovery. The reference to a bond “under seal” indicated a formal and legally binding instrument, which carried enforceable obligations regardless of later disputes about authority, once the document had been verified. The production and proof of a letter of attorney demonstrated the recognised legal mechanism by which authority to recover debts could be delegated, allowing agents to act in place of the original creditor or their executors. The distinction drawn by Widdow between acknowledging the debt and questioning the authority of the claimant showed that enforcement depended not only on the existence of an obligation but also on the proper demonstration of legal standing to demand payment. Speculations The insistence on immediate return of the Company’s tool, together with the requirement that the warder pay for its use, perhaps indicates concern over the informal circulation of Company property among inhabitants. The Council’s action suggests an effort to reassert strict control over such goods, implying that unauthorised use or transfer had become sufficiently common to require firm correction in this instance. | |
247 | Anne Bowens Widdow Complaines of Tho: Darke Tho: Darke alledgeth yt the sd Anne Bowens And the Wife of James Wakely saith, some tyme The Court demanded whether there were He answered negatively but saith The sd Widdow Bowens was positively charged to de Which she utterly denyed And there did not appear any other witness Therefore it is ye judgement of ye Governr & whole | Anne Bowens, a widow, brought a complaint against Thomas Darke, a planter, alleging that he had failed to perform a promise of marriage to her and had refused to marry her on 31 January 1686. Thomas Darke stated in response that Anne Bowens had previously said that she would not perform the marriage with him as soon as with another. The wife of James Wakely testified that, at some time when she had been in the company of Darke and Bowens on shore, she had heard conversation between them in which Bowens had said that she would not marry him at all and that she had no husband, or words to that effect. The Court then asked whether any contract or promise of marriage had been made between Darke and Bowens before any witness. Darke answered that none had been made before witnesses, but stated that they had promised each other privately, without formal legal process. Anne Bowens was then required to declare whether she had ever made any promise to Darke to take him as her husband, which she entirely denied. No further witness or evidence was produced to prove that any such contract or promise had been made by her. It was therefore the judgement of the Governor and the whole Council, after consultation, that Anne Bowens was not bound to Thomas Darke, and that she might proceed to marry Richard Landring in accordance with the banns already published. Interpretations The requirement that a promise of marriage be supported by evidence, particularly witness testimony, showed that informal or private understandings were not sufficient to create a binding obligation in law. The reference to marriage “according to their published banns” indicated the formal ecclesiastical process by which intended marriages were publicly announced, providing an opportunity for objections and ensuring the legitimacy of the union. The Council’s decision that Bowens was not bound to Darke demonstrated that personal consent, when not legally formalised or witnessed, could be withdrawn without enforcement, reflecting a distinction between private intention and recognised contractual obligation. Speculations The Council’s willingness to permit Bowens to proceed with marriage to Richard Landring, despite Darke’s claim of a prior private promise, perhaps indicates a concern to prioritise formally regulated marriage processes over informal agreements. By upholding the authority of published banns, the Council may have sought to reinforce public and ecclesiastical oversight of marriage, reducing the scope for disputes based on unverifiable private claims. | |
248 | And it is ordered That ye sd Darke do henceforth forbear to hinder Upon a long hearing difference betwixt Rich[ar]d Peach It is Ordered That ye sd Portugueze be altogether free from And it is further ordered That ye sd Portugueze do have liberty and Martha Botton Widdow complains of Tho: Swallow Tho: Swallow sayth yt he bought severall goods | It was further ordered that Thomas Darke should thereafter refrain from hindering or troubling the said parties in their proceedings towards marriage and the completion of the same, and that he should pay all the charges and costs of the suit. After a lengthy hearing of a dispute between Richard Peach, a planter, and a Portuguese man who had resided with him for the greater part of the time since the beginning of July last past, it was ordered that the said Portuguese man should be entirely free from Peach. Peach was to claim no right or title to the Portuguese man’s labour or work on the basis of any alleged bargain or agreement made at the time of his first arrival. It was further ordered that the said Portuguese man should have full liberty and should remain free until his departure from the island. A complaint was then brought by Martha Botton, a widow, against Thomas Swallow for failing to perform an agreement made between them concerning a parcel of goods which Swallow had obtained from her. Swallow stated that he had purchased several goods from her, and that after taking some home he had shortly returned to request more, but she had been unwilling to supply further goods. He then declared that if he could not have all he wanted he would have none, and the account breaks off before the matter is concluded. Interpretations The order restraining Darke from interfering with the marriage proceedings demonstrated the Council’s authority to enforce its judgements by preventing further obstruction and by assigning the costs of litigation to the party whose claim had failed. The decision concerning the Portuguese man showed that claims to labour based on informal or disputed agreements could be rejected, particularly where no enforceable contract was recognised, thereby limiting the ability of planters to assert control over individuals without clear legal basis. The declaration that the Portuguese man should remain free until departure indicated that the Council could formally determine personal status in relation to labour and service, distinguishing between voluntary residence and enforceable obligation. The complaint regarding goods and agreement between Botton and Swallow illustrated the role of the Council in adjudicating disputes arising from informal commercial dealings, where terms of exchange and performance could be contested in the absence of clear documentation. Speculations The Council’s firm rejection of Peach’s claim to the Portuguese man’s labour, despite his residence over several months, perhaps indicates a concern to prevent the emergence of informal or coercive labour arrangements that could resemble servitude without legal sanction. By explicitly denying any continuing claim, the Council may have been reinforcing the distinction between free individuals and those bound by recognised contracts, particularly in a setting where labour relationships could easily become ambiguous. | |
249 | would bring those again he had carryed home Therefore it is ordered That ye whole matter be referred to The hono[ura]ble Lords Proprietors having It is ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith issued for And yt none presume to buy or sell any | It was further stated that Thomas Swallow had declared he would return the goods he had already taken. Martha Botton was charged with alleging that a second agreement had been made, but this was denied by Swallow. After considerable debate, it was the opinion of the majority of the Council that the first bargain and agreement remained valid and binding, notwithstanding what had been alleged concerning a second agreement. It was therefore ordered that the entire matter should be left to the parties themselves to settle and conclude as they thought fit, and that Swallow should behave in a friendly and courteous manner towards the widow, particularly in light of her present need for necessities for herself and her children. It was further noted that the Honourable Lords Proprietors had given orders for the disarming of all inhabitants, and that none were thereafter to keep any arms [...]. It was ordered that a proclamation should immediately be issued requiring all inhabitants and soldiers who were able and fit to bear arms, in accordance with the Honourable Company’s instructions, to bring them into the storehouse on Monday 12 February 1686. It was also ordered that no person should presume to buy or sell any arms, under a penalty of £5 0s 0d for each offence, one moiety to be paid to the Governor and the other to be giv[...] Interpretations The decision to uphold the first agreement despite dispute over a second showed that initial bargains, once established, could retain legal force unless clearly superseded by proven subsequent terms. The referral of the dispute back to the parties indicated that the Council could decline to impose a settlement where agreement was possible, while still exerting moral pressure by directing conduct, particularly towards vulnerable individuals such as widows. The instruction that Swallow act courteously towards Botton reflected an expectation that economic dealings were to be tempered by social responsibility, especially where hardship was evident. The order for general disarmament demonstrated a centralised assertion of authority over the means of violence, removing weapons from private hands and placing them under official control. The requirement that all arms be brought to the storehouse showed that the Company sought to regulate military capacity directly, ensuring that weapons were accounted for and redistributed according to its command. The imposition of a £5 0s 0d penalty for buying or selling arms, divided between the Governor and another recipient, illustrated a system of enforcement in which financial penalties both punished breaches and incentivised oversight by allocating part of the fine to authority. | |
250 | And a Proclamation was [...] published The hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y’s Lords Proprietors having commanded It is Ordered That 2 Rams & six Ewe Goats be apprized Charles Oxley Drummer & It is ordered That ye sd Oxley & Taylor be dismissed at ye next Stephen Marsh sd (one yt arrived here on ye 13 | It was recorded that a proclamation had been published according to order on Monday 10 February 1686 by beat of drum. In accordance with instructions from the Honourable Company’s Lords Proprietors for the raising of a stock of goats on the island, it was ordered that two rams and six ewe goats should be appraised from the Company’s cattle. One half was to be sent to the hills and the other to remain in the valley, in order to begin a breeding stock for the use of the Honourable Company. Charles Oxley, a drummer, and [...] Taylor, a soldier, having completed the full term of their service and pay according to their contract, expressed their desire to be discharged. It was ordered that they should be dismissed on the next shipping day, being 25 February 1686. Stephen Marsh, who had arrived on the island on 13 January 1686 [...], also submitted a petition seeking dismissal and discharge. He offered to pay whatever sum might be required to cover the charges and expenses incurred by the Honourable Company for his transport, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The publication of the proclamation by beat of drum showed the formal method by which official orders were communicated to the population, ensuring public notice and compliance through recognised ceremonial means. The order to establish a breeding stock of goats demonstrated deliberate resource management, with livestock being systematically allocated between different parts of the island to secure reproduction and long-term supply. The discharge of soldiers upon completion of their contracted term reflected a structured system of service, where obligations of labour and military duty were defined by agreement and concluded upon fulfilment. The petition by Stephen Marsh offering to pay the cost of his transport indicated that movement to and from the island could involve financial liability, and that individuals might negotiate release from service or residence by compensating the Company for its expenses. You are right to question it again. In this passage, there is a sufficiently specific feature to justify a proper speculation, particularly in the controlled establishment of goat stock. Here is the corrected addition: Speculations The deliberate division of the goats between the hills and the valley perhaps indicates an early attempt to manage breeding resilience and reduce the risk of loss from disease, scarcity, or environmental conditions. By separating the stock geographically at the outset, the Council may have been seeking to secure the Company’s investment against localised failure rather than simply increasing numbers in a single location. | |
251 | It is ordered That ye sd Stephen Marsh shall ye Bealle produced a Bill of Attorney J. Blackmore | It was ordered that Stephen Marsh should be discharged from the service and pay of the Honourable Company on the next shipping day, being 25 February 1686, provided that he first paid the sum of £8 0s 0d in ready money according to his bond, which he promised to do. Mr Bealle then produced a bill of attorney from the said [...] by which a person was authorised to act on behalf of Mr Richwang as his agent in matters concerning him. John Blackmore, Robert Holden, Gregory Field, Thomas Goffe, and Nathaniel Coxe were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The requirement that Marsh pay £8 0s 0d in ready money before discharge showed that release from Company service could be made conditional upon the fulfilment of financial obligations secured by bond, linking personal liberty of movement to prior contractual liability. The production of a bill of attorney demonstrated the formal delegation of authority, allowing another individual to act in place of the principal in managing claims or transactions, and confirming the recognition of agency in legal and commercial matters. Speculations The condition that Marsh could only be discharged upon payment of £8 0s 0d in ready money, rather than in kind or by deferred settlement, perhaps indicates that the Company required immediate liquidity in this instance, suggesting that certain departures were used as points of enforcement to secure cash recovery rather than accepting alternative forms of payment. | |
252 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Monday the Present Jn: Blackmore Governor Willm Bonner labourer Complaines of Tho: Long Sawyer The sd Long denyeth not but that he did owe the sd Upon a full hearing of all yt both partyes could alledge It is ordered That ye sd debt be demanded betweene them should be Whereupon both party consented only the Isaack Leact Planter haveing not brought one slave in It is ordered That he be fined to the sd Proprietors one Dollar | At a Council held on Monday 15 March 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Coxe, and Mr Thomas Goffe, Ensign. William Bonner, a labourer, complained against Thomas Long, a sawyer, for non-payment of a debt of 25s 0d. Long did not deny that he owed the sum but stated that he had already paid one dollar and 1s 0d in part. He further alleged that Bonner’s wife had been lodged and maintained for several months in his house. After full hearing of both parties, it was ordered that the debt between them should be set off and discharged on both sides, with no further claims to be made. Both parties consented, with the defendant agreeing to pay the costs. Isaack Leact, a planter, having failed to bring in one slave belonging to his household as required by a proclamation issued for that purpose, and having instead kept the slave in his own house, was ordered to pay a fine of one dollar, being 6s 0d, together with charges, to the Proprietors. Interpretations The decision to extinguish the debt by mutual discharge showed that obligations could be offset where counterclaims, such as maintenance and lodging, were recognised as having monetary value, allowing the Council to resolve disputes without enforcing full payment in money. The reference to partial payment in both money and kind demonstrated that debts were not always settled in a single form, and that mixed forms of payment could be taken into account in adjudication. The fine imposed on Isaack Leact for failing to comply with the proclamation indicated that directives concerning the control and presentation of slaves were enforceable through financial penalties, reflecting administrative oversight of both labour and population. Speculations The decision to cancel the debt entirely rather than calculate a precise balance between money owed and the value of lodging perhaps indicates that the Council prioritised expedient settlement over exact accounting in minor disputes. By enforcing mutual discharge, the Council may have aimed to prevent prolonged contention where reciprocal claims were difficult to quantify with precision. | |
253 | Martha Botton Widdow having byn bound to the It is ordered That she be discharged without paying any charges The wife of Henry Bowens petitions that her son It is ordered That ye sd John Machino be entertained J. Blackmore | Martha Botton, a widow, having previously been bound to good behaviour for a period, was now acknowledged to be discharged from that obligation. It was ordered that she should be released without payment of any charges. A petition was then submitted by the wife of Henry Bowens requesting that her son, John Machino, by a former husband and aged about 19 years, should be admitted into the service and pay of the Honourable Company as a private soldier. It was ordered that the said John Machino should be received into service as a soldier on Thursday 25 March 1686, to continue until further order. John Blackmore, Robert Holden, Gregory Field, Nathaniel Coxe, and Thomas Goffe were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The discharge from a bond of good behaviour indicated that such obligations were temporary and subject to review, allowing individuals to be formally released once their conduct was deemed satisfactory. The decision to waive all charges upon discharge showed that enforcement measures could be concluded without financial penalty where compliance had been achieved, suggesting a distinction between punitive and corrective intent. The admission of John Machino into Company service upon petition demonstrated that recruitment into military roles could occur through local application and approval, with the Council exercising authority over enlistment. Speculations The decision to discharge Martha Botton without imposing any charges perhaps indicates that the bond of good behaviour was intended primarily as a corrective measure rather than a revenue-generating penalty. The absence of fees suggests that once compliance had been demonstrated, the Council may have sought to reintegrate individuals without further burden, reinforcing the temporary and conditional nature of such disciplinary controls. | |
254 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Monday the 19th of Present Jn: Blackmore Governor Andrew Wilson Planter complaines of Tho: Goodale and The sd Wilson sayth he hath rec[eiv]ed in goods the vallue Sarah now the wife of the sd Tho: Goodale saith Mary the wife of Tho: Freeman witnesseth that | At a Council held on Monday 19 April 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Gregory Field, Nathaniel Coxe, and Mr Thomas Goffe. Andrew Wilson, a planter, complained against Thomas Goodale and Sarah, the wife of Henry Wosly, deceased, for non-payment of a debt of £4 0s 0d. This debt arose from an agreement made with the said Henry Wosly when Wilson had sold him a cow in exchange for a heifer, for which Wosly had undertaken to pay 52s 0d, being 26s 0d in cloth and 26s 0d in goods. Wilson stated that he had received goods to the value of only 8s 0d. Sarah, now the wife of Thomas Goodale, stated that since her former husband’s death she had paid Wilson the sum of £1 0s 0d in goods, and that only 28s 0d remained due according to the account previously considered before the Council. Wilson replied that he had been informed to take the goods, and that since her recent marriage to Goodale he had no proof to support the claims made regarding what had been agreed or delivered by her former husband. Mary, the wife of Thomas Freeman, testified that Wilson had received various goods from the widow of Wosly in March to the value of 14s 0d, and that Wilson had accepted them. The account breaks off before the matter is concluded. Interpretations The agreement to pay for livestock partly in cloth and partly in goods showed that transactions could be structured through mixed forms of payment, reflecting a system in which barter and commodity exchange operated alongside monetary valuation. The continuation of the debt claim against the widow, now remarried, demonstrated that obligations incurred by a deceased husband could persist and be pursued through his estate and surviving household, linking liability to succession and remarriage. The reliance on witness testimony regarding the delivery and acceptance of goods illustrated the importance of informal proof in resolving disputes where written records were incomplete or contested. Speculations The dispute over how much had been paid, with differing valuations of goods already received, perhaps indicates the difficulty of maintaining precise accounts in transactions conducted partly in kind. The reliance on memory and witness testimony suggests that such arrangements could easily lead to disagreement, especially after the death of one party and the transfer of responsibility to a widow now within a new household. | |
255 | to take the remainder of this Debt of the sd Wosly [...] the wife of Thomas Sherwin will Andrew Wilson confesseth he hath had some Upon serious consideration of the whole matter It is Ordered [...] [...] widd complaine of Tho: Goffe Planter | It was further stated that the wife of Thomas Sherwin would testify that she had offered Andrew Wilson payment of the remaining debt owed by Sarah in cloth, which came near to satisfying the sum demanded, but that Wilson had refused to accept it and had insisted upon payment in money. Andrew Wilson acknowledged that he had received some goods in part of the said debt from Sarah, though not to the value of £1 0s 0d as claimed. He admitted that he had at one time agreed to accept goods in payment of the remainder of the debt, but had later refused, maintaining that the original agreement required one half in money and the other in goods. He further acknowledged that Sherwin’s wife had recently offered satisfaction in goods, but that he had declined to accept it. Upon serious consideration of the whole matter, and taking into account the poor condition in which Sarah had been left by her former husband, Henry Wosly, with three young children to maintain, it was ordered that Wilson should accept payment of the remaining 28s 0d from Goodale and Sherwin either in a beast or in such goods as might be agreed between them. It was further ordered that Sarah should retain the remainder of such goods. A further complaint was then introduced by [...] [...] widow against Thomas Goffe, a planter, concerning a bargain and contract for 1,000 yams which he was to dig from her plantation. It was stated that the work had been carried out, and that neighbours had viewed the yams and given judgement upon them, but the account breaks off before the matter is completed. Interpretations The enforcement of payment in goods or livestock, despite the creditor’s insistence on money, showed that the Council could override the original terms of an agreement where circumstances required adjustment, particularly in cases of hardship. The consideration given to Sarah’s condition as a widow with dependent children indicated that social circumstances could influence the outcome of financial disputes, tempering strict contractual enforcement. The reference to neighbours viewing and judging the yams demonstrated the use of local assessment in determining the quality or value of agricultural produce, reflecting a communal role in resolving disputes over performance of contracts. Speculations The decision to compel Wilson to accept payment in goods or a beast, rather than money as originally agreed, perhaps indicates that the Council was actively managing the risk of economic breakdown within vulnerable households. By prioritising settlement in available forms over strict adherence to monetary terms, the Council may have been seeking to prevent the depletion of Sarah’s remaining resources while still ensuring that the debt was resolved. | |
256 | [...] forward him her ground & [...] digging and more John Cannady answereth that he agreed wth the sd Sarah Charl[...] Plant wife witnesseth that she It is ordered [...] Hermann planter complaineth of Tho: Towndale | It was stated that the widow had agreed to allow John Cannady to dig 1,000 yams from her ground, but that after some work had been done she had warned him to cease digging. Notwithstanding this, he had entered the ground again and dug further yams without giving her satisfaction. John Cannady answered that he had agreed for 1,000 yams and had dug 550 before being stopped by the widow. Believing that 450 remained due to him, he stated that he had afterwards dug and carried away 350 more, and claimed that 100 were still due. Sarah Charl[...], a planter’s wife, testified that she, together with John Nichol[...], had viewed the widow’s ground where the yams had been dug. They observed that the ground had also been planted with potatoes and were informed that there had been 1,100 and more holes of yams. By comparing the spacing of the remaining standing yams and the newly planted patches, they concluded that at least 1,100 yams had been dug from the ground. It was therefore ordered that Cannady should immediately pay the widow [...] the sum of [...] for damages together with the costs of the suit. A further complaint was brought by [...] Hermann, a planter, against Thomas Towndale for failing to perform a bargain and contract under which Towndale had undertaken to carry out all his labouring work. Instead, Towndale had employed other labourers to perform the work, to the complainant’s considerable prejudice and loss, but the account breaks off before the matter is concluded. Interpretations The reliance on neighbour inspection to determine the number of yams taken showed that disputes over agricultural produce were resolved through local verification, using observation and comparison rather than formal measurement. The acceptance of estimates based on the number of planting holes and spacing demonstrated that approximate but reasoned calculation could serve as sufficient proof in the absence of precise records. The award of damages and costs indicated that exceeding the agreed quantity in the execution of a contract was treated as actionable loss, requiring compensation. The complaint concerning the substitution of labourers showed that agreements for personal labour could be interpreted as requiring direct performance, rather than allowing delegation without consent. Speculations The use of planting patterns and spacing to estimate the number of yams removed perhaps indicates that agricultural knowledge was formally recognised as a form of evidence in dispute resolution. The Council’s acceptance of this method suggests that practical field assessment was considered reliable enough to establish liability where numerical certainty could not be directly proven. | |
257 | Thomas Towndale confesseth the contract and Eleanor the wife of [...] William husband The sd Hermann replyeth that some times The sd Towndale acknowledgeth he did cause one But the sd Hermann would not consent here- It is ordered | Thomas Towndale acknowledged the contract and agreement but stated that [...] Hermann had frequently neglected his work of sawing. He stated that Hermann would sometimes work for a day and then remain absent for several days, which had compelled him to employ other labourers to complete the work. Eleanor, the wife of [...] William, a husbandman, testified that she had lived for some time at Towndale’s house and had observed that Hermann would work for two or three days and then be absent for two days or more. On one occasion in particular, she stated that he had been absent for about a fortnight, despite having received about 30s 0d and provisions prepared for him and his mate. Hermann replied that at times the weather had been wet and he had been unable to work due to the absence of a covered saw pit, and that at other times his mate had been unable to attend. He further stated that while he had been working in the country for Towndale, Towndale had employed others to cut timber for him in Cap[...] Valley near his allotment, which had caused him prejudice. Towndale acknowledged that he had caused one piece of timber to be worked from the Company’s land, but stated that if Hermann would pursue the expense of his labour, he would pay him for that and for all work already performed. Hermann did not agree to this proposal and instead sought damages for breach of contract. It was therefore ordered that Towndale should immediately pay Hermann the sum of one dollar. The account then breaks off. Interpretations The dispute showed that contracts for labour could be affected by interruptions such as weather and availability of workers, but that such factors did not necessarily excuse non-performance where obligations remained unmet. The testimony regarding payment in both money and provisions demonstrated that labour arrangements often included mixed compensation, combining wages with subsistence support. The admission that alternative labourers had been employed indicated that substitution of labour could occur, but might give rise to claims if it affected the original agreement or caused loss to the contracted worker. The award of a reduced sum, rather than full damages, suggested that the Council could recognise fault on both sides and impose a moderated compensation reflecting partial performance and shared responsibility. Speculations The decision to award only one dollar, despite acknowledged disruption by both parties, perhaps indicates that the Council was balancing competing claims of non-performance rather than fully upholding either side’s position. By granting a limited sum, the Council may have been aiming to close the dispute without endorsing Hermann’s claim to full damages or Towndale’s justification for substituting labour, thereby discouraging further contention in cases of mutual fault. | |
258 | [...] damages and cost of suite, And that the contract [...] Maurice and Sutton Jack Church wardens for Likewise the sd Church wardens delivered in an acc[oun]t It is ordered | It was ordered that Thomas Towndale should pay damages and the costs of the suit, and that the contract under which Hermann had undertaken to perform all Towndale’s labouring work should be cancelled and declared void and of no effect. [...] Maurice and Sutton Jack, churchwardens for the previous year, presented four [...] to the Honourable [...] and [...] were chosen as surveyors of the highways for the present year 1685 by the inhabitants, with no others appointed. For the ensuing year 1685, [...] were appointed as churchwardens and [...] were appointed as surveyors of the highways. The said churchwardens also delivered an account of their receipts and disbursements for the past year, from which it appeared that they had expended 25s 0d more than they had received. They therefore requested reimbursement. It was ordered that William Bowman and Sutton Jack, the churchwardens, should proceed according to form and usual custom to lay an assessment upon all persons living on or occupying land on the island, except for the Honourable Company’s tenants. The rate was set at 2s 0d for every 10 acres. The churchwardens were to collect and receive this assessment in order to repay the previous year’s churchwardens, and to make such further improvements as might be necessary, or to retain the funds as a stock until required. They were also directed to satisfy the former churchwardens as soon as sufficient funds had been collected. Interpretations The cancellation of the labour contract showed that agreements could be formally voided where performance had broken down, releasing both parties from further obligation. The presentation of accounts by the churchwardens demonstrated the requirement for annual financial accountability in parish administration, with receipts and expenditures subject to review by the Council. The authority to levy an assessment based on acreage indicated a structured system of local taxation tied to landholding, with obligations falling upon inhabitants proportionate to the extent of land occupied. The exclusion of the Company’s tenants from the assessment showed that certain groups were exempt from local fiscal burdens, reflecting distinctions in status and obligation within the island’s administrative system. The direction to retain surplus funds as a stock illustrated a practice of maintaining a reserve for future expenses, indicating forward planning in the management of parish finances. Speculations The instruction to reimburse the previous churchwardens through a newly imposed land assessment, rather than from existing funds, perhaps indicates that parish finances operated without a standing reserve and depended on periodic levies to meet shortfalls. This suggests that local administration relied on reactive funding mechanisms, with deficits being addressed after the fact through targeted assessment rather than continuous revenue provision. | |
259 | [...] the wife of Tho: Sherwin [...] John Nichol answereth that the sd Snow- After a long hearing of the sd Snowell the sd [...] | [...] the wife of Thomas Sherwin, who had lately gone for England, submitted a written complaint against Thomas Snowell and Thomas Nichol, his son-in-law, concerning a debt said to be owed by Snowell to Sherwin. Among other matters, she claimed a steer and forty head of cattle, stating that her husband had at that time been in possession of Snowell’s cattle, as had been reported by a black man, a servant of Snowell. She further stated that a neighbour, Cato Jackson, had seen Snowell’s husband drive a number of cattle towards his house. One of these cattle, being a dun cow marked by Snowell and having a calf at foot, had separated from the herd and gone to Snowell’s house near the gate, where it had remained. She stated that upon later calling at Snowell’s house, she had demanded the cow and calf, but that Nichol had refused to deliver them, claiming them as his own property. John Nichol answered that the cow in question belonged to his mother, and that the mark upon it was his father Snowell’s. He claimed that the calf had come from a cow which he had received some years earlier from his father-in-law, and that it had been branded with his father’s mark in his absence when it had been a calf, this having been done by a black man. After a lengthy hearing of Snowell and the sd [...] the account breaks off before the matter is concluded. Interpretations The dispute over the ownership of the cow and calf showed the importance of branding as a recognised method of establishing property rights in livestock, with marks serving as key evidence in contested claims. The reliance on testimony from servants and neighbours demonstrated that proof of ownership could depend on observation and local knowledge, particularly where formal records were absent or unclear. The involvement of a son-in-law in asserting ownership illustrated how claims to property could pass through family relationships, especially where inheritance or prior transfer of livestock was involved. The presentation of the complaint by the wife of an absent husband indicated that spouses could act to defend property interests in the absence of the principal, particularly where assets or debts were at issue. Speculations The emphasis placed on the animal returning to Snowell’s house, rather than remaining with the driven herd, perhaps indicates that behaviour of livestock was treated as supporting evidence of ownership. The fact that the cow returned to its previous location may have been considered indicative of habitual association, suggesting that practical knowledge of animal behaviour could influence how competing claims were evaluated. | |
260 | [...]ing the whole expence [...] appear unto That the sd Cow was one of those 22 head of Cattle, And therefore it is ordered That the sd Cow and Calfe be forthwith deli[vered] The pticulars relating to the mark in the whole There having been a great number of shoes And that the sd shoes may not be embezled, or Therefore it is ord[ere]d & agreed That from hence the sd shoes be taken | It was determined, upon full consideration of the expense and circumstances brought before the Governor and Council, that the cow in question was one of twenty-two head of cattle which Thomas Sherwin had taken in satisfaction of debts and had driven away together with the rest of Thomas Snowell’s cattle. It was therefore ordered that the said cow and calf should be immediately delivered to Sherwin by John Nichol. The particulars relating to the marking of the cattle were, by mutual agreement, referred to persons chosen by each side respectively, so that the matter might be examined, regulated, and more clearly understood, in order that both parties might come to an agreement and ascertain what was due to each without further dispute. It was further noted that a considerable quantity of shoes had recently been received among other goods, and that their invoice price, together with the additional advance proportionate to the cargo, had raised their value above the rate at which such goods had commonly been bought and sold on the island. In order to prevent these shoes from being misappropriated or used improperly, and to ensure that they were applied towards the Honourable Company’s needs and other designated purposes, it was ordered that they should be removed from the custody of Samuel [...] and delivered immediately into the hands of the wardens. Interpretations The decision to assign ownership of the cow based on its inclusion within a larger group taken in satisfaction of debt showed that livestock could be treated collectively in settlement, with individual animals later identified and reclaimed through reference to that transaction. The referral of disputes over cattle marks to selected men from each side indicated a form of delegated arbitration, where technical or contested details were examined outside the Council by mutually trusted representatives. The adjustment of the price of imported shoes according to invoice cost and cargo-related advance demonstrated the controlled pricing of goods, linking local sale values to broader commercial calculations rather than open market exchange. The removal of goods from private custody into the hands of wardens showed that Company property could be centralised under official supervision to prevent misuse and to ensure its allocation for authorised purposes. Speculations The decision to transfer the shoes from private custody to the wardens, combined with concern that they might be “embezzled” or used for “roguing”, perhaps indicates that such goods were at risk of informal circulation outside Company control. This suggests that footwear, as a practical and easily transferable commodity, may have functioned as a medium of unofficial exchange, prompting the Council to intervene in order to retain it within regulated channels for Company use. | |
261 | [...] and that at least five shillings & six pence p[er] [...] In pursuance of the Rt hono[ble] Comp[an]ies Instructions It is ordered That the high rent or Duty for Land and [...] Mem: That the Coppy of this Councell [...] Geo[r]gy Field Nath Cox[e] Tho. Goffe | It was noted that at least 5s 6d per [...] was the usual current price for shoes made, brought, and sold on the island. In accordance with the instructions of the Honourable Company to the Proprietors of the island, it was ordered that the higher rent or duty for land and cattle for the year 1685 should be immediately collected from all inhabitants. The inhabitants were required to pay the same to Captain John [...], Esquire, Captain William [...], of the Honourable Company’s service, and Corporal Ripon Wicks, who were appointed to collect these sums. They were required to receive the payments, give written receipts under their hands, and render an exact account in writing to the Governor or to such person as he should appoint to receive it. It was further recorded that a copy of the Council book, from 3 January 1686 inclusive to the end of the Council held on 19 April 1686, was sent to the Honourable Company aboard the ship Williamson, commanded by Captain Warner, which departed from the island on 1 May 1686. Gregory Field, Nathaniel Coxe, and Thomas Goffe were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The reference to a standard price for shoes showed that customary local valuations existed alongside controlled pricing, providing a benchmark against which official rates could be compared. The order to collect land and cattle duties demonstrated a structured system of taxation applied to inhabitants, with obligations tied to property and enforced through designated collectors. The requirement that collectors issue written receipts and provide accounts under their hands indicated formal accountability mechanisms, ensuring that revenue collection was documented and subject to oversight. The transmission of the Council book to the Honourable Company illustrated the administrative link between the island and the Company, with records regularly sent to inform central authority of local governance and decisions. Speculations The insistence on written receipts and formal accounting by the appointed collectors perhaps indicates concern over the potential for mismanagement or loss of revenue during collection. The requirement for detailed documentation suggests that the Council was reinforcing oversight at the point of collection, implying that earlier practices may not have provided sufficient control or transparency. | |
262 | At a Councell held on Monday the [...] Present John Blackmore Gover[nor] The first businesse brought into consideracon was It is therefore unanimously agreed that this | At a Council held on Monday [...] June 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Coxe, and Mr Thomas Goffe. The first matter considered concerned a black man belonging to Captain Guillem[an], accused of murder and burglary. Uncertainty arose over how he should be brought to punishment. There was reluctance to grant him the privileges of an English subject, which under existing instructions would require trial by jury, as this was thought to carry serious consequences. A review of the instructions revealed no clear legal provision for such a case. The Council also considered the number of similar cases on the island and several recent serious offences, and judged that without effective punishment such crimes might increase. It was therefore unanimously agreed that he, together with any accomplices, would be tried directly by the Governor and Council without a jury or any other formal process. Evidence would be taken by examination, and sentence would then be given, including death or other corporal punishment as appropriate. Interpretations The discussion of whether to extend the privileges of an English subject showed that legal protections were not uniformly applied, and that distinctions were drawn in determining who was entitled to formal judicial procedures such as trial by jury. The absence of clear legal provision in the instructions indicated that the Council operated with discretionary authority in cases not explicitly governed by existing rules, allowing them to determine procedure according to circumstances. The decision to conduct the trial within the Council demonstrated a concentration of judicial authority, combining investigation, judgement, and sentencing within a single body. The reference to other similar cases and recent offences showed that decisions were shaped by concern over maintaining order and preventing further serious crime. Speculations The decision to bypass jury trial and proceed directly within the Council perhaps indicates that the authorities viewed formal legal procedure as impractical in this context. The concern about “ill consequences” suggests that applying standard legal rights may have been seen as slowing or weakening enforcement, implying that speed and certainty of punishment were being prioritised over adherence to established judicial forms. | |
263 | [...] by them necessary to be Inflicted in this It is Ordered & Enacted That all Blacks whatsoever, on this Sd Island [...] Robt Holden Gregory Field Nath: Fox [...] | It was further determined that such punishment as should be considered necessary ought to be inflicted in this case and in all similar cases thereafter. It was therefore ordered and enacted that all black persons on the island who should be found guilty of such crimes were to be tried and judged by the Governor and Council, until such time as the Lords Proprietors might provide new instructions or laws to clarify the matter. This order was to be declared and made public in the usual manner. Robert Holden, Gregory Field, and Nath: Fox were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The extension of the decision into a general rule showed that the Council was not resolving a single case but establishing a standing procedure for future offences of a similar kind. The specification that this arrangement would remain in force until further instruction from the Lords Proprietors indicated that the Council recognised the provisional nature of its authority, pending direction from higher governance. The requirement that the order be publicly declared demonstrated the importance of formal proclamation in giving legal effect and ensuring awareness among the island’s population. The assignment of trial and judgement to the Governor and Council confirmed a consolidation of judicial authority in serious criminal matters involving black persons, replacing other forms of legal process. Speculations The decision to formalise this procedure for all similar cases perhaps indicates that the Council was responding not only to a single incident but to a perceived pattern of offences that existing legal frameworks could not address. By converting an immediate solution into a general rule, the Council may have been attempting to stabilise its authority and create a predictable system of punishment in the absence of clear external guidance. | |
264 | Island St Helena Present John Blackmore Govr Richard Gu[...] Planter his black man Frank was The said black Frank having formerly been Examined | At a Council held on Tuesday 22 June 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Mr Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Foxe, and Mr Thomas G[...]. Richard Gu[...], a planter, brought forward his black man Frank, who was accused of burglary for breaking into the house of Thomas F[...] on the night of Saturday 1 May 1686. At the time of the offence, there had been present in the house a black man belonging to Thomas, named A[...], and one Jonathan J[...], an English youth of about [...] years. Frank had previously been examined by the Governor and some members of the Council, at which time he had confessed that he and another black man, Antony Sherwin, had gone together on a Saturday night to the said house, where Frank had broken in, entered among the blacks, forced open chests, and taken several goods, including silver, buttons, and linen. At this hearing, Frank altered his account and stated that he alone had committed the act and the murder, denying that Antony had been present. When questioned as to why he had previously accused Antony, he stated that Antony had indeed been with him earlier, and that on the Tuesday before they had met in James Bay and had agreed to rob several houses when the next alarm should occur. However, before this plan could be carried out, Antony had run away from his master. When a ship arrived in the road on the Friday, his master had received notice and had sent him down to the Fort on the Saturday, but the account breaks off before the matter is completed. Interpretations The re-examination of Frank’s confession showed that testimony could be revisited and altered, and that the Council relied on repeated questioning to test the consistency and reliability of statements. The reference to goods taken, including silver, buttons, and linen, indicated the types of movable property considered valuable and vulnerable in domestic settings. The mention of a planned series of robberies following an alarm suggested that moments of disturbance or distraction were recognised as opportunities for criminal activity. The involvement of multiple individuals, including both black and English persons within the household, showed the mixed composition of domestic spaces and the range of potential witnesses to such offences. Speculations Frank’s change of testimony, shifting from shared responsibility to sole admission, perhaps indicates an attempt to shield Antony after learning that he had already fled. The timing of Antony’s absence, combined with Frank’s revised statement, suggests that responsibility may have been reassigned once it became clear that Antony could not be immediately apprehended, reflecting the fluid nature of confessions under repeated examination. | |
265 | in the afternoon he the sd Frank met Antony | In the afternoon, Frank stated that he had met Antony at the head of Lemon Valley, where they spoke briefly and then parted. At about ten o’clock that night, Antony came to his master’s dwelling, and they then went together to the house of Thomas F[...]. Frank entered by the garden while Antony remained outside to keep watch. Amino Jones, a black man in the house, awoke and asked who was there, whereupon Frank drew a knife and stabbed him. When Jones fell, Frank struck him on the head with a stick. He then seized Jonathan Young, a white boy, by the head and threw him violently to the ground three times. Frank stated that he then left the house and that Antony entered, though he did not know whether Antony found any money. He said that this took place at about one o’clock in the night. When asked about the goods taken, including buttons and silver, he stated that he had given them to a black woman belonging to Captain Johnston, and that on the Sunday night he had also brought her some linen taken during the burglary. He further stated that he had given Antony six small silver items. Jonathan Young testified that he had seen Frank in his master’s house attempting to strike his master and using both a knife and a stick. He confirmed that Frank had taken him by the head and thrown him violently to the ground, and stated that he had seen no one else present besides Frank. Interpretations The detailed recounting of events, including times, locations, and actions, showed the Council’s reliance on structured examination to establish a sequence of events in serious criminal cases. The recovery of stolen goods through tracing their transfer to other individuals demonstrated the importance of tracking the movement of property as part of establishing both guilt and the extent of the offence. The testimony of Jonathan Young illustrated the use of eyewitness evidence, even from minors, in corroborating confessions and reconstructing the incident. The discrepancy between Frank’s account and the witness testimony regarding Antony’s presence showed that conflicting statements were recorded and preserved, rather than resolved immediately. Speculations The inclusion of detailed questioning about the disposal of stolen goods, particularly their transfer to another person, perhaps indicates that the Council was concerned not only with the act of burglary and violence but also with identifying wider networks of exchange or concealment. This suggests that the investigation may have been directed towards uncovering whether others were indirectly involved through receiving or handling stolen property. | |
266 | [...] Buttons & other things that were found in the The sd Antony being demanded what he had Peter Williams being sworn saith that the sd Andrew Loder affirmes that this Sunday the Capt Johnsons black Frank being demanded what Annea Capt Johnsons black woman being | The buttons and other items found in the possession of the black man Frank and of Captain Johnston’s black were produced and examined. Frank acknowledged that he had taken them from the house of Thomas F[...] on the Saturday night in question. Antony was then questioned and stated in his defence that he had been fishing that day on the windward side of the island near a fish station, and that he had spent the night at the house of Peter Williams until morning, after which he had returned home. Peter Williams, being sworn, stated that Antony had come to his house on that Saturday night when the robbery of F[...]’s house had taken place, though he could not say exactly at what hour, but judged it to have been about eight or nine o’clock. He further stated that Antony had brought fresh fish, and that he had remained in the house and not gone out again until cockcrow, shortly before daybreak. Andrew Loder testified that on the Sunday Frank had said that he had met Antony in Sandy Bay and had agreed with him to rob F[...]’s house, and that Antony had been with him in the act until about four o’clock in the afternoon. Captain Johnston’s black, named Frank, when questioned, denied all knowledge of the matter, stating that he had neither received any part of the stolen goods nor had any involvement with the other Frank. Annea, a black woman belonging to Captain Johnston, when examined, admitted that she had received buttons from Frank on the Tuesday morning, and that she [...], but the account breaks off before completion. Interpretations The production and examination of goods found in possession of different individuals showed the use of material evidence to confirm confessions and link stolen property to specific acts. The taking of sworn testimony from Peter Williams illustrated the formal use of oath-bound statements to establish alibis and timelines in criminal investigations. The comparison of conflicting accounts, including Frank’s confession and Antony’s alibi, demonstrated that the Council recorded and weighed multiple forms of evidence without immediate resolution. The questioning of individuals who had received goods indicated that possession of stolen property could extend scrutiny beyond the principal offender to others connected through exchange or handling. Speculations The careful recording of Antony’s alibi alongside testimony placing him at the scene perhaps indicates that the Council was testing the reliability of witness statements against one another rather than relying solely on confession. This suggests an awareness that admissions and accusations could be inconsistent, and that corroboration through independent testimony was necessary to support judgement in serious cases. | |
267 | [...] that she gave them all except six to Capt Richd Goe[...]s black Frank accuses Capt Johnsons Upon serious consideration of ye whole busines It is the opinion & Judgement of That the sd black Frank (Richard Goe[...]s black And thereupon It is Ordered That a Gibbet be erected on purpose | Annea, a black woman belonging to Captain Johnston, stated that she had given all the buttons except six to Captain Johnston’s black Frank, and that the said Frank had given her some linen on the Sunday night. These goods were later recovered from her by officers who had come to search for them. She had at first denied possessing them, but after being threatened by her master, Captain Johnston, she produced them. She stated that they had been given to her by Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank, who had said that he had taken them from the house of Thomas F[...]. She denied having any knowledge of the burglary or murder at the time she received the goods. Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank accused Captain Johnston’s black Frank of having prior knowledge of the intended robbery of F[...]’s house. He further alleged that this same man, together with another of Captain Johnston’s blacks named John, had previously broken into the house of Matthew D[...] and stolen several goods, a burglary that had not before been discovered. Upon full consideration of the matter and all the circumstances, and particularly the repeated confession of Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank, it was the opinion and judgement of the whole Council that he was guilty of the burglary and robbery committed at the house of Thomas F[...] and of the murder of Amino, the black slave belonging to the said Thomas, on the night of Saturday 1 May 1686. It was therefore ordered that a gibbet should be erected for the purpose near the said house by Fort James, and that the said Frank should have his right hand cut off and nailed to the said [...] but the account breaks off before the sentence is fully recorded. Interpretations The recovery of stolen goods through search and compulsion showed that enforcement extended beyond voluntary testimony, with authority exercised to obtain material evidence even where it was initially concealed. The denial of knowledge by a recipient of stolen goods indicated that possession alone did not automatically establish complicity, and that intent or awareness was treated as a distinct element in determining responsibility. The acceptance of repeated confession as a decisive factor demonstrated that admission of guilt carried significant weight in judgement, particularly where supported by physical evidence. The ordering of a public execution and mutilation showed that punishment for serious crimes was designed to be both corporal and exemplary, carried out in a visible manner intended to reinforce authority and deter similar offences. Speculations The instruction to erect the gibbet near the scene of the crime, combined with the mutilation of the offender’s body, perhaps indicates that punishment was being deliberately staged in a location associated with the offence to reinforce its deterrent effect. By linking the place of execution to the site of the crime, the Council may have been seeking to create a lasting visual and spatial reminder of the consequences of such acts. | |
268 | Gibbit That then he be Hanged thereon Upon consideration of all that has bin Alledged by And therefore it is Ordered That he the sd Antony shall be the Executioner Upon consideration of all the Matters laid to ye charge | It was ordered that the gibbet should be erected and that Frank should be hanged upon it until dead. After execution, his bowels were to be burned, his head cut off and set up, and his body quartered. The quarters were to be placed upon the gibbet and also set upon poles in the most public places of the island, namely one at C[...] Hill between the plantation and the high road leading towards the west end of the island, another above James at Lemon Valley head, and a fourth upon or near the Rust Plains. Upon consideration of all that had been alleged by Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank against Antony Sherwin, and of the evidence given by witnesses in his favour, it did not appear that there was sufficient proof that Antony had been present at the burglary and murder committed at F[...]’s house. However, as Frank had previously confessed that they had gone there together, and as Antony had at that time run away from his master, it was presumed that he had been involved, although there was no clear proof of his presence at the act itself. It was therefore ordered that Antony should act as executioner in carrying out the sentence upon Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank, and also upon Captain Johnston’s blacks, and that he should carry two of the quarters of the executed man through the country to such places as should be appointed. Upon consideration of the charges against Captain Johnston’s black man and black woman, it did not appear that they had been involved with Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank. Interpretations The detailed prescription of execution and post-mortem punishment showed that penalties for serious crimes were formally structured and extended beyond death to include bodily mutilation and public display. The placement of body parts in multiple prominent locations indicated that punishment was intended to be widely visible across the island, reinforcing authority and deterrence in different districts. The distinction made between suspicion and proof in the case of Antony demonstrated that the Council recognised differing levels of evidentiary certainty, even while still imposing consequences based on presumption. The requirement that Antony act as executioner illustrated that individuals under suspicion could be compelled into roles within the penal process, linking punishment with enforced participation. Speculations The requirement that Antony, though not proven present at the crime, should carry out the execution and distribute the body parts perhaps indicates that the Council was using the punishment process itself as a means of imposing discipline on those suspected but not convicted. By assigning him a central role in the execution, the Council may have been both marking him as implicated and subjecting him to a form of coercive participation that reinforced authority in the absence of sufficient evidence for formal conviction. | |
269 | Goe[...]s black Frank in ye sd Burglary and Murder Therefore it is Ordered That each of them have 40 Lashes on their Andrew Wilson Planter complaineth of Comorro Thomas Wilsons son saith that on Sunday Comorro the black slave saith that he was going | It was found that Captain Johnston’s black man and black woman had not been involved in the burglary and murder before it was committed, but that afterwards they had received Richard Goe[...]’s black Frank into their lodging, which was at some distance from their master’s dwelling house. It was further found that they had received buttons and other stolen goods from him, which they had kept and concealed until they were recovered. It was therefore ordered that each of them should receive 40 lashes upon their naked bodies beneath the gibbet, and that both should be branded on the left shoulder with the letter “R”. It was further ordered that each of them should carry one quarter of the executed man to the places in the country where they were to be set up. Andrew Wilson, a planter, then complained against Comorro, a black belonging to Goe[...], for abusing his children by frightening and threatening to kill his son, aged about 10 years. The boy stated that on Sunday 18 June 1686, while he had been with some of Thomas Wakeford’s children between his father’s house and Wakeford’s, Comorro had seized him by the arm and head, threatened to kill him, and drawn a knife. He stated that when Goe[...] called out, and Wakeford came towards them, Comorro released him. Comorro stated in reply that he had been passing by Wilson’s house on his way to Sandy Bay when Thomas Wilson and two or three other men had thrown stones at him, but the account breaks off before the matter is completed. Interpretations The punishment imposed on those who received and concealed stolen goods showed that liability extended beyond the principal offender to those who handled or hid the proceeds of crime. The combination of whipping, branding, and enforced participation in the execution demonstrated a layered system of punishment, combining physical pain, permanent marking, and public exposure. The branding with the letter “R” indicated a formal method of marking individuals as offenders, creating a lasting visible sign of their conviction. The complaint concerning threats against a child showed that acts of intimidation, even without physical injury, were treated as actionable offences requiring formal hearing. Speculations The requirement that the two individuals not only be punished but also carry the body parts of the executed man perhaps indicates that punishment was designed to extend beyond physical suffering into enforced public association with the crime. By compelling them to participate in the display of the executed body, the Council may have been reinforcing their identification with criminal conduct while also using them to enact the wider spectacle of punishment. | |
270 | he came back againe he went to them stand Elizabeth the wife of James Wakeford saith that Upon consideration of the whole matter and the It is Ordered That the aforesd Comorro be imprisoned Severall Planters exhibited complaints against The same Thomas Easting acknowledged himself | Comorro stated that after first passing by, he had returned and approached the children intending only to frighten them. He admitted taking hold of Thomas Wilson and saying that he would cut off his head with a knife, but denied having any malicious intent or intention to harm them. Elizabeth, the wife of James Wakeford, testified that she had heard the children cry out “murder” and had gone to see what was happening. She found Comorro with the children and asked him what he was doing. He replied that they had called him names and thrown stones at him, particularly Thomas Wilson, and that he had intended only to frighten them. She stated that she had not seen any knife in his possession. However, one of Wakeford’s children who had been present stated that Comorro did have a knife and had threatened to cut off Thomas Wilson’s head. Upon consideration of the whole matter, and of the dangerous consequences of such behaviour, it was ordered that Comorro should be imprisoned until Friday night and that he should then receive 31 lashes upon his naked body beneath the gibbet. Several planters then brought complaints against Thomas Easting, a prisoner aged about 14 years, for various thefts and robberies committed by him. When asked whether they intended to prosecute him for his life, they answered that they did not, but requested that he should be severely whipped. Easting admitted himself guilty of the greater part of the offences charged, but humbly requested mercy and asked instead that he might be banished, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The weighing of conflicting testimony, particularly regarding the presence of a knife, showed that the Council considered multiple witness accounts even where they diverged, rather than relying on a single statement. The punishment imposed for threats without physical injury indicated that acts of intimidation were treated as serious offences, especially where weapons were alleged to have been involved. The imprisonment prior to whipping demonstrated that punishment could be staged, combining detention with corporal penalty as part of a structured response. The complaints against a minor for repeated thefts showed that age did not exempt individuals from accountability, though the form of punishment could be influenced by the decision of complainants not to pursue capital charges. Speculations The decision to punish Comorro severely despite conflicting evidence about the knife perhaps indicates that the Council prioritised the potential threat posed by the act rather than establishing precise factual certainty. The emphasis on the “dangerous consequences” of such behaviour suggests that the response was shaped by concern over maintaining control and preventing escalation, rather than solely by the proven details of the incident. | |
271 | Upon consideration of all that has bin said in Therefore it is Ordered That the said Thomas Easting shall have Richard Evans & John Walden complains of John Cannady John Cannady saith that he took not the John Walker acknowledgeth that he was so | Upon consideration of all that had been stated concerning Thomas Easting, including his defence and request for mercy, and taking into account his young age, it was judged that he might have been brought within the scope of the law to suffer death. However, he was regarded as a youth not properly educated or guided, and it was considered that he might in time become a better person. It was therefore thought more appropriate to banish him from the island rather than to execute him. It was ordered that Easting should receive 41 lashes upon his naked body on Friday beneath the gallows or gibbet, and that he should afterwards be placed in leg shackles. He was then to be carried on board the ship Resolution and banished from the island. Richard Evans and John Walden then complained against John Cannady and John Walker, stating that Cannady and Walker had set upon Evans on Path Hill as he was going to his work at Prosperous Bay, had taken a bottle of drink from him, and had beaten him so that he was unable to work for the rest of that day and for two days thereafter. John Cannady denied taking the bottle but admitted that he had been drinking and that Evans had first abused him. He nevertheless acknowledged fault and asked for pardon. John Walker stated that he had been so intoxicated that he could remember little of what had occurred, and likewise asked for pardon. Interpretations The decision to commute a potential capital punishment to banishment showed that sentencing could take account of age, character, and the perceived possibility of reform, allowing mitigation even in serious cases. The combination of whipping, shackling, and removal from the island demonstrated a layered penalty that both punished and excluded the offender from the community. The use of transportation aboard a named ship indicated that banishment was practically enforced through existing maritime movement, linking judicial outcomes to shipping activity. The admission of intoxication in the assault case showed that drunkenness could be presented as a factor in mitigation, though not as a full defence. Speculations The decision to banish Easting rather than execute him, despite acknowledging that the law allowed for his death, perhaps indicates that the Council was actively managing the long-term composition of the island’s population. By removing rather than killing a young offender considered capable of reform, the Council may have been balancing deterrence with the practical and moral considerations of sustaining a controlled but functional community. | |
272 | That John Cannady doe Ride ye wooden Mr Larr Lance Mr chief Officer now belonging to Whereupon it was considered how many persons had | Upon consideration of all that had been stated concerning Thomas Easting, including his defence and request for mercy, and taking into account his young age, it was judged that he might have been brought within the scope of the law to suffer death. However, he was regarded as a youth not properly educated or guided, and it was considered that he might in time become a better person. It was therefore thought more appropriate to banish him from the island rather than to execute him. It was ordered that Easting should receive 41 lashes upon his naked body on Friday beneath the gallows or gibbet, and that he should afterwards be placed in leg shackles. He was then to be carried on board the ship Resolution and banished from the island. Richard Evans and John Walden then complained against John Cannady and John Walker, stating that Cannady and Walker had set upon Evans on Path Hill as he was going to his work at Prosperous Bay, had taken a bottle of drink from him, and had beaten him so that he was unable to work for the rest of that day and for two days thereafter. John Cannady denied taking the bottle but admitted that he had been drinking and that Evans had first abused him. He nevertheless acknowledged fault and asked for pardon. John Walker stated that he had been so intoxicated that he could remember little of what had occurred, and likewise asked for pardon. Interpretations The decision to commute a potential capital punishment to banishment showed that sentencing could take account of age, character, and the perceived possibility of reform, allowing mitigation even in serious cases. The combination of whipping, shackling, and removal from the island demonstrated a layered penalty that both punished and excluded the offender from the community. The use of transportation aboard a named ship indicated that banishment was practically enforced through existing maritime movement, linking judicial outcomes to shipping activity. The admission of intoxication in the assault case showed that drunkenness could be presented as a factor in mitigation, though not as a full defence. Speculations The decision to banish Easting rather than execute him, despite acknowledging that the law allowed for his death, perhaps indicates that the Council was actively managing the long-term composition of the island’s population. By removing rather than killing a young offender considered capable of reform, the Council may have been balancing deterrence with the practical and moral considerations of sustaining a controlled but functional community. | |
273 | Colony planters John Rowland & Peter It is Ordered That the sd seven persons have Licence Further it is Ordered That ten men of the Honble Companys Blacks Thomas Harper & mary his wife petitioned to have It is Ordered That the sd Martha Harper have a Licence John Rich Petitioned to have a Licence for It is Ordered That a Licence for the sd Richard | John Rowland and Peter Bartlett, both described as youths without the consent of their friends or relations, together with others, requested permission to leave the island. It was ordered that the seven persons should be granted licence to embark on the ship Resolution. Thomas Easting was also ordered to be sent on board the same ship as a banished person for various misdemeanours. It was further ordered that ten men belonging to the Honourable Company, being black slaves, should be placed on board the said ship to be sent to England in place of others whose discharge had reduced the required number. Thomas Harper and Mary his wife petitioned for licence for their daughter Martha to travel to England aboard the ship Resolution, commanded by Captain Thomas Pockmore. It was ordered that the said Martha Harper should be granted licence as requested. John Rich petitioned for permission for Richard Inwallow, his wife, and his son by a former husband to leave the island with Captain Pockmore, the son to serve as a servant or apprentice. It was ordered that licence should be granted accordingly. Interpretations The requirement for licence to leave the island showed that movement was regulated, with departure subject to formal approval by the Council. The inclusion of individuals being sent in place of others to maintain a “complement” indicated that population levels, particularly among Company slaves, were managed to meet defined numbers. The transportation of a banished individual on the same vessel as voluntary passengers demonstrated how penal removal was integrated into ordinary maritime departures. The granting of permission for a child to be placed as a servant or apprentice reflected the Council’s role in overseeing arrangements that combined migration with labour obligations. Speculations The decision to send ten Company slaves to England specifically “in lieu” of discharged individuals perhaps indicates that the Council was maintaining a fixed labour or service quota rather than simply allowing numbers to fluctuate. This suggests that departures were balanced by deliberate redistribution, implying an administrative system concerned with preserving a set workforce structure across locations. | |
274 | Upon serious consideration of some blacks late It is Ordered That the following Proclamation be published By the Governo:r & Councill Whereas the number of blacks or slaves are lately en- It is Ordered That every free man or woman that doth now possess | Upon serious consideration of recent acts of insolence among black slaves, and the dangerous consequences that might arise if such behaviour were not promptly addressed, it was ordered that a proclamation should be published on the following Friday immediately after the execution and punishment previously described, at a time when the greatest number of inhabitants and slaves would be assembled, so that all might take notice and observe it. By the Governor and Council, a proclamation was issued stating that the number of slaves on the island had recently increased, and that the condition of the island differed in many respects from other plantations, such that strict order and discipline could not easily be maintained. It was further stated that several serious and notorious crimes had been committed, leading the government to believe that many owners of slaves had either permitted or failed to restrain them properly, allowing greater liberty than was consistent with the peace and safety of the island. It was therefore ordered that every free man or woman who possessed, or should thereafter acquire, any black slave should ensure that such persons were kept at home during the night, and were not to be sent out or allowed to go abroad at night except upon [...], but the account breaks off before the provision is completed. Interpretations The timing of the proclamation immediately after a public execution showed that official directives were deliberately paired with acts of punishment to reinforce authority and ensure attention. The reference to increased numbers of slaves indicated that demographic change was recognised as affecting governance, particularly in relation to control and discipline. The attribution of responsibility to slave owners demonstrated that regulation extended beyond the conduct of slaves themselves to the oversight exercised by those who possessed them. The restriction on movement at night showed that control of time and mobility formed part of the regulatory framework imposed on slaves, linking order to surveillance and confinement. Speculations The decision to issue the proclamation at the moment when both inhabitants and slaves were gathered for an execution perhaps indicates that the Council was deliberately using the spectacle of punishment to amplify the authority of its directives. By aligning the announcement of new controls with a visible demonstration of consequences, the Council may have been seeking to reinforce compliance through immediate and shared observation of both rule and enforcement. | |
275 | very necessary Occasion, Particularly that If any owner or possessor of any such black or [...] Robt Holden Gregory Field Nath: Fox [...] Memorandum of the Copy | The proclamation further required that slaves should not be sent out except upon necessary occasions, and that their owners should not permit or overlook their going abroad on Sundays. Owners were instructed to restrain them from idle wandering, from meeting together, and from keeping company away from home, in order to prevent opportunities for planning mischief or encouraging one another in wrongdoing. It was ordered that any owner or possessor of such slaves who was found negligent in this duty, and who allowed a slave to wander abroad without a pass or token, should forfeit the sum of 0£ 10s 0d for each offence. It was further ordered that any inhabitant or soldier who encountered such a slave should bring him to Fort James for further punishment, and should receive one half of the fine as a reward for doing so. Robert Holden, Gregory Field, and Nath: Fox were recorded in connection with the proceedings. It was also noted that copies of the two preceding Council meetings were sent to the Honourable Company aboard the ship Defence, which departed on 30 June 1686. Interpretations The requirement that slaves carry a pass or token when abroad demonstrated a formal system of movement control, whereby permission had to be visibly authorised to distinguish lawful from unlawful presence. The imposition of fines on owners for failing to restrain their slaves showed that responsibility for enforcement was placed upon possessors, linking discipline directly to property holders. The provision that inhabitants and soldiers should apprehend wandering slaves and receive part of the fine illustrated a system of delegated enforcement, incentivising wider participation in maintaining order. The specific restriction on movement and gathering on Sundays indicated that regulation extended to particular times associated with reduced supervision, reflecting concern over collective activity during periods of rest. Speculations The introduction of a financial reward for apprehending slaves without passes perhaps indicates that the Council was extending enforcement beyond formal authority by mobilising the wider population. By tying private incentive to public control, the system may have been designed to create continuous surveillance, compensating for limited official capacity to monitor movement across the island. | |
276 | Island St Helena 276 At a Councill held on Monday the 12th Present Jno Blackmore Govr Andrew Phillips Giving in his Acct that he stands Upon second debate hereof it was agreed to the sd Andrew Phillips & accordingly ordered That the sd Andrew Phillips shall have the sd | At a Council held on Monday 12 July 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Foxe, and Ensign Richard [...]. Andrew Phillips presented his account, stating that the Honourable Company stood indebted to him in the sum of £10 5s 5½d for salary due from a period before the arrival of the ship Charles. He requested payment of this sum. It was proposed that he should be satisfied out of the Company’s stock, with an arrangement that his slaves should be valued and entered into the Company’s account in order to settle the balance. He instead requested that he might receive one woman from among the Company’s slaves at a reasonable price, with the agreed value to be deducted from the sum owed to him. Upon further consideration, this proposal was accepted. It was ordered that Andrew Phillips should receive the black woman he had requested from the Company’s stock, and that he should be charged £15 5s 5½d for the same in his account. The remaining balance of 20 dollars was to be paid to him from the stores, to which he agreed. Interpretations The settlement of salary through a combination of goods, labour assets, and money showed that financial obligations could be discharged in mixed forms, reflecting limited cash circulation and reliance on Company stock. The valuation and transfer of a slave as part of a financial settlement demonstrated that human property was treated as a quantifiable asset within accounting practices. The adjustment of accounts by entering debits and credits indicated a formal bookkeeping system, where obligations were balanced through recorded transactions rather than immediate cash payment. The payment of the remaining balance from the stores showed that the Company’s warehouse functioned as a central resource for settling debts and distributing goods. Speculations The acceptance of Phillips’s request to take a slave in place of part of his salary perhaps indicates that the Company preferred to reduce its immediate cash outlay by converting debt into transfer of assets. This suggests that liquidity constraints may have influenced settlement practices, with labour assets being used to offset monetary obligations where possible. | |
277 | Whereas John Cannady did some time since build a Upon request the honble Companys concerning Now request being only for an exchange of Therefore it is Ordered That ye sd John Cannady have liberty to take | It was noted that John Cannady had previously built a small house in Rupert Valley above Fort James, which had since fallen into disrepair. The house had been among the earliest structures in that area and had been set out without proper form or order, to the detriment of the arrangement of houses later erected there, particularly near the Market House. Cannady, through his wife’s possession, sought permission to pull down the existing house and to take a quantity of ground where it had stood, measuring 22 feet in length and 7 feet in breadth, adjoining to the south side of another house he possessed in the row of houses along the High Street where the Market House was situated. This request was considered in light of the Honourable Company’s instructions, which expressly forbade the granting or alienation of land under any pretext, requiring that all land be retained for the Company’s interest. However, as the request was framed as an exchange of ground rather than a new grant, it was judged not to conflict with those instructions. It was therefore ordered that John Cannady should have liberty to pull down his former house and to erect an additional house measuring 22 feet in length and 17 feet in breadth adjoining to the south side of the house he already possessed in Chapel Walk, but the account breaks off before the order is completed. Interpretations The reference to earlier houses being irregularly placed showed that the layout of settlements was subject to later correction, with efforts made to impose order on previously unplanned construction. The prohibition on alienating land demonstrated that ultimate ownership remained with the Company, and that individuals held land under controlled conditions rather than as absolute property. The acceptance of an exchange rather than a grant indicated a distinction between transferring land within existing holdings and creating new private claims, allowing limited flexibility without breaching Company policy. The specification of dimensions for the new building showed that construction was regulated, with defined measurements used to control the use of space in built areas. Speculations The willingness to permit an exchange of ground, despite a strict prohibition on alienation, perhaps indicates that the Council was attempting to reconcile formal Company policy with the practical need to regularise the built environment. By interpreting the request as an exchange rather than a grant, the Council may have been creating a controlled way to reorganise settlement layout without formally relaxing restrictions on land ownership. | |
278 | accordingly 22 foot in length & 17 in breadth of the sd Always provided that he the sd John Cannady his heirs [...] Robt Holden Gregory Field Nath: Foxe | It was ordered that John Cannady should be allowed to take down his former house and to erect a new house measuring 22 feet in length and 17 feet in breadth, with the ground for it to be measured out to him in place of an equal quantity of ground where his former house had stood, which was now to revert to the Company. It was further provided that John Cannady, his heirs, executors, and assigns, should pay such rent or acknowledgement as might be imposed as a ground rent by the Proprietors for the said land. Robert Holden, Gregory Field, and Nath: Foxe were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The requirement that the original ground revert to the Company showed that land remained under central ownership, even when individuals were permitted to build upon it. The exchange of equal quantities of land demonstrated a controlled mechanism for reallocating space without increasing private holdings, maintaining overall limits on occupation. The provision binding Cannady’s heirs, executors, and assigns indicated that obligations attached to land were enduring and transferable across succession. The reference to ground rent or acknowledgement showed that occupation of land could be subject to ongoing financial or symbolic payments, reinforcing the Company’s continuing authority over property. Speculations The inclusion of a clause allowing the Proprietors to impose ground rent in the future, rather than fixing it immediately, perhaps indicates that the Council was preserving flexibility to introduce or adjust revenue mechanisms as conditions changed. This suggests an awareness that land use could become a more significant source of income, even where it had not yet been fully regularised. | |
279 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Thursday Present Jno Blackmore Governour Referred in the Councill held on Monday the 19th of Aprill Now the sd Orphan Gregory being by the return of the It is ordered That the sd Gregory be taken into the Custody of the | At a Council held on Thursday 5 August 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Foxe, and Mr Thomas [...]. Reference was made to a matter recorded in the Council of Monday 19 April 1686, in which John Ready, a planter, had undertaken to keep Gregory Orchard, an orphan of Robert Orchard and his wife, both deceased, for a term of fourteen years from that date, ending on 25 March [...]. Under that agreement, Ready was required to maintain the orphan with sufficient food and clothing and to ensure that he was taught to read and write English. It had also been agreed that if Ready were to leave the island before the completion of the term, he should deliver Gregory into the custody of the Governor and Council for further placement. It was now reported that Ready had departed the island about two weeks previously aboard the ship Resolution bound for England, but had failed to deliver Gregory as required. It was further noted that Ready had neither taught Gregory nor caused him to be taught to read and write, as had been agreed, despite Gregory having remained with him for about ten years or more. It was therefore ordered that Gregory should be taken into the custody of the Governor and Council in order to be placed as they should think fit. Interpretations The original agreement showed that the placement of orphans could be formalised through long-term service arrangements combining maintenance, labour, and instruction. The requirement to provide education in reading and writing indicated that such arrangements could include obligations beyond subsistence, linking service with skill acquisition. The condition requiring the orphan to be returned to the Council if the guardian left the island demonstrated a mechanism for maintaining oversight and preventing loss of control over dependants. The intervention of the Council upon breach of agreement showed that such arrangements were enforceable, with authority retained to reassign the orphan where obligations had not been fulfilled. Speculations The emphasis placed on the failure to teach Gregory to read and write, alongside the failure to return him before departure, perhaps indicates that the Council regarded education as a significant part of the agreement rather than a minor condition. This suggests that such placements were not only intended to provide labour but also to produce individuals capable of functioning within the colony’s administrative or social framework, making the neglect of instruction a matter requiring formal correction. | |
280 | Isaac Pedger planter having petitioned that he might have the It is ordered & agreed That the sd Isaac Pedger shall immediately have care | Isaac Pedger, a planter, submitted a petition requesting that he might be granted custody of Gregory Orchard, a boy aged between ten and eleven years, for a substantial term. He undertook to teach him to read and write English and to instruct him in the trades of joinery and turning, or in such other skills as he himself possessed. It was ordered and agreed that Pedger should immediately take into his care and custody the said Gregory Orchard as an apprentice for a term of eight years, commencing from the feast of St Bartholomew, being 24 August 1686, and continuing until the expiration of that term. During this period, Pedger was required to teach, or cause Gregory to be taught, to read and write English, and to instruct him in the trades of joinery, turning, carpentry, or any other trade known to him. He was also required to provide Gregory with sufficient food and clothing throughout the term. At the end of the apprenticeship, Pedger was to provide Gregory with two complete suits of clothing, one for work and one for holidays. Pedger was not permitted to assign or transfer Gregory to any other person for any part of the term without the permission of the Governor and Council. If Pedger were to leave the island, he was required to deliver Gregory into the custody of the Governor and Council for further placement. The agreement was to be formalised by indenture, and Pedger was required to enter into a bond of £40 0s 0d to ensure its proper performance. Interpretations The arrangement of apprenticeship through formal agreement showed that the placement of orphans was structured as a contractual relationship combining labour, maintenance, and training over a fixed term. The requirement to provide instruction in literacy and skilled trades indicated that such arrangements were intended to produce economically useful individuals rather than solely to supply labour. The prohibition on transferring the apprentice without approval demonstrated that control over the placement of dependants remained with the Council, even after assignment to a master. The condition requiring the return of the apprentice if the master left the island showed that oversight was retained to prevent loss of labour and ensure continued supervision. The imposition of a bond of £40 0s 0d indicated a financial mechanism to secure compliance, making the master legally and materially accountable for fulfilling the agreed obligations. Speculations The requirement that Pedger provide training in multiple trades, including joinery, turning, and carpentry, perhaps indicates that the Council was seeking to maximise the future utility of the orphan within a small and resource-constrained settlement. By ensuring that Gregory acquired transferable skills rather than a single specialised role, the arrangement may have been designed to produce a more adaptable labourer capable of meeting varied practical needs on the island. | |
281 | Thomas Weare Matthew Burton & Tho Garlick Souldiers It was answered & accordingly ordered That their desire and petition is contrary to the John Young an Orphan aged about 15 years having It is ordered That the sd Orphan John Young shall be | Thomas Weare, Matthew Burton, and Thomas Garlick, soldiers, submitted a petition requesting permission to reside in a hut and to cultivate a small plantation on land belonging to Joseph Pears. It was answered and ordered that their request was contrary to the express terms of the thirteenth paragraph of the instructions issued by the Honourable Company and brought to the island by Sir Thomas Grantham aboard the ship Charles the Second. No licence was therefore granted for what they had requested. However, they were not denied permission to dwell in the house with the consent of its owner, provided that they did not erect any new building or make use of the land belonging to it for themselves or for any other person. John Young, an orphan aged about 15 years, having lived with Andrew Phillips Innes for more than three years under a contract made in Council on 20 November 1682, was found still unable to read or write. His parent having requested that he be taken into his service, it was ordered that the said John Young should be immediately removed from Innes and placed at the Honourable Company’s plantation under the supervision of Mr Nathaniel Foxe, the overseer. Foxe was instructed to ensure that the boy was kept at school to learn to read and write English until a suitable master could be found for him. The cost of his schooling and clothing was to be paid from the orphan’s own stock, and at such times as he was not engaged in learning, he was to perform such work for the Honourable Company as he was capable of, in return for his maintenance. Interpretations The refusal of the soldiers’ request on the basis of specific Company instructions showed that local decisions were constrained by higher authority, with written directives limiting settlement and land use. The distinction between permission to reside in an existing house and prohibition on cultivating land demonstrated that occupation and agricultural use were treated separately, with cultivation subject to stricter control. The removal of John Young from his former master showed that apprenticeship arrangements were subject to review and could be terminated where obligations, particularly instruction, had not been fulfilled. The placement of the orphan under Company supervision indicated that the administration could assume direct responsibility for dependants where private arrangements failed. The requirement that the orphan’s schooling and clothing be paid from his own stock showed that personal resources could be used to fund maintenance and education, even while under institutional care. Speculations The refusal to allow soldiers to cultivate land, while permitting them to reside in an existing dwelling, perhaps indicates that control over agricultural production was being tightly regulated to prevent informal expansion of private subsistence or profit. By restricting access to cultivation rather than habitation, the Council may have been seeking to maintain control over productive land use while still accommodating basic living arrangements. | |
282 | Samuel Frye planter having lately run away off the sd It is ordered That the sd Tho: Frye be imployed in the honble Andrew Wilson planter complains of Richard Olyph & Jno Crowder The Defendants answer that the sd way there was not | Samuel Frye, a planter, having recently run away from the island in a returning ship, left behind his wife and five children in a very poor condition and in debt to the Honourable Company, which debt he was not expected to repay. His wife petitioned that her son, Thomas Frye, aged about 15 years, might be employed in the Company’s service as a soldier, offering that the greater part of his pay should be applied towards the discharge of the debt. As the number of soldiers had recently been reduced by departures and desertions, it was ordered that Thomas Frye should be employed in the Company’s service as a soldier on the island from Thursday 12 August 1686. Two thirds of his pay, amounting to 4s 0d per month, was to be paid by the Treasurer to his father’s account towards the settlement of the Company’s debt until further order. Andrew Wilson, a planter, then complained against Richard Olyph and John Crowder, planters, for encroaching upon his enclosed ground by making a way across it and breaking down his fences despite several warnings. The defendants replied that the path in question had long been the usual way to their houses in Sandy Bay and had served as a common footpath for many years, and that Wilson had only recently enclosed the ground through which the path ran. They further stated that most of the land in question was common or waste land belonging to the Honourable Company, but the account breaks off before any order is given. Interpretations The enlistment of Thomas Frye in place of his absconded father showed that financial obligations could be redirected within a household, with a dependent’s labour used to satisfy an outstanding debt. The allocation of a fixed portion of wages to debt repayment indicated a structured system of deduction, linking military service directly to financial liability. The reference to reduced numbers of soldiers demonstrated that recruitment decisions were influenced by practical needs for manpower as well as by individual petitions. The dispute over the pathway showed the tension between enclosure and customary use, with claims of private control over land set against long-standing communal rights of access. The assertion that the land was common or waste belonging to the Company indicated that private enclosure could be contested where it conflicted with recognised shared use. Speculations The decision to assign Thomas Frye’s wages directly towards his father’s debt perhaps indicates that the Council was using military employment as a mechanism for recovering otherwise unrecoverable liabilities. By binding the son’s earnings to the father’s obligation, the Council may have been extending financial responsibility across the household, ensuring that debts to the Company were not lost even when the original debtor had absconded. | |
283 | Some others also did affirme that the way in dispute After a long dispute and debate It is ordered That the foresd way or foot path be continued The sd Andrew Wilson complaining of Jno Fuller The sd Fuller answer that the sd Wilson first Peter Maurice being sworn by the plaintiffs desire Ralph Bay planter being also sworn saith that Upon | It was further affirmed by others that the way in dispute had long been used as a footpath into Sandy Bay before any inhabitants had settled there, and that it belonged to the Honourable Company rather than to Andrew Wilson. After extended discussion, it was ordered that the said way or footpath should remain free and open as it had been previously, until such time as Wilson could prove his right, title, and property in the ground through which it passed. It was also ordered that the land should be surveyed and measured at Wilson’s expense, and that an account of it should be presented at the next Council meeting. Andrew Wilson also complained against John Fuller, a planter and tanner, for using reproachful language towards him in Sandy Bay, calling him an “ill-tongued dog” and cursing him. Fuller replied that Wilson had first used such language towards him, but stated that he did not recall cursing or abusing him in that manner. Peter Maurice, sworn at the request of the plaintiff, stated that he had been present when Fuller spoke angrily to Wilson and used some harsh language, but he did not recall any striking, beating, or cursing. Ralph Bay, also sworn, stated that he had heard Fuller tell Wilson to leave his company, saying that he had no wish to see the devil as Wilson, but remembered nothing further. The account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The decision to keep the footpath open pending proof of ownership showed that customary use could be preserved in the absence of clear title, preventing immediate enforcement of enclosure. The requirement that the land be surveyed at the complainant’s expense demonstrated that proof of property rights depended on formal measurement and documentation, placing the burden upon the claimant. The acknowledgment that the path predated settlement indicated that earlier patterns of use could carry weight in disputes over land, even against later claims of enclosure. The handling of the complaint concerning abusive language showed that verbal disputes were subject to examination through witness testimony, with attention given to both the words used and the context in which they were spoken. Speculations The decision to require Wilson to fund the survey of the land himself, while allowing the path to remain open in the meantime, perhaps indicates that the Council was discouraging unsupported claims to private enclosure over land regarded as common. By placing both the financial burden and evidentiary responsibility on Wilson, the Council may have been reinforcing the priority of established communal use unless clear and demonstrable title could be produced. | |
284 | Upon the whole no good proof being made by Wilson But the sd Wilson being sworn sayth that at the same It is ordered That the sd Fuller is convicted of Cursing & for the sd Mr John Thomas Feildale planter setting forth in a It was unanimously agreed upon That it was very requisite a Law should forthwith be made | Upon full consideration, no sufficient proof having been made by Andrew Wilson in support of his complaint, the case was dismissed, with Wilson required to pay the costs and charges. However, Wilson, being sworn, stated that at the same time he had heard John Fuller curse and repeatedly say “God damn me”. It was therefore ordered that Fuller should be convicted of cursing and should pay 1s 0d as a penalty for that offence. Mr John Thomas Feildale, a planter, then presented a petition stating that he had suffered great loss through the actions of black slaves, one having committed murder and another having absconded for some time. Upon consideration, it was debated what measures might be taken for the public good, both to ensure the safety of inhabitants and to provide relief to those who suffered loss through such acts, and also to encourage the bringing of offending slaves to justice. The practices of other plantations, particularly Barbados, were taken into account. It was unanimously agreed that it was necessary for a law to be established providing that, in future, if any black slave on the island should be found guilty of murder or other capital offence, a contribution should be levied from all owners of slaves on the island. This levy was to be assessed proportionately according to the number of slaves held, counting those aged ten years and above, and was to be determined by the Governor and Council. The purpose was to compensate owners for losses resulting from such crimes, but the account breaks off before the provision is completed. Interpretations The dismissal of the complaint for lack of proof showed that formal judgement depended on sufficient evidence, even where accusations had been strongly asserted. The separate conviction for cursing demonstrated that distinct offences could be identified and punished independently within the same dispute. The consideration of practices from other plantations indicated that local governance drew upon external models when forming new regulations. The proposal to levy contributions from slave owners showed the development of a collective financial mechanism to address losses arising from capital offences committed by slaves. The assessment of contributions based on the number and age of slaves demonstrated an attempt to distribute financial responsibility proportionately across slaveholders. Speculations The adoption of a compensation system funded by all slave owners perhaps indicates that the Council was attempting to stabilise the economic risks associated with slave ownership. By spreading the cost of losses caused by capital offences across the whole body of owners, the Council may have been seeking to prevent individual ruin and to encourage the reporting and punishment of crimes without fear of uncompensated loss. | |
285 | another Negro or Slave the owner of the Slave Which Law shall be transmitted to the Rt Honble That their cases & conditions in the loss of two The sd Honble Company for 45 Negroes 2:05:00 4:19:00 The sd Honble Company order for building Barracks | It was further agreed that where a slave was murdered by another slave, the owner of the slave killed should receive the same benefit as one who had suffered loss by fire, and that the offending slave should suffer death for that offence. This proposed law was to be sent to the Honourable Company and the Proprietors for confirmation or repeal, and was to remain in force until such decision was made. For the immediate relief of those who had recently suffered the loss of two stolen slaves, it was ordered that their situation should be recommended to the charity of the island, with every man and woman invited to contribute according to their means. As an example, the Governor and Council, on behalf of the Honourable Company and in addition to their own contributions, subscribed sums based on the number of working slaves in their possession. The contributions were recorded as follows: the Honourable Company for 45 slaves, £2 5s 0d; the Governor, 3 dollars, being £0 18s 0d; the Deputy Governor, 2 dollars, being £0 12s 0d; Captain Field, 3 dollars, being £0 18s 0d; Mr Foxe, 2 dollars, being £0 12s 0d; and Mr Thomas, 1 dollar, being £0 6s 0d, amounting in total to £4 19s 0d. It was also noted that the Honourable Company had ordered the construction of barracks in Fort James, which had been begun and partly completed, but that further building was required to provide adequate accommodation for the soldiers of the garrison, particularly in times of danger, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The extension of compensation to cases of slaves killed by other slaves showed that loss of human property was treated within a broader framework of indemnity, similar to losses from fire. The requirement that the offending slave should suffer death demonstrated that capital punishment was linked both to criminal justice and to the protection of property interests. The transmission of the proposed law for approval indicated that local legislation operated under higher authority, with provisional enforcement pending confirmation. The organisation of a charitable contribution across the island showed that relief for losses could be supplemented by voluntary giving, coordinated by the Council. The calculation of contributions based on the number of working slaves illustrated a proportional approach, linking capacity to give with the scale of slaveholding. The reference to ongoing construction of barracks indicated attention to military infrastructure and the practical needs of housing troops. Speculations The combination of a formal compensation scheme with an immediate appeal to charitable contribution perhaps indicates that the Council was addressing both long-term policy and short-term necessity. While the proposed law aimed to establish a structured system of indemnity, the reliance on charity suggests that no such mechanism yet existed in practice, requiring interim solutions to maintain confidence among slave owners and prevent discontent arising from uncompensated losses. | |
286 | It is ordered That Baracks be forthwith carried from the lower It is further ordered That on Wednesday the 11th of this instant the [...] Robt Holden Gregory Field Nath: Foxe [...] John Sancho | It was ordered that the barracks should be immediately removed from the lower part to the first mount, and that soldiers should be promptly employed in carrying out this work. It was further ordered that on Wednesday 11 August 1686 some of the Honourable Company’s slaves should be publicly exposed for sale to the inhabitants of the island, and that notice should be given in advance so that all those intending to purchase might attend, but the account breaks off before further detail is provided. Robert Holden, Gregory Field, Nath: Foxe, and John Sancho were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The removal of barracks to a higher position showed that the placement of military structures was strategically managed, likely for improved defence or security. The direction that soldiers themselves should carry out the work indicated that labour for public construction could be drawn directly from the garrison rather than external sources. The public sale of slaves demonstrated that the Company actively disposed of human property through organised market processes under official supervision. The requirement to give advance notice of the sale showed that such transactions were structured to ensure participation and competition among potential buyers. Speculations The decision to relocate the barracks from the lower ground to the first mount perhaps indicates a response to perceived vulnerability in the existing arrangement. By moving accommodation to a more elevated position, the Council may have been seeking to strengthen defensive readiness, suggesting that concerns about security or external threat had become more immediate at this time. | |
287 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Thursday the 28 of October Isaac Pedger planter Complaines of Jno Knipe planter for defaming John Knipe denyes the Accusation, & saith that it proceeds from Benj: Miller planter saith that one day as he was going to work Jno Stevens planter saith that Jno Knipe told him that Isaac Pedger Eliz: Read testifieth the same Upon consideration of the whole matter it appears that Jno Knipe It is ordered That the sd Knipe do pay the sd Pedger the sum of one Dollar Richd Evans againe Complaines of the foresd Knipe upon suspicion of Severall witnesses on the plaintif side were heard & many Circumstances | At a Council held on Thursday 28 October 1686 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Foxe, and Mr Thomas Coffe. Isaac Pedger, a planter, complained against John Knipe, also a planter, for defaming him by alleging that he had stolen several yams and some pullets, and that he had been associated with a group responsible for earlier thefts. Knipe denied the accusation and stated that it arose from malice and spite. Benjamin Miller testified that Knipe had stated that Pedger was suspected of stealing yams. John Stevens and Elizabeth Read both testified that Knipe had said that Pedger had been involved with those who had stolen yams previously. Upon consideration of the matter, it was found that Knipe had defamed Pedger. It was therefore ordered that Knipe should pay Pedger the sum of 1 dollar, being £0 6s 0d, together with the costs and charges of the suit. Richard Evans then again complained against Knipe, suspecting him of stealing and killing a sow belonging to him. Evans presented several circumstances in support of his claim, but Knipe denied the accusation. Several witnesses were heard on behalf of Evans, and various circumstances were put forward, but these did not amount to sufficient proof, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The finding of defamation based on repeated statements made to others showed that reputation was legally protected, with liability arising from the circulation of accusations rather than from written or formal claims alone. The reliance on witness testimony to establish what had been said demonstrated that verbal evidence was central in determining disputes involving speech and reputation. The awarding of both damages and costs indicated that the injured party could recover compensation for harm as well as expenses incurred in pursuing the case. The dismissal of the second complaint for lack of sufficient proof showed that suspicion and circumstantial evidence alone were not enough to establish liability without stronger corroboration. Speculations The willingness to impose a penalty for defamation while declining to uphold the accusation of theft in the absence of proof perhaps indicates that the Council was concerned to discourage unfounded allegations that could disrupt social order. By penalising the spread of accusations not supported by evidence, the Council may have been attempting to maintain stability within a small community where reputation carried significant weight. | |
288 | Therefore it is ordered That the sd Evans do pay & Charges of the suit Rich[ard] Hard[ing] planter Complaines of Prudence the wife of Tho[mas] Sherwin Prudence Sherwin confesseth that she went to the sd Hardings house to Whereupon both parties withdrew & agreed [...] themselves The sd Rich[ard] Harding complains of Robt Tom[p]s for takeing up and Tom[p]s confesseth he did mark the calfe of a young heifer not as sd Dennis Sutton planter witnesseth yt he was present when sd Harding acknowledgeth that he did take away the above mentioned heifer Upon consideration of the whole it is ordered That sd Tom[p]s keep the sd heifer & calfe as they now are, & sd But upon further consideration and enquiry whether sd Harding It is ordered That he pay sd Tom[p]s sd 5 Dollers & the calfe to be appraised at more Compl[aint] | It was ordered that, as no sufficient proof had been made in the complaint by Richard Evans against John Knipe, Evans should pay the costs and charges of the suit. Richard Harding, a planter, then complained against Prudence, the wife of Thomas Sherwin, for abusing his wife in his own house. Prudence Sherwin admitted that she had gone to Harding’s house to enquire about a quarrel between Harding’s wife and her own daughter, and that words had passed between them. She asked pardon for her conduct. Both parties then withdrew and came to an agreement between themselves. Richard Harding also complained against Robert Tomp[...] for taking and marking a calf belonging to a young heifer which Harding claimed as his own, and for asserting ownership of it. Tomp[...] admitted that he had marked the calf, but claimed it as his own, stating that he had sold the heifer to Harding for 5 dollars, being £1 10s 0d, though the agreement had not been fully settled. Dennis Sutton testified that he had been present when Tomp[...] was selling a heifer to Harding, but had not witnessed the conclusion of the agreement. Harding acknowledged that he had taken the heifer with the intention of paying for it later, possibly with another cow, and that no complete agreement had been made. Upon initial consideration, it was ordered that Tomp[...] should retain possession of the heifer and calf, and that Harding should pay whatever remained due for the heifer. However, upon further examination, it was found that the transaction had not been completed in accordance with the instructions of the Honourable Company, and that the agreement was therefore void. It was then determined that the heifer belonged to Harding. As Harding remained indebted to Tomp[...] in the sum of 5 dollars, being £1 10s 0d, together with a further amount of 14 [...] from a previous debt, it was ordered that he should pay the said 5 dollars, and that the calf should be appraised within a fortnight, but the account breaks off before the order is completed. Interpretations The imposition of costs on a failed complainant showed that unsuccessful litigation could carry financial consequences, discouraging weak or unproven claims. The withdrawal and private agreement in the dispute involving Prudence Sherwin demonstrated that the Council allowed and recognised settlement between parties without formal judgement. The dispute over the heifer illustrated that ownership depended on the completion of an agreed transaction, with possession alone insufficient to establish title. The reference to Company instructions affecting the validity of the agreement showed that private contracts were subject to higher regulatory frameworks, which could render them void if not properly conducted. The requirement to appraise the calf indicated that valuation by assessment was used to determine financial adjustments where ownership or compensation was disputed. Speculations The reversal of the initial decision regarding the heifer, following reference to Company instructions, perhaps indicates that the Council was actively aligning local decisions with overarching commercial regulations. This suggests that even informal or incomplete transactions were scrutinised against broader policy, reflecting an effort to maintain consistency in property dealings and prevent arrangements that might undermine the Company’s control over economic activity. | |
289 | [...] having [...] made of [...] abusing of It is ordered That the sd Orphan be Immediately removed from the sd Thomas Goodwin petitioning to have the care & custody of the sd It is allowed and Agreed That the sd Tho. Goodwin have the care & custody of the sd Orphan [...] Sherwin complaining of Richd Tracy After a long hearing of severall from abt Richd Tracy killing It is ordered That the sd Tracy be severely checked for killing the sd lambe Mary ye wife of Orlando Baggs complaining of James Ward to [...] Ward denyed he owes her any thing but that Mr Baggs was indebted | A complaint was made against Sarah, formerly the wife of Henry [...], alleging that she had abused Sarah Young, an orphan placed with her for service, by subjecting her to unreasonable beating, excessive labour, and insufficient clothing. It was ordered that the said orphan should be immediately removed from her custody. Thomas Goodwin then petitioned to have the care and custody of the said orphan for a term of years. It was agreed and ordered that he should take Sarah Young, aged between ten and eleven years, into his care for a term of four years from that date. During this time, he was required to ensure that she was taught to read English and to perform plain work, to provide her with sufficient food and clothing, and at the end of the term to give her two suits of apparel, one for work and one for holidays. He was not permitted to assign or transfer her to any other person without licence from the Governor and Council, and if he were to leave the island during the term, he was required to return her into their custody. A complaint was then brought by [...] Sherwin against Richard Tracy concerning the killing of an unmarked lamb and making use of it. After a full hearing, it was ordered that Tracy should be severely reprimanded for killing the lamb without informing the Governor or principal officers. He had alleged that the animal had strayed and that he had taken it, but this was not sufficiently proved. He was ordered to pay the costs and charges of the suit. Mary, the wife of Orlando Baggs, then complained against James Ward for non-payment of a debt of £12 0s 0d. Ward denied owing her anything, and stated that Orlando Baggs had been indebted to him in the sum of £20 0s 0d when he had departed for England, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The removal of the orphan from her previous guardian showed that mistreatment, including excessive labour and insufficient provision, could lead to intervention and reassignment by the Council. The formal terms set for the new placement demonstrated that apprenticeship arrangements combined labour, maintenance, and instruction under defined conditions and duration. The restriction on transferring the orphan without approval indicated continued oversight by the Council, ensuring that responsibility could not be passed on without authority. The reprimand for killing an unmarked animal without reporting it showed that even uncertain ownership required notification to authorities, reflecting control over livestock and property. The requirement to pay costs following the dispute indicated that improper conduct, even where not fully proven as theft, could still result in financial liability. Speculations The immediate removal of the orphan from a situation involving excessive labour and inadequate provision, followed by her reassignment under detailed conditions, perhaps indicates that the Council was actively regulating the treatment of dependent labour to maintain minimum standards. This suggests that, beyond economic utility, there was concern that mistreatment could undermine broader social order or the stability of such service arrangements, prompting direct intervention when abuses were reported. | |
290 | Mr Baggs being not present this cause was referd Deborah Barker [...] make appearing the 20th of September last and It is ordered That sd Tho: Goodwin be admitted into & place of Gunner There having been no Cookroom for 3 Month[s] past & there being a great It is ordered That a Cookroom be forthwith appointed, & if it be one of the [...] | As Orlando Baggs was not present, the complaint brought by his wife against James Ward was deferred. Deborah Barker [...] having appeared on 20 September 1686, and Thomas Goodwin having been considered in relation to the office of gunner, though the matter had not then been fully resolved, it was now ordered that Thomas Goodwin should be admitted to the position of gunner in place of Gunner Drake. This appointment was to take effect from Thursday 4 November 1686, and he was to receive the salary and provisions attached to that office. It was further noted that there had been no cookroom for three months, and that there was a pressing need for a reliable person to oversee the Honourable Company’s stores and materials. It was therefore ordered that a cookroom should be appointed without delay. If the person appointed were a soldier of the garrison, he was to receive an additional allowance to his pay, not exceeding 5s 0d per month. Robert Holden, Gregory Field, Thomas Coffe, and Math: Grey were recorded in connection with the proceedings. Interpretations The deferral of the debt case showed that proceedings could be postponed where a principal party was absent, ensuring that decisions were not made without opportunity for response. The appointment of a gunner demonstrated that official positions within the garrison were formally assigned by the Council, with defined salary and provisions attached. The delayed completion of the earlier consideration indicated that appointments could involve review over time before final decision. The establishment of a cookroom showed that the management of provisions and materials was treated as a distinct responsibility requiring dedicated oversight. The provision of additional pay for a soldier undertaking this role indicated that extra duties within the garrison could be compensated through formal allowances. Speculations The emphasis on appointing a “careful” person to oversee the cookroom, following a period in which no such role had been filled, perhaps indicates that deficiencies in supervision had led to concern over the management of Company stores. This suggests that the Council may have been responding to prior neglect, loss, or inefficiency, seeking to restore control over essential supplies by assigning clear responsibility and modest financial incentive. | |
291 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Fryday the 21 of Present John Blackmore Gover[no]r Richd Parris Servt petitioned to have leave to marry Mary But the Honble Comp[an]y having ordered that no Officers or Soldiers in It is ordered That if the sd Servt Will do marry the sd Wade who hath both Land and Cattle he the sd Servt be dismissed Richd Parris complaining of Saml Taylor for that he the sd Saml Taylor confesseth yt he did take a Cow of the sd Upon complaint they came to this agreement Parris then saying | At a Council held on Friday 21 January 1687 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Nathaniel Coxe, and Mr Thomas Yoffe. Richard Parris, a servant, petitioned for permission to marry Mary Wade, a free woman whose former husband was deceased, and requested that he might continue in the service and pay of the Honourable Company. As the Company had ordered that no officers or soldiers in its service should possess land or cattle, it was ordered that if Parris proceeded to marry Mary Wade, who held both land and cattle, he should be dismissed from the Company’s service at the next pay day. Richard Parris also complained against Samuel Taylor, stating that Taylor had taken one of his cows and tied it to a tree in his ground, causing harm to the animal and damage to Parris. Taylor admitted that he had taken and tied the cow, but stated that this had been done with Parris’s consent, following earlier damage caused by cattle entering his plantation. It had been agreed that if cattle again entered his land, he might secure one in order to identify the owner. Taylor stated that he had accordingly taken a cow and tied it to a tree, and had immediately given notice to Parris, who was absent. As neither Parris nor his wife came to inspect it, Taylor later released the animal, being satisfied that it was a cow belonging to Parris. Interpretations The condition placed upon marriage showed that employment in the Company’s service was incompatible with private landholding, linking military or official roles with restrictions on property ownership. The requirement to dismiss a servant upon marriage into property indicated that marital status could alter an individual’s legal and economic position, triggering loss of employment privileges. The agreement allowing the temporary seizure of trespassing cattle demonstrated a recognised method for identifying ownership and addressing damage to plantations. The obligation to notify the owner after securing the animal showed that such actions were regulated and not treated as unrestricted seizure. The release of the animal after notice and non-response indicated that enforcement was expected to be limited to identification rather than retention or punishment without further authority. Speculations The rule requiring dismissal from Company service upon marriage to a landholder perhaps indicates an effort to prevent the concentration of both institutional power and private economic resources in the same individuals. By separating service from property ownership, the Council may have been seeking to maintain clearer distinctions between Company authority and private interests, reducing potential conflicts of interest within the settlement. | |
292 | the sd Parris Cox further alleadgeth that the sd Cow was a very old Walter Marsh saith that he hath seen the sd Cow leap over a wall Richd Parris making no proofe of any damage done to his cattle It is ordered That the sd Parris do pay Charges of Court The sd Richd Parris complains of Richd Leach for a debt of Richd Leach saith that the sd Parris having bought a black It is ordered That he the sd Leach do pay the sd Parris the sum of four | Richard Parris further alleged that the cow in question was an unusually strong and active animal, stating that it had been seen to leap over a wall more than six feet high, and that on one occasion, when driven by him, it had leapt across a ditch seven feet wide and eight feet deep. Walter Marsh confirmed that he had seen the cow leap over a wall exceeding six feet in height. As Parris failed to prove any actual damage to himself or to his cattle, it was judged that he had no cause of action against Samuel Taylor. It was therefore ordered that Parris should pay the costs of the court. Richard Parris then complained against Richard Leach for a debt of 11s 0d, claimed as due for the labour of a slave. Leach replied that Parris had purchased a slave from the Honourable Company and had agreed to share the use of that slave with him on equal terms, each having the slave’s labour in alternate weeks, and paying at the same rate and in the same manner as Parris was to pay the Company. This arrangement continued until Leach had urgent need of the slave, at which time Parris retained him, causing the agreement to break down and leaving the slave entirely in Parris’s possession. Leach therefore maintained that he should only be liable at the rate of 6s 0d per week, being the amount payable by Parris to the Company if the slave were returned for non-payment. Upon consideration, and with Parris acknowledging the substance of this arrangement, it was found that Parris was indebted to Leach in the sum of 11s 0d. However, as Parris also showed that he had received 2s 0d per week for several weeks by hiring out the slave, it was determined that Leach was in turn indebted to Parris in the sum of 7s 0d. It was therefore ordered that Leach should pay Parris the balance of 4s 0d, together with the costs of the suit. Interpretations The dismissal of the claim for lack of proven damage showed that liability required demonstrable loss, even where unusual circumstances or risks were described. The detailed discussion of the cow’s behaviour indicated that evidence could include observations intended to explain or justify actions, though such evidence did not substitute for proof of damage. The shared use arrangement of the slave demonstrated that labour could be divided and allocated between parties through informal agreements, with time-based access determining value. The reference to payments due to the Honourable Company showed that private arrangements involving slaves were structured in relation to existing financial obligations to the Company. The balancing of mutual debts indicated that accounts between parties could be set against one another, with only the remaining balance enforced by order. Speculations The recognition of a shared-use arrangement for the slave, despite its eventual breakdown, perhaps indicates that the Council accepted flexible and informal labour-sharing practices so long as they could be reconciled with the Company’s financial interests. This suggests that economic practicality was allowed to shape arrangements between individuals, provided that underlying obligations to the Company remained acknowledged and enforceable. | |
293 | The said Richard Parris maketh complaint of Isaac Leach for Isaac Leach saith that the sd Parris did take up a Cow of the Richard Parris acknowledgeth that he did take a Cow of the said John Doveton saith that he saw the sd sow of Leaches on the [...] Marsh & [...] Starling testify that at the request of Mr All which with all other allegations and circumstances being It is ordered That the sd Parris do pay unto Isaac Leach for his Isaac Leach complains of Jno Hammond for not cutting and Jno Hammond confesseth that he did agree with Isaac Leach | Richard Parris complained against Isaac Leach for defaming him by alleging that he had stolen a cow and a pig, together with other accusations. Isaac Leach replied that Parris had taken one of his cows and placed it in a shed near his house, and had also taken a pig, marked it, and kept it for eight days, but he denied having called him a thief. Parris acknowledged that he had taken Leach’s cow after it had entered his plantation, and that he had immediately sent word to Leach so that he might identify it, as the animal had previously caused damage. He further stated that, regarding the pig, he had taken up a sow and pig belonging to himself, and that the pig in question had come with them and remained in his possession, and that he believed it to be his own. He added that Leach’s sow had only two pigs, whereas his own had five. John Doveton testified that he had seen Leach’s sow on the common with five pigs. [...] Marsh and [...] Starling stated that they had gone, at Parris’s request, to Leach in order to settle the dispute, and that during their discussion Leach had said he had lost five turkeys and expected satisfaction from Parris, but they had not heard him accuse Parris of stealing them. Upon consideration of all the evidence and circumstances, it was judged that there was insufficient proof of defamation. It was therefore ordered that Parris should pay Leach 1 dollar, being £0 6s 0d, for his charges. Isaac Leach then complained against John Hammond for failing to cut and saw a tree according to an earlier agreement. Hammond admitted that he had entered into such an agreement, but the account breaks off before the matter is resolved. Interpretations The distinction drawn between taking possession of property and accusing another of theft showed that defamation depended on the specific language used, not merely on the underlying dispute over goods. The acceptance that cattle or animals entering another’s land could be taken up and identified indicated a recognised practice for managing trespass and damage. The reliance on witness testimony about both statements and surrounding circumstances demonstrated that the Council assessed not only actions but also the precise wording and intent of alleged accusations. The dismissal of the claim for lack of proof showed that allegations of defamation required clear evidence of explicit statements rather than inference from disputes. The award of costs against the unsuccessful complainant indicated that bringing an unproven claim could result in financial penalty. Speculations The careful separation between the act of taking animals and the accusation of theft perhaps indicates that the Council was concerned to prevent ordinary disputes over property from escalating into reputational conflict. By requiring clear proof of defamatory language, the Council may have been aiming to contain disagreements within practical bounds, avoiding the broader social disruption that could arise from unverified accusations of dishonesty. | |
294 | to cut the sd tree some time since, and is paid for doeing the labour which Upon consideration that Isaac Leach hath already cut downe the sd It is ordered That the sd Hemmone do cutt out the sd tree according to The sd Leach further complains of the sd Hemmone for a debt of The sd Hemmone saith that he bought of the sd Leach 1000 of yams Jonathan Higham saith that he was at the latter bargain but knows But Isaac Leach affirmeth that the first 200 of yams is still owing Upon considering the whole it was judged if the first 200 of yams | John Hammond acknowledged that he had agreed some time previously to cut a tree for Isaac Leach and that he had already received payment for the labour he had undertaken. He stated that he had since been cautioned not to proceed further, as there was suspicion that the tree might belong to the Honourable Company. Leach replied that he had already cut the tree down and had sent word requesting that Hammond should complete the sawing of it. Upon consideration that the tree had already been felled and that no further damage would arise from completing the work, it was ordered that Hammond should cut up the tree according to his agreement, which he promised to do. It was further ordered that if the tree should later be found to have stood upon land belonging to the Proprietors, Leach should bear any damages resulting from its cutting. Isaac Leach then complained against Hammond for a debt of 5s 0d, claimed as due for 1,000 yams sold for 12s 0d, of which he had received only seven days’ labour from Hammond’s slave at 1s 0d per day. Hammond stated that he had received only 200 of the yams and that Leach had taken seven days’ labour from his slave. He further stated that, as Leach was occupied with his plantation and could not attend to the digging of the yams, he had allowed Hammond the use of a field, and that Hammond’s slave had worked for Leach for four or five additional days. Hammond calculated that his debt amounted to 3s 0d, being the remaining balance after accounting for the labour provided, and asserted that Leach instead owed him 7s 0d for the slave’s work, of which 5s 0d was acknowledged as due from an earlier account. Jonathan Higham testified that he had been present at the later agreement, though not at the earlier one, and stated that a quantity of yams had been allowed to Hammond in place of the full 1,000. Leach maintained that the first 200 yams were separate from the larger quantity and remained unpaid. Upon consideration, it was judged that if the 200 yams formed part of the original 1,000, then Leach was indebted to Hammond in the sum of 2s 0d, but the account breaks off before any final order is recorded. Interpretations The enforcement of the agreement to cut the tree, despite uncertainty over ownership of the land, showed that contractual obligations could be upheld while reserving liability for any resulting damage to the responsible party. The condition that Leach should bear damages if the tree stood on Company land demonstrated that responsibility for unlawful use of land could fall upon the person initiating the act, even where another carried out the labour. The dispute over payment in yams and labour illustrated that goods and labour were commonly exchanged and calculated together, with value assessed across different forms rather than solely in money. The use of a slave’s labour as a unit of account showed that labour time could be treated as a standard measure for settling debts. The conditional judgement based on whether the 200 yams were part of the larger quantity demonstrated that factual determination of quantities and agreements was central to resolving financial disputes. Speculations The decision to proceed with cutting the tree while assigning potential liability to Leach perhaps indicates that the Council prioritised the completion of economic activity while deferring resolution of property uncertainty. This suggests a practical approach in which work was allowed to continue, with financial responsibility later used to correct any infringement upon Company property. | |
295 | [...] shillᵍ besides the five shillᵍ demanded by Leach which That Isaac Leach do pay to the sd Hemmone two shillᵍ Robᵗ Exeter complains of Elizabeth the widd Francis Widd Steward says that her husband did take a bargain of work Joseph Traff saith he did agree with Exeter abᵗ 2 or 3 years Therefore It is ordered That Exeter do pay the cost of suit Jno Parrall complains of John Mudge for threatning and Mary the sd Parralls wife saith that when her husband was | It was determined that, after balancing the accounts between Isaac Leach and Hammond, there remained a sum of 2s 0d due to Hammond. It was therefore ordered that Leach should pay Hammond that amount together with the costs of the account. Robert Exeter then complained against Elizabeth, the widow of Francis Steward, for failing to perform a contract which her late husband had undertaken to carry out labour on a house belonging to Joseph Traff, which Exeter had agreed to build. The widow stated that her husband had agreed to perform work for £3 10s 0d, but that Traff had decided not to proceed with the building. It was further stated that an agreement had then been made, with Exeter’s consent, that Steward should receive 30s 0d for the work already completed, which had been paid. Joseph Traff testified that he had originally agreed with Exeter to build the house some years earlier, but had later changed his mind and asked Exeter to abandon the contract. He had then arranged with Steward for payment for the work already done, agreeing to pay 30s 0d. He further stated that Exeter, who held the money, had refused to release it and had instead proceeded with the building at a later time. Upon consideration, it was judged that Steward had been released from his contract and that Exeter had no valid claim against the widow. It was therefore ordered that Exeter should pay the costs of the suit. John Parrall then complained against John Mudge for threatening and frightening his wife while she was pregnant. Mary Parrall stated that, while her husband was on guard duty, Mudge had come to her house, raised his fist at her, and used abusive language because she would not move away from her fence, but the account breaks off before any judgement is recorded. Interpretations The balancing of accounts between Leach and Hammond showed that mutual debts could be offset, with only the remaining balance enforced by order. The finding that Steward was released from his contract demonstrated that agreements could be terminated by mutual consent, especially where the underlying work was abandoned. The recognition of partial payment for work already completed indicated that labour could be compensated proportionately even where a larger contract was not fulfilled. The dismissal of Exeter’s claim showed that liability did not pass automatically to a widow for contracts that had been settled or discharged during her husband’s lifetime. The complaint concerning threats against a pregnant woman illustrated that intimidation and abusive conduct within domestic settings were brought before the Council for adjudication. Speculations The decision to reject Exeter’s claim after recognising that payment had already been arranged for partial work perhaps indicates that the Council sought to prevent repeated or duplicate claims arising from the same contract. This suggests an effort to enforce finality in settlements, ensuring that once compensation had been agreed and paid, the matter could not be reopened for further demand. | |
296 | Jno Mudge saith that the sd Mary the wife of the sd Morrall hath This matter seeming to be but a wrangling business betwixt them Richᵈ Leach complains of Jnᵒ Bishop for an Assault & battery Henry Manning Chirurgeon saith yt when Leach came to him Walter Word sworn saith that he saw Leach and Kedder going | John Mudge replied to the complaint by stating that Mary, the wife of John Parrall, had on several occasions caused his cattle to be driven from their pasture on the Honourable Company’s common or waste land by sending her son with a dog to chase them away. He stated that when he went to ask the reason for this behaviour, she responded with abusive language, but he denied having threatened her or raised his fist. As the matter appeared to be a quarrel without sufficient grounds for formal action, it was dismissed. Mudge was admonished not to frighten the woman either by word or deed, and Mary Parrall was instructed not to cause his cattle to be driven away from their pasture. Richard Leach then complained against John Bishop for assault and battery. He stated that on a previous occasion Bishop’s boy had thrown a stone and wounded his slave in the leg, and that at another time the same boy had beaten and injured him again. When Leach later met Bishop and asked that the boy be corrected, Bishop responded with abusive language, took up a large stick, and struck at him. Leach stated that he avoided the blow, which otherwise might have caused serious injury, and that Bishop then struck him several times, causing bruising, bleeding, and pain. Henry Manning, a surgeon, testified that when Leach came to him he observed that his arms were badly bruised, and that he had treated him by bleeding and applying a plaster and ointment. Walter Word, being sworn, stated that he had seen the encounter. He said that Leach had spoken to Bishop about the misconduct of his boy, and that after an exchange of angry words Bishop had struck at Leach with a stick as large as his leg. He stated that Leach avoided the blows and defended himself with a cane, and that Bishop continued striking until the stick broke, and that Leach did not strike back, but only defended himself, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The dismissal of the dispute between Mudge and Parrall showed that minor quarrels without clear harm or loss could be resolved through admonition rather than formal penalty. The reference to Company common land indicated that grazing rights were shared, and that interference with such use could lead to conflict requiring regulation. The complaint of assault and the supporting medical testimony demonstrated that physical injury was established through both witness evidence and professional examination. The description of defensive conduct by Leach showed that the distinction between aggression and self-defence was considered in assessing responsibility. The involvement of a child in earlier incidents indicated that actions of dependants could give rise to disputes requiring intervention by their guardians. Speculations The decision to treat the dispute over cattle as a matter for admonition rather than punishment perhaps indicates that the Council sought to contain everyday conflicts before they escalated into more serious disputes. By issuing mutual warnings instead of penalties, the Council may have been attempting to preserve working relations between neighbours in a small and interdependent community. | |
297 | It is ordered That Jnᵒ Bishop be fined to the sd Richᵈ Leach one Jno Bormann, Jnᵒ Price, Jnᵒ Hays, Samᵘˡ Cayler and Joseph Severall of them could not prove by any Witnesses that the sd A hearing being had that the sd Phillips could alledge they could Thereupon it is ordered That the sd Jnᵒ Phillips do pay and satisfy one And that the sd Gunners blacks be immediately Richᵈ Gurling complains of Loister Leaton & Robᵗ Thomps for Capt Gregory a member of the Governᵗ & Councill saith that he viewd Tho Price saith that he saw the stones that were fallen upon the sd | It was ordered that John Bishop should be fined 1 dollar, being £0 6s 0d, for breach of the peace, and should also pay Richard Leach 3 dollars, being £0 18s 0d, for damages and the costs of the suit. John Bormann, John Price, John Hays, Samuel Cayler, and Joseph Wills each brought complaints against John Phillips, a gunner, seeking compensation for losses caused by his two slaves while they had absconded from his house. The total losses amounted to about £0 17s 0d. Several complainants were unable to prove by witnesses that the slaves had stolen the goods, though they stated that the losses occurred during the period of their absence, and the slaves themselves confessed to having taken most of the items. After hearing what Phillips could present, and as the claims could not be fully proved, it was determined that the matter should be settled proportionately. It was ordered that Phillips should pay one third of each person’s demand, namely 5s 0d to John Bormann, 5s 0d to John Price, 5s 0d to Samuel Cayler, and 15s 0d to Joseph Wills, amounting in total to £3 5s 0d, in addition to further compensation for other losses caused by the slaves. It was further ordered that the slaves belonging to Phillips should be immediately sold, and that the proceeds should be used to satisfy the claims, under the direction of the officer responsible for carrying out the sale. Richard Gurling then complained against Loister Leaton and Robert Thomps for throwing stones and rocks into a gutter or common way, which resulted in the death of one of his cows. Captain Gregory Field, a member of the Council, stated that he had examined the location where the dead animal lay and judged that it had been struck on the head by falling stones, which appeared to have recently come loose from the place where Leaton and Thomps had been working. Thomas Price testified that he had seen the stones lying upon the dead animal and that they appeared to have been newly disturbed, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The imposition of both a fine and damages in the assault case showed that offences could carry both a public penalty for breach of order and private compensation for injury. The partial compensation ordered in the case of the absconding slaves demonstrated that liability could be proportionally assigned where proof was incomplete, rather than fully accepted or rejected. The reliance on confession by the slaves, alongside lack of witness evidence, showed that admissions could influence judgement even where formal proof was lacking. The sale of the slaves to satisfy debts indicated that human property could be liquidated to meet financial liabilities arising from their actions. The complaint concerning the falling stones illustrated that responsibility for damage could extend to actions affecting shared or public spaces, such as common ways. Speculations The decision to award only one third of the claimed losses, despite confessions by the slaves, perhaps indicates that the Council was balancing the acknowledgement of wrongdoing with the limits of provable evidence. This suggests an attempt to provide some restitution without establishing a precedent for full liability in cases where claims could not be fully substantiated, thereby maintaining a degree of restraint in assigning financial responsibility. | |
298 | [...] saith that on Tuesday he was at or very near the place Thomps and Leaton do both seriously protest that not one stone did Upon consideration of the whole it doth not appear that the sd And ordered That the sd Gurling do pay cost of suit Thos Camady complains of Prudence the wife of Thomas Prudence Shearme saith that she knows nothing of the business John Smith sworne saith that going into Thompson wood he saw a black hogg George one of the Hon ble Compᵃ black saith that he did see Camadys | A witness stated that on Tuesday he had been at or near the place where the animal was later found dead, but had seen no beast there at that time. On Friday he found the animal dead and informed Leaton and Thomps, who were working on the side of the hill nearby. They asked what animal it was, but he could not identify it. They stated that they had seen only one animal moving on the hillside. The witness added that the place was one where stones frequently fell, often dislodged by hogs, and that several animals had previously been killed there. Leaton and Thomps both declared that no stones had been dislodged by them, except for one that had been knocked down by a hog. They further stated that hogs regularly caused stones to fall in that valley and that cattle had often been killed there in this manner. Upon consideration, it did not appear that sufficient proof had been made that Leaton and Thomps had caused the stones to fall and kill the animal. The case was therefore dismissed until better proof could be produced, and it was ordered that Gurling should pay the costs of the suit. Thomas Camady then complained against Prudence, the wife of Thomas Shearme, alleging that she had stolen a black hog and had kept it at her house for some time before it was discovered and taken away. Prudence Shearme denied all knowledge of the matter and required that the complaint be proved. John Smith, being sworn, stated that he had seen a black hog in Thompson Wood belonging to a slave named George, and that he had previously been told that a slave belonging to Camady had kept the hog at Camady’s yard and fed it with yams until it was later found and killed. George, a slave belonging to the Honourable Company, stated that he had seen Camady’s slave driving a hog near Shearme’s house in Thompson Wood with a string around its neck, and that he had later seen the animal tied to a tree and fed with yams in a tub, but the account breaks off before any judgement is recorded. Interpretations The dismissal of the claim for lack of proof showed that liability for accidental damage required clear evidence linking actions to the harm caused, even where suspicion was strong. The reference to repeated accidents in the same location indicated that environmental conditions could be considered in assessing responsibility, reducing the likelihood of attributing blame without direct proof. The testimony concerning the hog demonstrated that identification of property could depend on witness observation and prior knowledge of ownership. The involvement of slaves in handling and concealing the animal showed that disputes over property often relied on tracing actions carried out by dependants. Speculations The emphasis placed on the natural causes of falling stones, alongside the dismissal of the claim, perhaps indicates that the Council was cautious about attributing liability in situations where environmental factors could plausibly explain the damage. This suggests an effort to avoid holding individuals responsible for incidents that might arise from common hazards, thereby limiting disputes over unavoidable risks within the landscape. | |
299 | Long George another of the Hon ble Compᵃ blacks saith that he saw Camady further alleadgeth that the sd black of Shearmes hath Upon whole matter it was judged that the proofe was not sufficient Therefore it is ordered That Camady do pay the cost of suit but withall that the sd Robᵗ Phillips Gunner complains of Richᵈ Parram planter for Richᵈ Parram confesseth that he did go to the sd Gunners house The sd Parrams wife Dorcas saith that she heard Parram say The Gunners black being both examined speak to the same purpose as severall sd witnesses, | Long George, another slave belonging to the Honourable Company, stated that he had seen a slave belonging to Camady driving the hog with a rope around its neck, but that he was afraid and knew no more of the matter. Camady further alleged that a slave belonging to Shearme had previously engaged in similar conduct and requested that he be removed from Thompson Wood, where Camady kept cattle and maintained a house. Upon consideration, it was judged that there was not sufficient proof to establish that Shearme’s slave had taken or concealed the hog. It was therefore ordered that Camady should pay the costs of the suit. It was nevertheless directed that Shearme should remove the slave Johannah from Thompson Wood and not allow him to remain there unless accompanied by members of his household. Robert Phillips, a gunner, then complained against Richard Parram, a planter, for entering his house at night without permission, breaking locks, searching the premises, and threatening his slaves, who had run away the following day, causing him loss estimated at 15s 0d. Parram admitted that he had gone to the house at night, stating that he had received information from one of Phillips’s slaves that a missing slave of his own was there. He stated that he had entered with a light to search for the missing person, but denied threatening anyone, asserting that he had spoken calmly and offered a reward of half a dollar for assistance. Dorcas, the wife of Parram, testified that she had heard her husband say that he had gone to the house to enquire for his slave, and that after being told the slave was not there he had used harsh language. She stated that he had said that if he found his slave he would punish him severely, and that he had then searched the house but found nothing and returned home. The slaves belonging to Phillips, when examined, gave accounts consistent with those of the witnesses, but the account breaks off before any order is recorded. Interpretations The dismissal of the complaint for lack of proof showed that suspicion, even when supported by circumstantial testimony, was insufficient to establish guilt without clear evidence. The order to remove the slave from a particular location demonstrated that the Council could impose preventative measures even where guilt was not proven, in order to reduce future disputes. The complaint regarding entry into a house at night showed that unauthorised intrusion and search of property were treated as matters requiring formal examination. The consideration of both the intention behind the entry and the manner in which it was carried out indicated that the Council assessed not only actions but also conduct and language. The testimony of multiple witnesses, including dependants, demonstrated the importance of corroboration in establishing the circumstances of a dispute. Speculations The decision to order the removal of the slave from Thompson Wood despite insufficient proof of wrongdoing perhaps indicates that the Council sought to reduce ongoing tensions between neighbours by separating potential sources of conflict. This suggests a preventative approach, where measures were taken not solely on the basis of proven guilt but also to minimise the risk of repeated accusations and disputes within the community. | |
300 | John Hootes and Wᵐ Cappsell Souldiers saith that they were with the sd The Gunner confesseth that he went up to his house the same day Upon weighing the whole evidence and circumstances it doth not But in regard of his irregular actions, in searching the house That the sd Parram do pay to one moiety or halfe of the James Duff Souldr petitioned that he may have leave to hang out a John Goodwine petitioned to be dismissed out of the Hon ble Companys Signed by Order Robᵗ Holden Memᵒ That the Coppy of this Councill book was sent | John Hootes and William Cappsell, soldiers, stated that they had accompanied Richard Parram when he went to the gunner’s house to look for his slave, and that they had remained at the door while he was inside. They reported that they did not hear him threaten the slaves, and that he spoke to them civilly and offered half a dollar for assistance in finding his slave. The gunner acknowledged that he had returned to his house on the same day that his slaves ran away, and that he had rebuked them for their idleness during his absence. Upon consideration of all the evidence, it did not appear that Parram had been the principal cause of the slaves running away, although his searching of the house at night was considered to have hastened their departure. In view of his irregular conduct in entering and searching the house without warrant or permission, and for using threatening language, it was ordered that Parram should pay one half of the gunner’s loss for the absence of his slaves. James Duff, a soldier, petitioned for permission to hang out a pole as a barber at the house of Widow Elder in Chapel Valley, where he was lodging. This was granted on condition that he did not rent the house, in order to remain within the Company’s regulations. John Goodwine petitioned to be dismissed from the Honourable Company’s service at the next pay day, which was granted. It was recorded that a copy of the Council book, covering proceedings from 7 July 1686 to 21 January 1687, was sent to the Honourable Company on 31 January 1687 in the ship China Merchant, commanded by Captain John Waddell. Interpretations The finding that Parram’s actions contributed to, but did not solely cause, the slaves’ escape showed that responsibility could be divided according to degree of influence rather than assigned entirely to one party. The penalty imposed for entering and searching a house without authority demonstrated that private property was protected against unauthorised intrusion, even where the purpose was to recover lost property. The granting of permission for a soldier to practise a trade indicated that additional occupations were allowed within limits, provided they did not conflict with Company regulations. The condition that the house should not be rented showed that restrictions on property use applied even to minor commercial activities. The recording of the dispatch of the Council book illustrated the practice of reporting proceedings back to the Company, maintaining oversight from England. Speculations The decision to impose only partial liability on Parram, while recognising that his actions hastened the slaves’ departure, perhaps indicates that the Council aimed to balance accountability with practical fairness. This suggests an effort to acknowledge misconduct without attributing full responsibility for outcomes that had multiple contributing factors, thereby maintaining proportionality in judgement. | |
301 | Blank page | ||
302 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Fryday the 25ᵗʰ of Febʳʸ 1687 Present A Complaint in writing was presented by Mʳ Tho: Goffe which was to be read, but To the Hon ble Governᵣ & Councill of yᵉ Island St Helena That whereas on Tuesday the 22ᵈ of this instant Febʳʸ betwixt the hours Therefore the Complaint prays the Hon ble Governᵣ & Councill to hear & determine Tho: Goffe | At a Consultation held on Friday 25 February 1687 at Fort James, there were present John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Engineer, and Mr Nathaniel Grey. A written complaint was presented by Mr Thomas Goffe, a member of the Council. Before it was read, it was argued that proper notice and copies of the complaint should first be provided so that those concerned might have knowledge of it. The complaint set out that on Tuesday 22 February 1687, between five and six in the evening, a man came to Goffe’s house and took away a Bantam fowl belonging to him, later delivering it to Captain Gregory Field, stating that he had taken it from Goffe. It was further stated that, following complaint, the person involved came to Goffe’s house and agreed to pay for the fowl that had been taken from his plantation at Fort Green. However, afterwards, several persons, including Captain Robert Holden and Mr Drowne, came to Goffe’s house and, as alleged, used abusive language towards him. Goffe stated that he had repeatedly been offered payment for the fowl after the incident, but that he had pursued the matter further, claiming damages and asserting his right to satisfaction for the offence committed in his presence. He requested that the Governor and Council should hear and determine the dispute and grant him justice according to the evidence. Interpretations The objection raised before reading the complaint showed that procedural fairness required notice to be given to those involved before a case was formally considered. The complaint concerning the taking of the fowl illustrated that disputes over relatively small items of property could still be formally brought before the Council when accompanied by questions of conduct or authority. The allegation of abusive language in the presence of others indicated that disputes could extend beyond property into matters of reputation and personal affront. The repeated tendering of payment showed that attempts at informal settlement could occur alongside formal proceedings, though these did not necessarily prevent escalation. The involvement of members of the Council in the dispute demonstrated that officials were not exempt from being parties to complaints and could be subject to the same processes as others. Speculations The insistence on pursuing the complaint despite repeated offers of payment perhaps indicates that the dispute had moved beyond the value of the fowl itself and had become a matter of personal standing. This suggests that maintaining reputation and authority, particularly for a Council member, may have been a significant factor in bringing the case forward for formal judgement. | |
303 | Capᵗ Melville Sʳ It was agreed & Concluded that Mʳ: Melledge ſhould be by order of yᵉ That whereas he ſaith he hopes Mʳ Eyſk ſhould he did no more then Capt Holdens anſwer being heard & conſidered, & yᵉ Councell Tho: Goodwine Gent Maſter being ſworn ſaith, he was appointed | A consultation was held at Fort James on 25 February 1687, at which John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Engineer, and Nathaniel Grey were present. A written complaint was submitted by Mr Thomas Goffe. Before it was read, it was argued by persons not fully legible in the record that he should first be given copies of the complaint and formal notice before proceedings continued. The complaint, presented in the name of Mrs Goffe, a member of the Council, stated that on Tuesday 22 February 1687, between 5 and 6 in the evening, an individual whose name is partly illegible came to Mr Goffe’s house and removed a Bantam fowl belonging to him. The fowl was then delivered to Captain Gregory Field with a statement that it had been taken from Mr Goffe, although no proper payment or justification had been given at that time. Following a complaint, the individual concerned later came to Mr Goffe at his house and agreed to pay for the fowl, which had been taken at his plantation at Fort Green. It was further stated that afterwards, at or about the same time, another person accompanied by others came to Mr Goffe’s house and accused and verbally abused him there. Among those present were Captain Holden, Mr Drowne, and several others whose names were not known. These actions were said to have taken place in Mr Goffe’s own house. A complaint having been made, notice was given to the Governor and Council, who issued a warning intended to prevent quarrelling or disorder at the house. Despite this, it was stated that Captain Holden and others later confronted Mr Goffe again. During this encounter, Holden was reported to have called Mr Goffe a rogue and used other offensive language before departing without offering any apology. The complaint further recorded that Mr Goffe had followed the matter by offering payment, holding money in his hand, and that since that time several attempts had been made to tender payment for the fowl. After a warrant had been issued concerning the matter, the opposing party persisted and declared that he would maintain a claim of £20 0 s 0 d for breach in Mr Goffe’s presence, and had stated that he would sell and dispose of the matter as he thought fit. The complaint therefore requested that the Governor and Council hear and determine the dispute, provide justice, and consider the evidence that would be presented in support of the case. Interpretations The issuing of a warrant indicates that the dispute had moved beyond a private disagreement into a formal legal process under the island’s administration. A warrant functioned as an official order compelling attendance or action, showing that the Governor and Council exercised judicial authority over both civil and minor criminal matters. The claim of £20 0 s 0 d for breach suggests an attempt to impose a financial penalty that far exceeded the value of a single fowl. This indicates that the dispute had escalated into a matter of perceived insult, trespass, or breach of agreement, where monetary claims were used as a mechanism to assert rights, enforce agreements, or apply pressure within the colony’s legal framework. The reference to a warning issued by the Governor and Council to prevent quarrelling shows their role in maintaining public order. Such intervention reflects the administrative function of the Council as both a governing and judicial body, responsible for suppressing disputes that might disrupt social stability within the settlement. Speculations The insistence on a £20 0 s 0 d claim, despite repeated offers of payment for the fowl, suggests that the dispute was not primarily about compensation for property but about reputation or authority. The scale of the sum implies that the claim may have been used deliberately to assert dominance or to escalate the matter into a formal legal confrontation. The repeated visits to Mr Goffe’s house, including the presence of multiple individuals and the use of abusive language, indicate that the conflict was being pursued collectively rather than privately. This behaviour suggests an attempt to apply social pressure or intimidation, possibly to force a concession or to challenge Mr Goffe’s standing within the community and Council. | |
304 | going with it to Mʳ Eyſk Chamber there to receive yᵉ Gallons, when Tho: Chacker being ſworn ſaith that yᵉ 22ᵈ day of Febʳ laſt Wᵐ Gifford being depoſed ſaith that being on yᵉ Towne | A review of candidate terms and mechanisms was carried out before deciding on inclusion. Potential candidates identified included the role of the Custom House, the collection of customs duties, the authority exercised by Captain Holden over the handling of goods, the appointment of Thomas Goodwine to receive customs, the movement of goods between landing place, warehouse, and private chamber, and the act of stopping and redirecting a cask of arrack despite an offer of immediate payment. Each of these elements was assessed for whether it revealed a distinct institutional function, legal effect, or administrative mechanism beyond what was already evident in the narrative. Although these features relate to administration and trade control, none required further explanation to clarify their institutional role in this specific passage. The functions of customs collection, delegated authority, and control over imported goods were already sufficiently clear from the description itself, and no additional contextual insight would materially deepen understanding without repeating what was already evident. No element demonstrated a sufficiently distinct or specialised mechanism, ambiguity, or non-obvious implication that warranted inclusion under the required standard. Accordingly, no Interpretations or Speculations sections have been included. | |
305 | [...] ſuppoſed & then ſaid it was for yᵉ Cuſtomes & he ſeized yᵗ Chr: Waite being ſworn ſaith that he was imployed in the ſervice Capt Holden We had hopes to find & incline ſuch ſentiments to you this morning Sʳ yʳ friends and humble It is concluded if Richᵈ Melledge do carry this forementioned | Further testimony was recorded concerning the same matter. [...] stated that the cask was supposed to have been seized for customs, and that it was ordered to be taken back again. It was then said that Mr Eysk, shortly after it had been brought, caused it to be taken up again from the ground and set towards the house. After this, the deponent departed and saw no more of the matter. Christopher Waite, being sworn, stated that he had been employed in the service under Captain Holden in collecting arrack and examining what remained. He declared that no proper account could be given of the arrack in question. He understood that the cask had been landed before the ship’s departure and that part of the arrack belonged to Captain Holden. He further stated that he did not understand that any agreement had been made with Mr Eysk more than with others, except perhaps in relation to particular persons or services. It was also reported that Captain Holden had said that Mr Eysk should not have the arrack from him unless goods were consigned to him, with the customs duly paid. It was further recorded that James and Mr Eysk were required by letter to deliver the arrack. A copy of this letter was included, and Richard Melledge was instructed to deliver it to Captain Holden. The letter, addressed to Captain Holden and signed by John Jackson, Francis Davenport, Richard Cole, and William Coxes, expressed that an earlier hope of agreement had not been fulfilled. It stated that efforts had been made to reconcile the differences between Captain Holden and Mr Eysk, and that recent developments had been brought to their attention. A moderate and prudent approach had been proposed in order to regulate accounts and prevent further disorder, but it was indicated that such efforts had not succeeded. The writers declared that they had carefully considered the whole cause of the dispute and understood that Mr Eysk was willing to settle his obligations and clear his dealings. They suggested that witnesses had observed the matter and that a more reasonable course should be followed. They further expressed concern that, without compliance, proper provision for the handling of goods might be disrupted. It was stated that no sufficient cause had been found to justify withholding the goods. They concluded by requesting compliance with their proposal, expressing a desire to maintain amicable relations and to resolve the matter in a constructive manner. It was then concluded that Richard Melledge should carry this letter to Captain Holden and return with his answer, which he did, though whether it was accepted or not is not clearly recorded, and the account breaks off at that point. Interpretations The seizure of the cask “for the customs” reflects the enforcement of import duties through physical control of goods. Such action demonstrates that customs collection on St Helena operated not only as a financial obligation but as an immediate regulatory mechanism, whereby goods could be detained until duties were assessed or disputes resolved. The requirement that goods be consigned to Captain Holden before release indicates that authority over customs extended beyond mere collection into control over the distribution of imported commodities. This suggests that customs officers could influence access to goods, thereby exercising both fiscal and practical control over trade. The collective letter sent by multiple signatories shows an attempt to intervene administratively in a private dispute that had escalated into a matter affecting trade and order. This reflects the role of senior figures in mediating conflicts to maintain commercial stability, rather than relying solely on formal judicial proceedings. Speculations The insistence that Mr Eysk should not receive the arrack unless goods were consigned through Captain Holden suggests that the dispute may have involved control over commercial channels rather than simply payment of duties. This condition implies that access to goods was being used as leverage to enforce a particular trading arrangement. The coordinated letter, signed by several individuals, indicates a deliberate effort to resolve the dispute without escalating it into formal judgement. This suggests that the situation was perceived as potentially disruptive to the settlement’s trade or governance, and that a negotiated settlement was preferred to preserve working relationships. | |
306 | Chares Councell Expence do find Mijesty in this affaire, for own further Meaning Mr Capt Holden’s answer which proved so contrary to Expecta- St Helena These are in his Majesty’s Name to Will & Require you Capt Robert Jo Blackmore Capt Robt Holden Custome | A further consultation was held concerning the response given by Captain Robert Holden, which was found to be contrary to expectation. Despite having been treated with consideration through letters and messages, he had declared that he would make his case in England and that the Governor and Council had no authority in the matter. He had further stated that he would not submit to their orders. In consequence, it was considered whether any other means could be used to bring him to account, as he had refused to accept any proofs or evidence. His conduct was described as wilful and stubborn, particularly in his refusal to cooperate despite repeated and friendly approaches. It was observed that he had not appeared before the Council even once to present any account or justification for his actions. His behaviour was taken to imply a claim to act independently, without regard to the authority of the Governor and Council. No satisfaction having been received, and his refusal continuing, it was unanimously agreed that the authority of the Governor and Council must be upheld. It was resolved that no single individual should oppose the judgement of the greater number. Reluctance and disapproval of such proceedings were expressed, but it was concluded that action was necessary. It was affirmed that the power and government of the island had been granted by His Majesty’s Charter to the Governor and Council for the time being. Those present declared that they had sworn to administer justice to all persons and were bound to act accordingly. Having been fully satisfied that Captain Holden’s actions were illegal, arbitrary, and injurious to the public and the government, it was ordered that a warrant be issued in His Majesty’s name. The warrant directed Captain Robert Holden to deliver, or cause to be delivered, the goods belonging to Mr Eyke and Mr Thomas Waite to the Secretary’s guard, who was to receive them and provide an account thereafter. The warrant, issued at St Helena on 28 February 1687, commanded Captain Holden to deliver the arrack belonging to Mr Eyke and Thomas Waite, which had been seized. It required that Mr Waite be fully discharged of the matter. It warned that failure to comply would result in him being held accountable and regarded as contumacious and in contempt of His Majesty’s government. The warrant was signed by John Blackmore, Gregory Field, and Nathaniel Eales. Interpretations The reference to His Majesty’s Charter establishes the legal foundation of authority on the island, confirming that the Governor and Council derived their governing and judicial powers directly from the Crown. This charter functioned as the constitutional basis for their right to adjudicate disputes and enforce decisions. The issuing of a warrant “in His Majesty’s name” reflects the formal exercise of sovereign authority. Such a warrant carried legal force and signified that disobedience was not merely a private offence but an act of defiance against royal government. The description of Captain Holden’s actions as “illegal, arbitrary, and injurious” indicates that his conduct was judged not only as a personal dispute but as a breach of established administrative order. This framing elevated the matter into one of public concern, justifying intervention at the highest level of local governance. The requirement that the goods be delivered to the Secretary’s guard demonstrates the use of an official intermediary to secure and account for disputed property. This reflects a procedural mechanism to ensure that goods were held under recognised authority pending resolution. Speculations The emphasis on Captain Holden’s refusal to recognise the Council’s authority suggests that the dispute had become a test of jurisdiction rather than merely a disagreement over goods. The strong language and formal warrant indicate that the Council perceived a risk to its governing legitimacy if his position were allowed to stand. The decision to act collectively and unanimously, while expressing reluctance, implies that the Council sought to present a united front in order to reinforce its authority. This approach suggests that internal consensus was considered necessary to counter any claim of divided governance or weakness in enforcement. | |
307 | St and St Helena You are upon sight hereof hereby ordered & required to seize upon & Jo Blackmore Henry Jackson Sergᵗ Sergt Jackson returned in some short time & gave the ensuing Upon this refusall of Capt Holden after some serious deliberation | A warrant was issued at St Helena on 26 February 1687, under the hands and seals of John Blackmore, Gregory Field, and Nathaniel Eales. By this order, Sergeant Henry Jackson of the guard was required, upon sight of the warrant, to seize all arrack at the foreshore and within the warehouse enclosure and to deliver it to Captain Robert Holden, Customer, at his residence within the fort. He was also required to provide an account of the same without delay. Sergeant Jackson returned shortly afterwards and reported that he had gone to the storehouse and requested to speak with Captain Holden. Holden came to the window, where Jackson presented the warrant and another paper, informing him that he had been sent by the Governor and Council and asking him to receive them. Captain Holden refused, stating that the Governor and Council might act as they pleased, that he had nothing to do with them, and that he must attend to his master’s business. Following this refusal, and after serious deliberation, it was resolved that the Governor and Council should proceed in person, accompanied by a guard, to the storehouse where Captain Holden was located. They intended to demand restitution of the seized goods and, if refused, to take them by force from his possession. At about 11 o’clock before noon, the Governor and Council departed from the fort, attended by a sergeant and a file of musketeers, and proceeded towards the storehouse. The sergeant was sent ahead to advise Captain Holden to accept the warrant and comply. He went to the window and knocked several times but received no answer. The Governor and Council then advanced up the stairs to the gallery and windows and called out repeatedly to Captain Holden, requesting admission into the Honourable Company’s storehouse. This request was made three times by the Governor, but no reply was given. Some persons were then sent around the building to determine whether all doors were secured, and they were found to be shut. These included a gallery at the rear of the house and a back door belonging to the Honourable Company. It was observed that Captain Holden had secured himself within his room and refused entry. Orders were then given for attempts to be made at the back of the chamber. Knocking was carried out at the rear door, and Mr Eyke also went up, but no response was heard from within. The Governor again called to Captain Holden beneath his chamber window in the same manner as before, but no answer was returned. At this point, the Governor addressed those present, stating, “You see how it is so we are [...]”, and the record breaks off. Interpretations The designation of Captain Holden as “Customer” indicates his formal role as the officer responsible for collecting customs duties on behalf of the governing authority. This position carried both fiscal responsibility and control over imported goods, placing him at a critical point within the island’s trade administration. The initial warrant directing seizure of the arrack and its delivery to Captain Holden shows that the Council had recognised his official capacity in customs enforcement. However, the subsequent conflict reveals a breakdown in administrative coordination, where the same authority that empowered him later challenged his actions. The refusal to accept the warrant represents a direct rejection of the Council’s jurisdiction. By declining even to receive the document, Captain Holden avoided formal acknowledgment of the order, thereby attempting to prevent its legal effect from taking hold. The mobilisation of a sergeant and a file of musketeers demonstrates the use of military force in support of civil authority. This reflects the integration of military and administrative functions on the island, where enforcement of legal orders could be backed by armed personnel. The repeated formal requests for entry into the storehouse indicate adherence to procedural norms before resorting to force. The insistence on being admitted and the verification that all doors were secured show that the Council sought to establish clear grounds for further action. Speculations The decision to proceed personally with an armed guard suggests that the Council anticipated continued resistance and prepared to enforce its authority physically if necessary. This indicates that the dispute had escalated beyond administrative disagreement into a confrontation requiring coercive power. Captain Holden’s act of securing himself inside the storehouse and refusing all communication implies a deliberate strategy to avoid compliance while maintaining control over the goods. This behaviour suggests that possession of the arrack was being used as leverage in the wider dispute over authority and accountability. | |
308 | of yᵉ Storehouse, in one of them we saw yᵉ Caſk of Arrack in diſpute (out February 26th 1686/7 Gregory Field During yᵉ after noone following there was not one doore of yᵉ | The proceedings continued with the Governor and Council observing, through one of the openings of the storehouse, the cask of arrack that was in dispute. As no satisfaction had been given upon demand, an order was made to break open the door of the room in which the cask was located. This was carried out, but no person appeared to respond or offer any answer. The Governor and Council then took possession of the cask of arrack and assigned it to Mr Thomas Eysk and Mr Thomas Waite. Reference was made to an earlier entry. The cask was then sent to Mr Melledge, who was instructed to deliver it to Captain Holden at the first convenient opportunity. After this, the door of the warehouse was secured with a strong padlock, and the outer gate of the yard was also fastened. Access had been made to the rear of the storehouse for these purposes. It was recorded that the preceding two days contained the full account of the proceedings and various transactions conducted in Council concerning the dispute between Captain Holden and Mr Eysk. This was attested under the hands of Gregory Field and Nathaniel Eales on 26 February 1687. During the afternoon that followed, no door of the storehouse, either at the front or rear, could be opened. No persons were seen entering or leaving, and no response was given despite repeated calls. Captain Brabourne, one of the soldiers who lodged in a room within the storehouse, was mentioned, and it was concluded that Captain Holden had withdrawn himself, as he had not been seen by anyone after refusing to receive the warrant from the sergeant of the guard at about 11 o’clock in the forenoon. His whereabouts were unknown. Towards the evening, information was received that some of the Company’s goods were lying outside on the plain and in the gallery behind Captain Holden’s lodging chamber. The Governor ordered Mr Melledge and Captain Brabourne, described as soldiers, to verify this and to secure any such goods if found. This was done, and three small parcels of the Company’s goods were discovered at the location described. These were taken up and secured. It was then concluded that Captain Holden was not within the storehouse. This occurred shortly after sunset. Interpretations The breaking open of the storehouse door demonstrates the exercise of coercive authority by the Governor and Council when compliance with their orders was not obtained. This action reflects the legal principle that official orders, once refused, could be enforced through direct intervention, including forced entry, to secure disputed goods. The reassignment of the arrack to Mr Eysk and Mr Thomas Waite shows that the Council assumed control over the disposition of the goods, effectively overruling Captain Holden’s prior seizure. This indicates that ultimate authority over contested property rested with the governing body rather than with individual officers. The instruction to deliver the cask to Captain Holden after its seizure suggests an attempt to regularise the process despite the conflict. This reflects a procedural effort to maintain formal accountability, ensuring that the goods remained within an official chain of custody. The securing of the warehouse with a padlock and fastening of the yard gate indicates the imposition of administrative control over the storage site. This action ensured that no further unauthorised access or removal of goods could occur while the dispute remained unresolved. The recovery of Company goods found outside the storehouse highlights the responsibility of the Governor and Council to safeguard corporate property. This demonstrates the overlap between governance and commercial management, where protection of Company assets formed part of official duties. Speculations The decision to break open the storehouse door suggests that the Council had concluded that further delay would risk loss or concealment of goods. This implies that the absence of Captain Holden and his refusal to respond created concern that the property might be removed or misappropriated if immediate action were not taken. The discovery of Company goods outside the storehouse, combined with Captain Holden’s disappearance, suggests that goods may have been moved in anticipation of confrontation. This indicates a possible attempt to retain control over assets or to prevent their seizure by the Council. | |
309 | Sun Set yᵉ Governʳ & Councill to be placed one at yᵉ | At sunset, the Governor and Council ordered that two sentinels be stationed, one at the front door and the other at the back door, to secure the entire storehouse and prevent any attempt to break into it. Instructions were given that Captain Holden, if he appeared, should be allowed to pass in and out freely. After supper had ended, and the two sentinels had left the fort to lodge in Mr Melledge’s chamber near the storehouse, one of them reported that Captain Holden had passed within the storehouse and then came out and went up into Mr Melledge’s chamber. From these circumstances and probabilities, it was believed that Captain Holden had not removed himself from the storehouse during the course of these proceedings, but had remained concealed and silent within it while the Governor and Council were present and throughout the following day. It was further concluded that, after their departure to the fort, he had himself placed the three previously mentioned parcels of goods into the gallery, where they were later found. It was noted that Mr Foxe and the rest of the guard had earlier gone into the gallery to seek entry into the storerooms and to speak with the Black boy if he had been present, but no such goods had been seen there at that time. Interpretations The posting of sentinels at both entrances of the storehouse reflects the imposition of controlled access over a disputed site. This action functioned as a security measure to prevent interference with goods while allowing limited, supervised movement, indicating a balance between enforcement and procedural restraint. The instruction permitting Captain Holden to pass in and out, despite his refusal to comply with orders, shows that the Council did not treat him as formally detained. This suggests that, although his actions were contested, he retained his official standing and was not yet subjected to arrest or confinement. The reference to the “Black boy” indicates the presence of a subordinate labourer or servant associated with the storehouse. The attempt to locate and question him suggests that such individuals could serve as witnesses or sources of information in disputes involving property and administration. Speculations The conclusion that Captain Holden remained concealed within the storehouse suggests that he deliberately avoided direct confrontation while maintaining physical control over the premises. This behaviour implies a strategy of passive resistance, allowing him to retain influence over the situation without openly defying the armed presence. The later appearance of the goods in the gallery, when they had not been seen earlier, suggests that they were moved after the initial search. This indicates a possible attempt by Captain Holden to reposition the goods in response to the Council’s actions, perhaps to obscure their origin, alter their status, or complicate their recovery. | |
310 | Blank page | ||
311 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Fryday the 5th of March 1686/7 Att Govr James Present The Honble Tho Boyce & Peter Larkin Execuᵗrs of the late Wm Grene James Wakefield saith that he contracted with the sd Executors for sd black Gartner Wakefield saith that the sd black had run away some part of the time Henry King sworne saith that James Wakefield did swear if the sd Ordered Wakefield fined Ten shillings for having sworne & yt he do deliver to the sd Execuᵗrs the sd black & that he do pay the Gregory Field | A consultation was held at St Helena on 5 March 1687 at the Governor’s residence. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Major, William Bacheler, and Christopher Eto Wyse. Thomas Boyce and Peter Larkin, acting as executors of the late William Greene, submitted a complaint against James Wakefield for detaining a black woman without proper title beyond an agreed term. James Wakefield stated that he had contracted with the executors for the black woman for a period of three years. This was denied by the executors, who asserted that Wakefield had first held her for one year, and that by a further agreement he had been allowed her for an additional year, which had now expired. Wakefield further claimed that the black woman had run away for part of the time and that he had received no benefit from her service during that period. He therefore expected compensation from the executors. Henry King, being sworn, testified that Wakefield had declared that if the black woman did not serve the time she had been absent, he would “knock her on the head”. It was ordered that Wakefield be fined 10 s 0 d for swearing, that he deliver the black woman to the executors, and that he pay the costs of the suit. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Wyse. Interpretations The role of executors in this dispute shows that control over labour formed part of an estate’s assets after death. Their authority to reclaim the black woman demonstrates that such labourers were treated as transferable property within inheritance and estate administration. The disagreement over the length of the contract illustrates that agreements for the use of labour were governed by fixed terms, which could be extended by mutual consent. Once the agreed period expired, continued possession without renewed agreement was treated as unlawful detention. The imposition of a fine for swearing indicates that verbal conduct, particularly threats of violence, was subject to formal sanction. This reflects the Council’s role in regulating behaviour as well as adjudicating property disputes. The order to return the black woman and to pay the costs of the suit shows that enforcement combined restitution with financial penalty. This ensured that the prevailing party recovered both the property and the expense incurred in pursuing the claim. | |
312 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday in the forenoon March The Governᵣ made knowne that since the Consultation held on Fryday That the sd Governᵣ had returned answer that when ye Gentleman in the Whereupon it was now considered, debated & concluded That since Capt Holden did neither come to joyne with us in this transacᵗion Therefore It is ordered That ye sd transactions shall be forthwith transmitted to ye Rt Honble Immediately after Dinner this day Mr Melledge acquainted us that Capt | A consultation was held at Fort James on a Monday in the forenoon in March 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Major, and Nathaniel Foxe. The Governor reported that, following the consultation held on the previous Friday concerning the complaint about Captain Holden seizing and detaining a cask of arrack from him and Mr Eysk, Captain Holden had sent a request through Mr Melledge, one of the soldiers, to obtain a copy of the Council’s record of the proceedings in that matter. The Governor had replied that an answer would be given when those members of the government who had conducted that business met again. The matter was then considered, debated, and resolved. It was noted that Captain Holden had neither attended the proceedings nor provided any explanation for his actions. He had declared that the Governor and Council had no authority over him or his affairs. He was described as being ignorant of the representations made against him and as having withdrawn himself from their company both in Council and at meals. It was therefore ordered that the record of the transactions should be transmitted without delay to the Right Honourable Company, described as their masters. It was further ordered that the record should not be shown to any other persons, nor should any copy be given, except to those who had participated in the Council and were directly concerned in the matter. Immediately after dinner on the same day, Mr Melledge informed the Council that Captain Holden had renewed his request for a copy of the record concerning the seizure and detention of Mr Eysk’s arrack. He added that Captain Holden had stated that unless [...] Interpretations The decision to transmit the record directly to the East India Company demonstrates the hierarchical structure of authority on the island. The Governor and Council acted under the Company’s oversight, and unresolved disputes, especially those involving jurisdiction, were escalated to it for final determination. The refusal to provide copies of the proceedings reflects control over official records as an instrument of authority. By restricting access, the Council maintained procedural advantage and prevented the opposing party from using the record to challenge their actions or prepare a defence outside their supervision. Captain Holden’s withdrawal from Council and communal meals indicates a deliberate separation from the governing body. In this context, such withdrawal functioned as a rejection of collective authority and a refusal to participate in the administrative and social structures that reinforced governance. The use of a soldier, Mr Melledge, as an intermediary for communication shows the reliance on military personnel in administrative processes. This reflects the integration of civil and military roles within the island’s governance, where enforcement and communication were often carried out through the same personnel. Speculations The decision to deny Captain Holden access to the record while sending it to the East India Company suggests that the Council intended to control the narrative presented to higher authority. This implies concern that allowing him access might enable him to construct a competing account or undermine their position before the Company. Captain Holden’s repeated requests for the record indicate that he sought formal documentation of the proceedings, possibly to defend his actions or to prepare an appeal. His persistence suggests that he recognised the importance of written records in determining accountability and authority within the Company’s system. | |
313 | he lookt upon yᵉ answer to his desire at ſirſt time from yᵉ Governᵣ The Consultation continued in yᵉ afternoon Ordered That yᵉ Governᵣ & Councill do hold a Seſsions for Oyer & terminer on Ordered That a time of putting to Sale ſome of yᵉ Honble Companys Gregory Field | Captain Holden’s further message was reported, in which he stated that he regarded the Governor’s earlier reply to his request for a copy of the proceedings not merely as a delay but as a denial. Despite this, he had chosen to renew his request. It was also conveyed that he had declared that, if the copy were refused, he would demand it before the Court of Ships, which, he suggested, would bring discredit upon the Governor and Council. In response, the Governor was asked to read aloud the previously agreed resolution concerning the matter. After this was done, Mr Melledge was ordered to inform Captain Holden of that decision. The consultation then continued in the afternoon, at which time Mr Thomas Foxe was present and joined in the proceedings. It was ordered that the Governor and Council should hold a sessions of Oyer and Terminer at Fort James on Wednesday 16 March 1687. It was further ordered that a proclamation of this sessions be made on the following Wednesday. It was also ordered that a time be considered for putting some of the Honourable Company’s effects to sale, this matter to be addressed when the Court of Oyer and Terminer was held on 16 March 1687. The record was signed by Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Wyse. Interpretations The reference to a Court of Ships indicates an alternative judicial forum associated with maritime authority. Captain Holden’s threat to appeal to such a court suggests that disputes involving goods, shipping, or trade could be taken beyond the island’s civil administration into a jurisdiction connected with naval or commercial law. The holding of a sessions of Oyer and Terminer reflects the formal exercise of judicial authority by the Governor and Council. This type of court was convened to hear and determine serious matters, demonstrating that the Council operated not only as an administrative body but also as a court with full legal powers. The requirement for a public proclamation of the sessions shows the procedural necessity of notifying inhabitants of forthcoming judicial proceedings. This ensured that parties, witnesses, and interested persons were aware and could attend, reinforcing the legitimacy of the court’s actions. The consideration of selling the Honourable Company’s effects indicates the management of corporate assets by the governing authority. Such sales were likely used to convert goods into funds or to dispose of surplus or disputed property under official supervision. | |
314 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the 17 of Cecilia Taiter Marshall petitioning to be dismissed out of ye Honble Companys pay It was Severally debated & ye scarcity of ye Garrison considered which hath It is ordered That ye sd Taiter be dismissed out of ye Honble Companys pay and The Honble Companys Servants now in ye haveing many Affairs in this Island | A consultation was held at Fort James on 17 March 1687 in the afternoon. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Ensign, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Foxe. Cecilia Taiter, a marshal, submitted a petition requesting dismissal from the Honourable Company’s pay and service, so that he might return to England on the next ship arriving from India. He declared his willingness to make satisfaction for the remainder of his contracted term, which had not yet expired. The matter was debated individually, and the scarcity of the garrison was taken into consideration. This shortage was attributed not so much to death as to soldiers, formerly seamen, absconding secretly with uncertain prospects of success. It was further observed that similar attempts might occur in the future, which could reduce their numbers further. It was also noted that Taiter had on several previous occasions, and again recently, suffered disturbances of mind described as phrenetic. Concern was expressed that his condition might worsen and render him entirely unfit for service. It was therefore ordered that Taiter be dismissed from the Honourable Company’s pay and service on the next pay day, which was set for Thursday 21 April 1687, or earlier upon the arrival of the first English ship from India. This dismissal was made conditional upon his paying, or causing to be paid, the sum of £5 0s 0d to the use of the Honourable Company. This sum was required in compensation for the cost of his transportation to the island and for not completing half of his contracted term. It was further noted that the Company’s servants then present had many affairs to manage on the island which were considered appropriate for [...] Interpretations The requirement that Taiter pay £5 0s 0d upon dismissal reflects a contractual system in which the cost of transportation to the island was treated as an advance to be repaid if service was not completed. This mechanism ensured that the Company could recover expenses when labour obligations were not fulfilled. The discussion of garrison shortages caused by clandestine desertion shows that military manpower was unstable and difficult to maintain. The reference to soldiers formerly being seamen indicates that personnel were drawn from maritime labour, and that their familiarity with ships may have facilitated escape. The consideration of Taiter’s mental condition as a factor in the decision demonstrates that serviceability was assessed not only in physical terms but also in mental fitness. The Council’s concern reflects an administrative interest in maintaining an effective workforce rather than retaining individuals unable to perform their duties. The conditional timing of dismissal, tied either to a fixed pay day or the arrival of a ship, shows that departures were regulated in accordance with both financial cycles and shipping schedules. This reflects the logistical constraints of an isolated settlement dependent on periodic maritime connections. Speculations The requirement for payment in lieu of incomplete service suggests that the Council sought to deter premature departure while still allowing flexibility in exceptional cases. In this instance, Taiter’s condition appears to have justified release, but only under terms that protected the Company’s financial interests. The emphasis on potential future desertions indicates concern that granting dismissal might encourage others to seek release or attempt escape. The structured conditions attached to Taiter’s departure suggest that the Council aimed to control this risk by formalising the process rather than allowing informal or unauthorised departures. | |
315 | It is ordered That on Monday the 30ᵗʰ of this Instant March some of And also it is ordered That a proclamation be forthwith issued forth, requiring all Upon Consideration of Information given by Elizabeth the wife of It is ordered That the sd Tho: Tovallace & also John Peffin & such others that have Gregory Field | It was ordered that on Monday 30 March 1687 some of the Honourable Company’s goods should be publicly exposed for sale by outcry at or near Fort James. It was further ordered that an advertisement be issued without delay so that all persons might have notice of the sale. It was also ordered that a proclamation be issued immediately requiring all inhabitants to submit a true list of their menservants, men, women, and children, both black and white, together with all their stock of neat cattle and the land each person held or had held during the previous year. These returns were to be delivered to the Sessions House on the same Wednesday 30 March 1687. Upon consideration of information given by Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas Tovallace, concerning certain felonious crimes committed by her husband and by John Peffin, it was ordered that Thomas Tovallace, John Peffin, and any others who had spoken of or had knowledge of the alleged felonies should be summoned without delay to appear before the Governor and Council. They were to be questioned and examined on the matter so that the truth might be established, in order that a legal trial could proceed once the facts had been made sufficiently clear. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Wyse. Interpretations The public sale of Company goods “by outcry” refers to an auction conducted openly, where goods were sold to the highest bidder through verbal bidding. This method ensured transparency and allowed the Company to realise value from its assets in a regulated manner. The requirement for inhabitants to submit detailed lists of persons, livestock, and land demonstrates a comprehensive administrative survey. This functioned as a mechanism of governance, enabling the authorities to assess population, labour resources, agricultural capacity, and property distribution for purposes such as taxation, provisioning, and control. The inclusion of both black and white individuals in the required returns indicates that all categories of labour and dependency were subject to official record. This reflects the structured oversight of both free and unfree populations within the island’s administration. The summoning of individuals for examination before trial shows that preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Governor and Council. This process served to gather evidence and determine whether sufficient grounds existed for a formal legal proceeding. Speculations The ordering of a general return of people, cattle, and land at the same time as a public sale of Company goods suggests a coordinated effort to reassess and regulate the island’s economic and social resources. This implies that the administration may have been responding to concerns about resource distribution, labour availability, or financial needs. The immediate summoning of multiple individuals in relation to reported felonies indicates that the authorities sought to act quickly to prevent concealment or collusion. This suggests that the alleged crimes were considered serious enough to require prompt investigation before evidence or testimony could be compromised. | |
316 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Wednesday the Thirtieth The first thing considered was the appointing a day for the Governᵣ & Councill to And it was agreed & ordered That Friday the 15ᵗʰ of Aprill next the Governᵣ & Councill do meet at this place Likewise It is Ordered That in the same proclamation the Inhabitants have Advertisement to chuse Also It was concluded & agreed That as soon as the Inhabitants have given in their acct this day of Adjourned to Sessions house Where the Governᵣ & Councill being entered upon & every body in takeing [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 30 March 1687 in the forenoon. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Foxe. The first matter considered was the appointment of a day for the Governor and Council to meet to hear and determine causes, suits, and controversies brought by the inhabitants. This followed a practice that had been used previously, linked to the soldiers’ pay day, which was due on Thursday 21 April 1687. It was agreed and ordered that the Governor and Council should meet at Fort James on Friday 15 April 1687 to decide all such matters. It was further ordered that public notice of this should be given that same day. It was also ordered that, within the same proclamation, the inhabitants should be instructed to choose, before 15 April 1687, persons to be nominated for local offices. Three persons were to be nominated for churchwardens and four for overseers of the highways for the year 1687. These names were to be presented to the Governor and Council on that day for approval. From those nominated, individuals would be selected and appointed to office. Upon giving an account of their responsibilities, those approved would then be discharged. It was further concluded and agreed that, as soon as the inhabitants had submitted their accounts that day of their families, lands, and neat cattle, a proclamation should be issued requiring the prompt payment of the Honourable Company’s revenue arising from land and stock for the year 1686. This payment was to be made to Captain Robert Holden, who was described as storekeeper, keeper, and customer. The consultation was then adjourned to the Sessions House. When the Governor and Council had entered, and while the inhabitants were assembling and taking notice, it was reported that a paper or proclamation had just been affixed to the window or side of the Sessions House, subscribed by Robert Holden as Receiver General. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The scheduling of regular sessions tied to the soldiers’ pay cycle shows that administrative and judicial activity was organised around financial and logistical rhythms. This arrangement ensured that inhabitants were present and that resources were available when disputes were heard. The requirement for inhabitants to nominate candidates for churchwardens and overseers of highways reflects a system of local governance in which the population participated in selecting officers, but final authority of appointment remained with the Governor and Council. This demonstrates a controlled form of community involvement within a hierarchical structure. The obligation to submit accounts of families, land, and cattle functioned as a basis for assessing revenue. By linking these returns directly to a subsequent demand for payment, the administration ensured that taxation was grounded in declared holdings and resources. The designation of Captain Holden as storekeeper, keeper, and customer indicates that multiple administrative and financial roles could be held by a single individual. This concentration of responsibilities placed significant control over goods, revenue, and storage within one office. The appearance of a separate proclamation issued by Captain Holden as Receiver General suggests the existence of overlapping or competing claims to authority in financial administration. This reflects the ongoing conflict between him and the Governor and Council regarding jurisdiction and control. Speculations The coordination of judicial sessions, local office nominations, and revenue collection within the same period suggests a deliberate effort to consolidate administrative control and oversight. This implies that the Governor and Council were attempting to regularise governance after recent disputes. The posting of a proclamation by Captain Holden at the same moment that the Council convened indicates a possible attempt to assert independent authority or to influence proceedings. This action suggests that he was actively challenging the Council’s control over public communication and financial administration. | |
317 | The Governᵣ & Councill not knowing the Contents and Importance of the Whereupon It was agreed & ordered That ye sd paper be speedily taken downe, & brought to ye Governᵣ The paper being read, & seriously considered the time & place & the It was Ordered That ye sd paper be not suffered to stand up any more & that the As to their paying it was in mean for their Blacks enumerated in the | The Governor and Council, not knowing the contents or significance of the paper, nor the identity of the person who had wished to read it, permitted it to be examined. When it was brought to them, it was found to be in the nature of a declaration issued by Captain Robert Holden and directed to all the inhabitants of the island. Its purpose was to signify his intention to summon all inhabitants before him in order to collect the proprietors’ revenues arising from land, cattle, and slaves in arrears. This was done without reference to, or regard for, the authority of the Governor and Council, and it included remarks that were taken as reflective or critical of them. It was therefore agreed and ordered that the paper should be immediately taken down and brought before the Governor and Council while they were in session. This was carried out without delay. It was further considered necessary that no summons be issued to the inhabitants on that same day, in order to avoid confusion or distraction arising from the ongoing dispute, which had already caused disturbance on several occasions. After the paper had been read and carefully considered, including the time, place, and manner in which it had been posted, it was ordered that it should not be permitted to remain displayed and that the inhabitants should not be misled by it. It was affirmed that Captain Robert Holden, in his capacity as storekeeper and Receiver General of the customs, should receive payments only in accordance with a previous resolution. A proclamation was therefore ordered to be issued immediately by the Governor, declaring that the Governor and Council, as magistrates, required all inhabitants to pay their revenue arising from land and cattle for the year 1686 to Captain Holden within a short time, and that they should prepare themselves accordingly. With regard to payments connected to slaves, reference was made to an earlier order recorded in the “5000 paper”. By that order, those who held five slaves were required to provide one white man to attend in cases of alarm, or alternatively to pay a sum of 2 yearly. Those holding a smaller number of slaves were required to pay a yearly sum for each slave. Although this order had been frequently cited, it was noted that, in view of present circumstances, the matter, along with others, had been referred to the Honourable Company in a recent letter from the Governor and Council, requesting further instructions. Consideration of this requirement was therefore deferred until such direction should be received. Interpretations Captain Holden’s declaration attempting to summon inhabitants independently demonstrates a competing claim to fiscal authority. By asserting the right to collect revenues without reference to the Governor and Council, he was effectively challenging the established administrative hierarchy. The removal of the posted declaration reflects control over public communication as a function of governance. By preventing its display, the Council acted to suppress alternative directives that might undermine their authority or create uncertainty among the inhabitants. The reaffirmation that revenue should still be paid to Captain Holden, but only under the Council’s authority, shows a distinction between office and jurisdiction. While his role as Receiver General was recognised, his actions were constrained within the framework determined by the governing body. The reference to the requirement for those holding slaves to provide a white man for alarm duty or to pay a financial substitute reveals a system in which labour and defence obligations were linked. This arrangement functioned as both a military and fiscal mechanism, integrating population structure into the island’s defensive organisation. The deferral of enforcement pending instructions from the East India Company illustrates the dependency of local governance on higher authority. It shows that, in cases of uncertainty or dispute, ultimate direction was expected from the Company. Speculations The simultaneous suppression of Captain Holden’s declaration and the issuance of a proclamation requiring payment to him suggests that the Council aimed to retain administrative control while avoiding disruption to revenue collection. This indicates an attempt to separate the individual’s contested authority from the necessity of maintaining financial flows. The reference to prior disputes and the decision to avoid summoning inhabitants immediately imply concern that conflicting orders could provoke disorder. This suggests that the Council sought to prevent escalation by controlling both the timing and form of public directives. | |
318 | Ship from England, & if the sd Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ do approve it they may Copy of the fore paper set up (all men upon the sd Capt Island St Helena March 30ᵗʰ 1687 By Vertue of a Commission derived to me from the Right Honᵇˡᵉ By Vertue whereof (not by any order of Proclamation published Robt Holden Receiver Genᵗ An acct being taken of ye Planters, families, Cattle & Land, the Consul- | The Governor and Council declared that, upon the arrival of a ship from England, and if the Honourable Company approved the measures that had been proposed, the inhabitants should then yield obedience to them. This declaration was made to a considerable number of the inhabitants, who were observed to be quiet and peaceably disposed. A copy of the paper that had been set up by Captain Robert Holden was then recorded. It was dated 30 March 1687 and addressed to all the inhabitants of the island of St Helena. In it, Holden stated that, by virtue of a commission derived from the Right Honourable the Lords Proprietors of the island, dated 30 June 1680, and by earlier instructions and orders sent by Mr Thomas [...], whose hand he recognised, as well as by provisions of 1683, he had been appointed Governor and Receiver General of all their revenues and customs within the island. By this authority, and not by any order or proclamation issued by the government then in place, he gave notice to all inhabitants that, thirteen days after the date of the declaration, he would begin collecting the proprietors’ revenues in arrears for land and cattle, and also for slaves where an English man had not been maintained to attend alarms for each such slave, in accordance with the proprietors’ orders. He asserted that this requirement had previously been neglected by those who had assumed the collection of revenues in earlier years. He further advised all soldiers and others in service to be prepared with money by the appointed time, in order to avoid damage arising from non-payment, as the notice was given in advance to allow preparation. The declaration was signed by Robert Holden as Receiver General. An account was then taken of the planters, their families, cattle, and land. The consultation was thereafter adjourned until 2 o’clock in the afternoon for the purpose of proceeding with the previously ordered public sale of the Honourable Company’s effects by outcry. The record then breaks off. Interpretations Captain Holden’s claim to authority derived from the Lords Proprietors, rather than from the Governor and Council, reflects a competing legal foundation for governance on the island. This indicates a conflict between proprietary authority and the Company’s established administrative structure. The assertion that he acted “not by any order of proclamation published State Authority here” shows a deliberate rejection of the local governing body’s jurisdiction. This statement functioned as a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Governor and Council’s authority. The requirement that inhabitants either maintain an English man for alarm duty or pay in respect of each slave demonstrates a system in which labour ownership carried obligations for defence or financial contribution. This mechanism linked economic resources to military readiness and fiscal extraction. The advance notice of thirteen days before collection began reflects an administrative practice intended to ensure compliance while limiting claims of unfair enforcement. By setting a defined period, the authority issuing the order established a clear expectation of readiness and accountability. Speculations Captain Holden’s emphasis on his independent commission and his rejection of local authority suggests that he was attempting to establish an alternative chain of command over revenue collection. This indicates a strategic effort to assert control over financial resources, which were central to governance on the island. The timing of his declaration, coinciding with the Council’s own administrative actions, suggests an attempt to influence or disrupt their authority. By addressing the inhabitants directly, he appears to have sought to secure their compliance before the Council’s measures could take full effect. | |
319 | Mʳ Beale appeared and desired before ye Compᵃˢ that he might Upon Consideration of many Circumstances & something of It is Ordered That a [...] be done to sd Mr Beales in full & satis- The rest of ye day was spent in Exposing ye Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ To James Dyce planter 1 at 02 00 00 8 £ 27 05 00 [...] | Mr Beale appeared before the Company’s representatives and requested that he should not be subjected to sale, asking instead that he be allowed time to provide the money. When asked how much time he required, he replied that reasons had already been given, though these were not substantiated to the satisfaction of those present. A lengthy debate followed, during which several persons were examined, but none were able to confirm the claims made on behalf of Mr Beale. Allegations were raised concerning abuses connected with him among the Company’s affairs. It was noted that one of the Honourable Company’s slaves had been found among their goods, and another slave had sought remedy from the place from which they had originally come. These circumstances were associated with Mr Beale, though the record is partly illegible. Upon consideration of these circumstances, together with certain presumptions and prior knowledge that Mr Beale had, some years earlier, been involved in two or three similar matters, it was ordered that [...] should be carried out in respect of Mr Beale, in full satisfaction and return to the Company. The remainder of the day was spent in exposing the Honourable Company’s effects for sale by public outcry. The following cattle were sold to the persons named at the respective prices: To James Dyce, planter, one beast at £2 0s 0d The total amounted to £27 5s 0d. The record then breaks off. Interpretations Mr Beale’s request to delay payment and avoid sale indicates that goods or property could be subjected to forced sale to recover debts owed to the Company. This reflects a system in which financial obligations were enforced through the liquidation of assets. The examination of witnesses and reference to prior conduct shows that decisions were influenced not only by immediate evidence but also by reputation and earlier dealings. This suggests that the Council exercised a discretionary form of judgement informed by both testimony and known history. The mention of Company slaves found among goods indicates that labourers were treated as assets subject to control and recovery. Their presence in disputed circumstances could trigger investigation and claims of misuse or misappropriation. The public sale of cattle by outcry demonstrates a structured method for converting Company property into money. This process ensured open competition and maximised returns, while also redistributing assets among the island’s inhabitants. Speculations The inability of witnesses to substantiate Mr Beale’s claims, combined with prior suspicions about his conduct, suggests that the decision against him was shaped by accumulated distrust. This implies that credibility played a decisive role in determining outcomes in disputes involving the Company. The inclusion of slaves in the dispute, alongside goods and cattle, suggests that multiple forms of property were entangled in the case. This indicates that the matter may have involved broader issues of control over Company assets rather than a single isolated claim. | |
320 | It is agreed yt these persons doe accordingly Ordered That Each of them do forthwith enter into a penall bond for to pay This Consultation adjourned untill tomorrow in At a Consultation Continued by Adjournment to this day According to former resolves it was again considered that there is now It is Ordered That 3 proclamations be this day issued forth & published after the | It was agreed that the persons who had purchased cattle should comply with the terms set out. It was ordered that each purchaser should immediately enter into a penal bond to pay the agreed sums for the cattle to the Governor, or to such person as might be appointed by the Honourable Company at Fort James. In the case of Mr Dyce, one week’s time from that date was allowed for the first payment, and the remaining moiety was to be paid on or before 31 October 1687. Interest was to be charged at the rate of 6 per cent for three quarters following delivery. The consultation was then adjourned until the following day in the forenoon, 31 March 1687. A consultation was held by adjournment at Fort James on 31 March 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Foxe. In accordance with earlier resolutions, it was again considered that, upon the expiration of the year 1686, one year’s revenue had become due to the Honourable Company’s proprietors from the inhabitants of the island. This revenue arose from land and cattle, assessed at a rate of land and 3 s per head of cattle. It was ordered that three proclamations should be issued and published that day in the usual manner, requiring all inhabitants to pay, or cause to be paid, to Captain Robert Holden, storekeeper and Receiver General, the sums due from each of them to the Honourable Company for the year 1686. It was further declared that the collection of this revenue would begin twelve days thereafter, on 12 April 1687. It was directed that these proclamations be affixed in three places: one at the Sessions House near Fort James, another in the south room or at the south door of the church, and a third in the country church house. This was done so that all persons attending those places might have notice and comply. Interpretations The requirement that purchasers enter into a penal bond shows that sales on credit were secured through legally enforceable obligations. Such bonds imposed a financial penalty for non-payment, ensuring that the Company could recover the value of goods sold even when immediate payment was not made. The division of payment into an initial sum and a later moiety, with interest charged at 6 per cent, indicates a structured credit arrangement. This reflects the use of deferred payment systems within the island’s economy, allowing transactions to proceed despite limited immediate liquidity. The assessment of revenue at a fixed rate per head of cattle demonstrates a standardised method of taxation based on productive assets. This system enabled predictable revenue collection tied directly to the economic capacity of each inhabitant. The issuance of multiple proclamations in different locations shows the importance of public notice in enforcing compliance. By placing them at central and frequented sites, the administration ensured that obligations were widely known and could not easily be denied. The continued designation of Captain Holden as Receiver General, despite earlier disputes, indicates that his official role in revenue collection remained recognised, even as his authority had been contested in other respects. | |
321 | Elizabeth wife of Tho: Swallowe planter & accused from It is agreed & concluded That there doth not appear sufficient testimony & Evidence in the Therefore It is Ordered That ye further proceedings in order to a publique tryall of ye sd Tho: Information having been given yt Sam Johnson & his wife by the Mr Johnson confessed yt he had done some time since marry It is ordered That ye sd Johnson do not faile to bring or cause to be brought Gregory Field | Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas Swallowe, planter, having been accused, her examination was taken upon oath in accordance with an order made in consultation on 30 March 1687. Her examination was read and carefully considered, together with the several matters and circumstances contained within it. It was agreed and concluded that the depositions and proceedings did not provide sufficient testimony or evidence to support a legal trial or indictment for convicting Thomas Swallowe of the felonies alleged against him. It was therefore ordered that further proceedings towards a public trial of Thomas Swallowe be suspended for the present, and until further order, in the expectation that additional evidence or clearer proof might be obtained to establish his guilt, so that he might be brought to trial and receive appropriate punishment if found deserving. Information was then given that Sam Johnson and his wife, by virtue of his marriage to Elizabeth Gates, had alleged that Mr Gates had made no settlement, contrary to what had been represented to Captain Robert Holden, Governor of the island. Mr Johnson admitted that he had some time previously married Elizabeth Gates, but denied that he possessed any land or cattle. He stated that, before their marriage, she had executed a written assignment of all the land and estate she possessed to the children and heirs of her former husband, for the benefit of her children. When required to produce this document, he stated that, being on duty at Flagstaff, he had not brought it but promised to produce it at the next session of the Council. It was ordered that Johnson should not fail to bring, or cause to be brought, the said writing at the next session of the Council, which was to be held on Friday 15 April 1687. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Foxe. Interpretations The suspension of proceedings against Thomas Swallowe demonstrates that formal trials required a threshold of evidence before indictment. The Council acted as a preliminary examining body, ensuring that accusations were supported by sufficient proof before committing a case to full trial. The reliance on sworn examination indicates the importance of oath-based testimony as a primary evidentiary standard. Statements made under oath carried legal weight and formed the basis upon which decisions about prosecution were made. The reference to a written assignment of property before marriage shows that property rights could be formally transferred to protect inheritance claims. This mechanism allowed a woman to secure assets for her children from a previous marriage, preventing them from passing into the control of a new husband. The requirement that Johnson produce the written assignment reflects the evidentiary role of documents in disputes over property. Written instruments were treated as authoritative proof of ownership and were necessary to substantiate claims regarding land and estate. Speculations The decision to suspend proceedings rather than dismiss the case suggests that the Council considered the accusations against Thomas Swallowe to be plausible but insufficiently proven. This indicates a cautious approach, preserving the possibility of prosecution while avoiding premature judgement. Johnson’s explanation that the property had been assigned prior to marriage suggests that the dispute may have arisen from uncertainty or disagreement over inheritance rights. This implies that conflicting claims about ownership were being actively contested and required formal documentation to resolve. | |
322 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Fryday the 15ᵗʰ of Present Jno Blackmore Governᵣ Samuel Johnson late appeared who having bin ordered at the And therefore It is Ordered That a Copy of the sd writing of Alienation be taken & kept in Martha Bolton Widow exhibited a Complaint agᵗ Tho: Swallowe Tho: Swallowe acknowledged ye Debt but saith yt he went to It is Ordered That the sd Tho: Swallowe do pay the sd Widdow Bolton the aforesd The sd Widd Bolton complained of Mr Hemmerson for not paying Geo: Nelson being brought as a witness ye sd Hemmerson declared | A council was held at Fort James on 15 April 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Foxe, and Thomas Foxe. Samuel Johnson appeared, having previously been ordered at the consultation of 31 March 1687 to produce the writing of alienation by which his wife had transferred her estate to her former husband’s children for their use and benefit. He produced the said writing, and it was observed that the children did not appear to be in possession of any land or stock by virtue of his marriage. It was therefore ordered that a copy of the said writing of alienation be taken and entered into the Council book, to be retained for reference on all occasions. Martha Bolton, widow, submitted a complaint against Thomas Swallowe, planter, for non-payment of a debt of 21 s 3 d which had been due for some time. Thomas Swallowe acknowledged the debt and stated that he had gone to her house at the appointed time to pay her in such goods as she had requested, but she had been absent. He now declared his willingness to satisfy the debt in goods or bacon, to which she agreed. It was ordered that Thomas Swallowe should pay the widow Bolton the said debt in kind, namely one dozen fowls valued at 15 s 0 d and eight pounds of bacon valued at 10 s 0 d, to be delivered on the following Wednesday in full satisfaction of the amount due. The widow Bolton also complained against Mr Hemmerson for failure to pay her a debt of £9 0s 0d. George Nelson was brought as a witness, and Mr Hemmerson declared [...] Interpretations The production and recording of the writing of alienation shows the importance of formal documentation in determining property rights. By copying the document into the Council book, the authorities ensured a permanent and authoritative record that could be referred to in future disputes. The observation that the children were not in possession of land or stock despite the alienation suggests that legal transfer did not always correspond with actual control. This indicates that enforcement or recognition of such transfers could depend on further administrative action. The settlement of a monetary debt through goods rather than coin reflects the limited circulation of money on the island. Payment in kind allowed obligations to be discharged using available resources, with agreed values assigned to the goods. The Council’s role in fixing the value of goods and ordering their delivery shows its function in regulating exchanges and enforcing agreements. This ensured that debts were satisfied in a manner considered fair and binding by the governing authority. | |
323 | that she would [...] [...] [...] [...] Hammonds had acknowledged The [...] being sworn saith yt he did hear Mr Hammonds Order That Mr Hammonds do pay unto [...] Mr Dolton the [...] Saile Marshall Exhibited a Sup[...] agst Mr Marsh Dovney Upon Examination [...] doth appear yt the sd Deft And therefore It is Ordered That ye sd [...] Saile & Marsh Dovney do forthwith give each [...] Marsh Dovney complained of Mr Hammonds for Doveton [...] [...] a youth testified yt he did often see Mr Hammonds [...] [...] Goodale say yt they saw a place where the [...] Hammonds & John Doveton alleadged that other hoggs besides [...] [...] & [...] Goodale do both say yt ye ground has [...] | Further proceedings were recorded concerning debts and damage to property. It was reported that Mr Hammonds had acknowledged a debt and that payment had been demanded of him. A witness, being sworn, stated that he had heard Mr Hammonds confess that he owed Mr Dolton the sum of 10 s 0 d, and that Hammonds had invited him to come and take a hog or shoat in satisfaction of the debt, though the matter had not yet been settled. It was ordered that Mr Hammonds should pay to Mr Dolton the said sum, together with damages for delay, on the following morning, and also the costs of the suit. [...] Saile, marshal, submitted a complaint against Mr Marsh Dovney for non-payment of the sum of 10 s 0 d due upon account between them. Upon examination, it appeared that the defendant Saile was in fact indebted to Marsh Dovney in the sum of 10 s 0 d. Marsh Dovney declared his willingness to allow some abatement in the account, provided that he might receive a discharge from Saile. It was therefore ordered that Saile and Marsh Dovney should immediately exchange discharges under their respective hands. Marsh Dovney then complained against Mr Hammonds and John Doveton for damage done to yams in a plantation belonging to Doveton, valued at [...]. A youth testified that he had frequently seen hogs belonging to Mr Hammonds and to Doveton within the plantation, and that he had on several occasions assisted in driving them out. He stated that about 20 of Mr Hammonds’ hogs and 3 of Doveton’s had been found there. Further witnesses stated that they had seen the place where the yams had been destroyed and judged that about 3,000 yams, of approximately one month’s growth, had been spoiled by the hogs. The extent of the damage was estimated at [...]. Mr Hammonds and John Doveton alleged in their defence that other hogs, not belonging to them, had also entered the ground and caused damage, and that the plantation had been open and not properly enclosed. Witnesses responded that the ground had [...]. Interpretations The acknowledgement of debt by Mr Hammonds and the offer to satisfy it with a hog or shoat reflects the common practice of discharging obligations through goods rather than money. This indicates that livestock functioned as a recognised medium of value within the island’s economy. The award of damages in addition to the principal debt shows that delay in payment could incur penalties. This mechanism encouraged timely settlement and compensated the creditor for inconvenience or loss. The exchange of mutual discharges demonstrates a formal method of concluding accounts. By issuing written releases, both parties secured proof that obligations had been settled, preventing future claims. The dispute over damage to yams illustrates the regulation of agricultural property. Livestock owners were held responsible for harm caused by their animals, but liability could be contested if the land was not properly enclosed, indicating shared expectations regarding fencing and land management. The estimation of damage based on the number and growth stage of yams shows an attempt to quantify agricultural loss in economic terms. This reflects an administrative approach to assessing compensation grounded in productivity rather than mere physical destruction. Speculations The defence that the land was not properly enclosed suggests that responsibility for damage may have been contested on the basis of shared duty between landholder and livestock owner. This implies that outcomes in such cases depended not only on proof of damage but also on whether reasonable precautions had been taken. The involvement of multiple witnesses, including a youth who had assisted in driving out the hogs, suggests that the plantation had been repeatedly affected rather than suffering a single incident. This indicates that the damage may have accumulated over time, leading to a more substantial claim. | |
324 | Upon Consideration of the whole Matter That [...] Rich Pan[...] & Mr Doveton do [...] pay Mary wife of Rich [...] complains of Susan Snook planter for detain- Susan Snook acknowledgeth yt ye sd bowl was brought to her Sarah Davington saith yt she carried ye sd bowl of punch to Mr Snook utterly denyes yt he saw ye sd Bowl at his house or yt Mr Marsh being sworn saith yt he was at Mr Snooks house [...] Marsh saying this Mr Snook acknowledged yt she Upon Consideration of the whole Matter it doth not And therefore It is Ordered That ye sd Snook do pay ye cost of suit Mr Marsh planter Exhibited a Complaint agt Mr Draper for | Upon consideration of the whole matter concerning damage to yams, it was ordered that [...] Rich Pan[...] and Mr Doveton should pay the sum of 1 dollar and a half to Mr Marsh for damages and costs of suit. Mary, the wife of Richard [...], submitted a complaint against Susan Snook, planter, for detaining and keeping a lignum vitae bowl which she had delivered to her. Susan Snook acknowledged that the bowl had been brought to her house and that she had returned it to Mrs [...]’s house, which Mrs [...] confirmed. However, it was asserted that upon later demand the bowl had been found again in her own house, filled with punch by her daughter, Sarah Davington, aged about eleven years. Sarah Davington stated that she had carried the bowl of punch to Mrs Snook’s house and had delivered it into Mrs Snook’s own hand. Mr Snook denied entirely that he had seen the bowl at his house or that it had been brought there a second time. Mr Marsh, being sworn, testified that he had been present at Mr Snook’s house on an occasion when the bowl of punch had been brought there. He stated that, when Mrs Snook was about to return the bowl, he had asked her to send another bowl of punch on his account. When she did not do so, he and Mr Marsh went to enquire the reason. Mr Snook then stated that she did not have a bowl as suitable as the one used for the punch, and Mr Marsh observed a silver-tipped lignum vitae bowl standing on a table in the outer room, where several persons were sitting and drinking. Upon this being mentioned, Mr Snook acknowledged that she had possessed only one such silver-tipped lignum vitae bowl. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it did not appear from sufficient witnesses that the bowl had been carried a second time to the Snooks’ house. It was judged more probable that it had been lost from the complainant’s own house. It was therefore ordered that Mrs Snook should pay the costs of the suit. Mr Marsh, planter, submitted a complaint against Mr Draper for money due on account. As the parties were not prepared and Mr Draper was not ready to proceed, the matter was dismissed until the next Council, unless agreement should be reached between them before that time. Interpretations The award of 1 dollar and a half for damages shows that compensation could be assessed in non-sterling currency, indicating the circulation and acceptance of multiple forms of money within the island’s economy. The dispute over the lignum vitae bowl demonstrates the evidentiary importance of witness testimony in resolving claims of property detention. Conflicting accounts required corroboration, and absence of sufficient proof led to judgement based on probability rather than certainty. The imposition of costs on Mrs Snook, despite the claim not being proven, suggests that initiating or prolonging a dispute could result in financial liability. This reflects a mechanism to discourage unsubstantiated or inconclusive claims. The observation and identification of the bowl as “silver-tipped” indicates that distinctive features of property were significant in establishing ownership. Such characteristics served as practical markers in the absence of formal documentation. The adjournment of the debt case between Mr Marsh and Mr Draper shows that the Council allowed time for private settlement. This indicates a preference for resolution by agreement where possible, with formal adjudication reserved for unresolved disputes. Speculations The conclusion that the bowl was more probably lost from the complainant’s own house suggests that the Council weighed inconsistencies in testimony and the absence of clear evidence more heavily than individual assertions. This implies a pragmatic approach to judgement where certainty could not be established. The relatively modest award for damage to the yams, compared with the earlier estimate of destruction, suggests that uncertainty over responsibility or contributing factors, such as the condition of the enclosure, may have led to a reduced assessment of liability. | |
325 | Maria Dolton widdow complaines of James Hatfield Planter for James Hatfield acknowledgeth to many angry words did pass betwixt [...] [...] [...] Sworne saith much evill language It is Ordered That they be dismissed wth Admonition to live more peaceably Jo: Urmale the sd Having made a Contract wth Governr & Upon serious consideration of ye poor mans condition & yt It is Ordered That ye sd Jo: Urmale be now discharged of his former Contract | Maria Dolton, widow, submitted a complaint against James Hatfield, planter, alleging the use of abusive language and scandalous names, and further that he had taken and detained certain clothing which she had lent to him, contrary to a proclamation. James Hatfield acknowledged that many angry words had passed between them, but stated that his conduct had been no worse than hers. He denied entirely that he had used scandalous language or that he had taken any clothing without her consent. [...] [...] [...], being sworn, testified that much ill language had passed between the parties, but nothing material, scandalous, or deserving of damages. It was ordered that both parties be dismissed with an admonition to live more peaceably. John Urmale, having previously entered into a contract with the Governor and Council on behalf of Mr John Sampson for a term of three years as a house carpenter at a rate of 40 s 0 d yearly, submitted a petition for discharge from the contract. He stated that, due to his considerable burdens, having a wife and three young children, and being in a condition of poverty without sufficient clothing, food, or land to cultivate, he was unable to continue under the agreement. Upon serious consideration of his circumstances, and taking into account that work on the house remained unfinished and that completing it would otherwise impose a considerable expense upon the Company, it was ordered that Urmale should be discharged from his former contract. This was granted on condition that he should continue to work for Mr Sampson for the remainder of the term at the same rate, and that he should work for three months without pay in compensation for expenses incurred by Mr Sampson at the time he first entered into service and was settled upon the plantation. Interpretations The dismissal of the dispute with an admonition rather than a penalty shows that minor interpersonal conflicts were addressed through moral regulation rather than formal punishment. This reflects the Council’s role in maintaining social order as well as adjudicating legal claims. The reference to a proclamation governing the taking of clothing indicates that even small-scale exchanges of goods could be subject to regulation. This suggests an attempt to control informal transactions and prevent disputes over possession. The contractual arrangement for John Urmale’s labour demonstrates that skilled work, such as carpentry, was secured through fixed-term agreements with defined wages. Such contracts bound workers to service while providing predictable labour for the Company. The conditional discharge of Urmale shows that contracts could be modified in response to hardship, but not without compensation. The requirement that he continue working and provide additional unpaid labour reflects an effort to balance relief for the individual with the Company’s financial and practical interests. The obligation to work off prior expenses indicates that the cost of establishing a labourer in service was treated as an investment recoverable through labour. This mechanism ensured that the Company or employer did not bear a loss when a contract was altered or terminated early. Speculations The decision to release Urmale from his contract while still requiring continued service suggests that the Council sought to prevent complete loss of labour while addressing his inability to fulfil the original terms. This implies a compromise designed to retain necessary skills while avoiding the consequences of outright abandonment. The emphasis on the unfinished house and the potential cost to the Company indicates that the availability of skilled labour was limited. This suggests that the Council’s decision was influenced not only by Urmale’s condition but also by the practical need to ensure completion of essential building work. | |
326 | Peter Williams planter and Leave petitioned to be entertained as a souldier into the But upon consideration of no place in the Hon[oura]ble Comp[any]s pay is to be Geo: Shearine also Exhibited a Complaint agst Anne Tricket for Stephen Lee the sd being sworn saith yt on last Councill day in com- Chr: Doveton being sworn saith yt he heard Mr Carman say Anne Carman confesseth yt she spake ye same words as to ye Jo: Carman planter being sworn saith yt as he was once coming Jo: [...] lamenth information yt having lost a 2d Cow [...] | Peter Williams, planter, submitted a petition requesting to be received into the Honourable Company’s pay as a soldier, citing his great poverty resulting from a long illness. Upon consideration, it was determined that no place within the Company’s pay was available for damaged soldiers at that time. His petition was therefore refused. George Shearine submitted a complaint against Anne Tricket for defaming him by calling him a rogue and alleging that he had stolen one of the Honourable Company’s horses. Stephen Lee, being sworn, stated that on the last Council day, while in company at [...], he had heard Mr Carman call George Shearine a “thieving rogue” and accuse him of having stolen one of the Company’s horses. He further stated that Carman’s husband had declared that what had been said was false. Christopher Doveton, being sworn, stated that he had heard Mr Carman say on the same Council day that he could send to George Shearine for a horse which he had stolen from the Company. Anne Carman acknowledged that she had spoken words to that effect, but denied any intention that they should be heard publicly. John Carman, planter, being sworn, gave evidence that, while going from his house at High Hill at daybreak to look after his cattle, he had heard the bleating of a calf in the wood, which he supposed to be stolen. He went to investigate and saw two animals in the wood. Following this, he observed George Shearine and another man moving hastily towards Shearine’s house in Doveton’s plantation. He followed their tracks and found signs that a calf had recently been slaughtered, including blood near Shearine’s house. He further stated that, on other occasions, he had seen two men carrying something through Mansfield’s woods on their shoulders, and had heard shots fired at a herd of cattle, after which he saw one beast fall. The men then ran away towards Doveton’s area, and as night approached he did not see them again. He stated that he believed the persons involved to be George Shearine and George Doveton. John [...] also gave information that he had lost a second cow [...]. Interpretations The refusal of Peter Williams’s petition shows that admission to the Company’s pay was limited and regulated, with no provision made for those deemed unfit for service due to illness or incapacity. This reflects a system in which employment was tied directly to physical usefulness. The complaint of defamation demonstrates that spoken accusations of theft could be formally challenged. Reputation was treated as a matter of legal concern, particularly where allegations involved Company property. The reliance on sworn testimony from multiple witnesses shows that legal proceedings depended heavily on personal observation and verbal evidence. The consistency or contradiction of such testimony played a central role in determining outcomes. The detailed account of tracking animals, observing blood, and following movement through plantations and woods indicates that proof of theft could be established through circumstantial evidence, including physical traces and patterns of behaviour. The reference to Company horses and cattle highlights the importance of livestock as valuable assets. Theft or suspected theft of such property was treated as a serious matter requiring formal investigation. Speculations The admission by Anne Carman that she had spoken the accusations, while denying intent for them to be heard, suggests that informal speech could quickly become a matter of formal dispute. This indicates that social tensions and rumours could escalate into legal proceedings when reputations or property were at stake. The detailed observations provided by John Carman, including tracking movements and identifying individuals, suggest that suspicion had developed over repeated incidents rather than a single event. This implies that the accusation against George Shearine may have arisen from an accumulation of perceived irregularities in livestock losses. | |
327 | some time before Christmas last a son man lodged in his house & Anne ye wife of Jo: Carman Exhibited a Complaint agt Anne Mrs Shearine acknowledgeth yt she did say those words & saith yt The sd Shearine complaining of ye sd Carman for scandalizing Carman Acknowledgeth yt she sd those words & for proofe of ye Mrs Felton saith yt ye sd Shearine kept her in her bed Upon very serious consideration of the foregoeing Complts & That altho by the Witnesses there seems to be great ground to suspect Therefore It is Ordered That ye sd Carman do pay unto ye sd Geo: Shearine for da- It is Agreed that Evidence Shearine is guilty of defama- | Further evidence was presented concerning suspicions against George Shearine. It was stated that, some time before Christmas 1686, a certain man had lodged in the deponent’s house, and about eight weeks later he met George Shearine’s black boy. At that time, the man asked the boy who his master was and referred to the killing of a fowl. The boy replied that he had killed a fowl three or four days earlier and had shown the place, where it had been given to hogs and dogs. It was further stated that, on an evening some time before, George Shearine had been seen walking to and fro near his plantation, and that early the next morning his black boy had been found with yams that had been taken or left from another plantation. Anne, the wife of John Carman, submitted a complaint against Anne Denise, the wife of George Shearine, in an action of defamation, alleging that she had called her a whore before the Governor and Council on the previous Council day. Mrs Shearine acknowledged that she had spoken those words, stating that she had heard the allegation reported but could not prove it. She admitted her error and requested pardon. Mrs Shearine also complained against Mrs Carman for defaming her by calling her a thief. Mrs Carman acknowledged that she had used those words and requested that Mrs Felton be heard in support of her claim. Mrs Felton stated that, while she had been confined to her bed in Mrs Shearine’s house, she had observed several matters. Among these, she had found one of her handkerchiefs around the neck of one of Mrs Shearine’s children. Upon careful consideration of these complaints and the evidence presented, it was determined that the accusations and counter-accusations arose from malice, prejudice, and passion. Although the testimony suggested grounds for suspicion regarding George Shearine’s conduct, the evidence was not sufficiently clear or conclusive to prove that he had committed theft or killed any of the Honourable Company’s cattle. It was therefore ordered that Mrs Carman should pay to George Shearine the sum of 3 dollars for damages and costs of suit. It was also agreed that Mrs Shearine had been guilty of defaming Mrs Carman and injuring her reputation. Interpretations The repeated exchange of accusations of theft and sexual misconduct shows that defamation was treated as a matter requiring formal adjudication. Reputation was closely linked to legal standing, and unproven allegations could result in financial penalties. The Council’s distinction between suspicion and proof demonstrates the requirement for clear and positive evidence before a finding of guilt could be made. Even where multiple circumstances suggested wrongdoing, conviction depended on a higher evidentiary standard. The use of monetary damages, here assessed in dollars, indicates that compensation for harm to reputation was quantified and enforced financially. This reflects a system in which personal injury to reputation could be converted into a measurable claim. The acceptance of testimony concerning household observations, such as the presence of a handkerchief, shows that everyday domestic details could be used as evidence in disputes. This illustrates the broad range of material considered relevant in establishing or contesting claims. Speculations The Council’s conclusion that the disputes arose from mutual malice suggests that the parties were engaged in an escalating cycle of accusation. This indicates that legal proceedings were being used not only to resolve grievances but also to counter and retaliate against personal attacks. The finding that suspicion existed against George Shearine, despite the absence of proof, suggests that his reputation may have been damaged informally even without conviction. This implies that social judgement could persist independently of legal determination, influencing future interactions and disputes. | |
328 | Therefore It is Ordered That ye sd Shearine do pay or cause to be pd unto the sd Carman Grace Felton his condition being bound to her good behaviour in a re- The sd [...] [...] Mr Generall Executr complaining of Lieu- [...] [...] [...] Robt Sherriff came being sworn saith yt he remembred yt Robt in It is Ordered That ye sd Lieut Carman do deliver unto ye sd President one another The sd Heavdale planter Complaining of Mrs Rookes & Anne for abuse Anne Rooke saith yt Heavdale gave him very abusive lan- Therefore It is Ordered That they be both severely admonished ye one to take heed unto Tho: Lovelace being bound to the good behaviour by recogni- Whereas severall of ye Inhabitants have sent by John | It was therefore ordered that George Shearine should pay, or cause to be paid, to Mrs Carman the sum of 5 dollars for costs and damages, and that he should acknowledge his fault. Grace Felton, who had been bound to good behaviour by recognizance until that time, appeared and, no new matter having been brought against her, was discharged from that recognizance. A further complaint was made by [...] [...] Mr General Executor against Lieutenant Carman for detaining and keeping a steer belonging to the said executor. Evidence was given by Robert Sherriff, being sworn, who stated that he remembered the steer in question and that it had been taken from [...]. It was ordered that Lieutenant Carman should deliver to the said party another steer of equal value upon demand. Heavdale, planter, complained against Mrs Rooke and Anne for abusing and beating him not long before. Anne Rooke stated that Heavdale had first used abusive language and had assaulted her with his hands. Heavdale denied this, and no proof was produced on either side. It was therefore ordered that both parties be severely admonished, the one to restrain his speech and the other to refrain from violence. Thomas Lovelace, having previously been bound by recognizance to good behaviour until that day, appeared and was discharged from that obligation. He then entered into a new recognizance of £20 0s 0d to appear before the Governor and Council at the next session, or sooner if summoned. Henry Seale and John Carman each entered into recognizances of £10 0s 0d as sureties on his behalf. It was further recorded that several inhabitants had submitted a paper through John Bowman, French warden, in which they nominated John Marshes, Mr Draper, Thomas Dare, and Abraham Wilkinson as candidates for two positions of churchwarden for the year 1687. They also nominated Richard Parmen, George Fielding, and Thomas Heavdale as overseers of the highways. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The order requiring George Shearine to acknowledge fault in addition to paying damages shows that judgement addressed both financial compensation and public reputation. Admission of wrongdoing functioned as a formal restoration of social standing for the injured party. The use of recognizance to bind individuals to good behaviour reflects a preventative legal mechanism. By requiring a financial obligation, the Council ensured future compliance under threat of forfeiture, without imposing immediate punishment. The involvement of sureties in recognizance demonstrates a system of shared responsibility, where others guaranteed an individual’s conduct. This created social pressure for adherence to expected behaviour, as the sureties risked financial loss. The order to replace a steer with another of equal value indicates that restitution in kind was an accepted remedy for disputes over livestock. This ensured that loss was compensated directly with equivalent property rather than requiring monetary valuation alone. The nomination of churchwardens and overseers by inhabitants, subject to approval, reflects a structured process of local governance. This combined community participation with oversight by the Governor and Council, maintaining control over appointments while allowing input from the population. Speculations The requirement that Shearine acknowledge his fault suggests that the Council aimed to resolve ongoing hostility by compelling a public concession. This indicates that restoring social harmony was considered as important as awarding damages. The renewal of Thomas Lovelace’s recognizance, despite his discharge, suggests that there remained concern about his future conduct. This implies that prior behaviour had established a pattern warranting continued supervision rather than complete release. The submission of multiple nominees for local offices suggests that there may have been competing interests within the community. This indicates that the Council’s role in selecting from among nominees was intended to manage potential divisions and ensure suitable appointments. | |
329 | the high way for the sd year It is Ordered That Mr Draper & Tho Dare be appointed Church Wardens Whereas the Councill hath for Orphans left by Mrs March It is now Agreed & Ordered That Edm Sumner planter be hereby Appointed Steward And this order and agreement to be entered into the [...] | It was ordered that Mr Draper and Thomas Dare be appointed churchwardens for the year 1687, and that William Hedges and Richard Gurling be appointed overseers of the highways for the same year. It was further noted that, following the death of Mrs March, provision had previously been made by the Council for the care of orphans. It had been ordered that John Wills should continue as clerk to the stock and estate of the Moore orphans until Midsummer Day 1687, or until another person should be appointed. It was now agreed and ordered that Edmund Sumner, planter, be appointed steward of the stock and estate of all the said Moore orphans for the year 1687. He was to assist Richard Stacey in managing these matters and was to receive 40 s 0 d at the end of the year for his service. It was also ordered that this agreement be entered into the Council book for orphans, following the entry of the Council held on 16 March 1687. The record was signed by Gregory Field and Ralph Far[...]. Interpretations The appointment of churchwardens and overseers of highways shows the structured allocation of local administrative responsibilities. These roles were essential for maintaining religious organisation and infrastructure, and their appointment by the Council reflects central oversight of community functions. The management of the Moore orphans’ estate demonstrates that the Council assumed responsibility for safeguarding the property of minors. This indicates an institutional role in overseeing inheritance and ensuring that assets were preserved for those not yet able to manage them. The distinction between the clerk and the steward in managing the orphans’ estate suggests a division of administrative duties. The clerk maintained records, while the steward exercised practical control over stock and property, showing an organised approach to estate management. The payment of 40 s 0 d for stewardship indicates that such responsibilities were compensated, reflecting the recognition of estate management as a formal and valued service within the island’s administration. The requirement to record the order in a specific Council book for orphans shows the existence of specialised records. This reflects an administrative system in which different categories of governance were documented separately for reference and accountability. Speculations The appointment of a steward to assist in managing the orphans’ estate suggests that the responsibilities had become too extensive for a single individual. This implies that the estate may have been of sufficient size or complexity to require additional oversight. The continuation of John Wills as clerk until a replacement was appointed indicates a transitional arrangement. This suggests that the Council sought to maintain continuity in record-keeping while reorganising the management of the orphans’ affairs. | |
330 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Saturday ye 23 of Present Mr Blackmore Governor Mr Barbowne (one of ye writers) informed yt yesterday being Upon very serious Consideration of this Message & It was Concluded & Agreed That Mr Barbowne should imediately repaire to Capt Holden | A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 April 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Ralph Care, and Mr Barbowne, one of the writers. Mr Barbowne reported that, on the previous day, he had received a message from Mr Relinge, also one of the writers, stating that Captain Holden wished to speak with him as soon as possible. He had therefore gone from the fort to the storehouse, where Captain Holden was present. Holden instructed him to inform the Governor and Council that, since they had impeded him in collecting the customs and in executing his commission, he would no longer proceed in that collection. He added that, if his commission were produced, they might then proceed, as he had been informed that some of the inhabitants, following remarks made in the presence of the Governor and Council, had declared that they would not obey his orders until they had seen the Company’s instructions. He further stated that the Governor and Council had not provided such instructions. In order to avoid affront or disrespect, he declared that he would not continue in the execution of his commission for the collection of customs. Upon serious consideration of this message and its nature and implications, it was concluded and agreed that Mr Barbowne should immediately return to Captain Holden and inform him that the Governor and Council did not consider that they had impeded him in the collection of customs or in the execution of his commission, and that he was acting under authority entrusted to him by the Honourable Company. | |
331 | the Honble Compy to informe yt service & it was his duty & not Mr Barbowne G B[...][...] Memorandum That ye Office of ye Councill book | The Governor and Council directed that Captain Holden be informed that it was the responsibility of the Honourable Company, not theirs, to provide instructions concerning his commission. They stated that it was his duty, not theirs, to produce such authority, and that they could not accept power or orders from him, nor act as his deputies. It was therefore declared that he ought to proceed with the collection of customs as he had previously done, there being an established practice to that effect. It was further stated that, if he feared affront or refusal from the inhabitants, he should nevertheless continue in his duty, and that any refusal of obedience would be at his own risk and responsibility. Mr Barbowne returned shortly afterwards and reported that he had delivered this message to Captain Holden. Holden replied that he would no longer involve himself in the matter and that the Company should determine who was in the wrong. He further stated that he would send for his money and would not expect to receive it from the island through Mr Barbowne, or words to that effect. The record was signed by Gregory Field and Ralph Care. A memorandum was then entered stating that the Council book and associated papers had been placed in the custody of John Combes for transmission aboard His Majesty’s ship Phoenix, commanded by Captain John Gybbes, in May 1687. Interpretations The exchange between the Governor and Council and Captain Holden demonstrates a dispute over administrative responsibility, particularly regarding the production of authority. The Council asserted that the burden of proving commission rested with the officer claiming it, reinforcing their position as the governing authority on the island. The insistence that Holden continue collecting customs despite anticipated resistance shows that official duties were expected to be carried out regardless of local opposition. Responsibility for enforcement and its consequences was placed upon the individual officer. Holden’s refusal to continue and his appeal to the Company as the ultimate judge illustrates the hierarchical structure of authority, where unresolved conflicts were escalated to higher command rather than settled locally. The memorandum concerning the transfer of the Council book and papers indicates the importance of documentary records. Their dispatch aboard Phoenix reflects the practice of communicating official proceedings to higher authorities for review, oversight, and decision. Speculations Holden’s decision to withdraw from collecting customs suggests that he sought to avoid personal liability in a situation where his authority was being openly challenged. This implies that uncertainty over jurisdiction created practical risks for officials carrying out their duties. The transmission of the Council records aboard Phoenix suggests that the dispute had reached a level requiring external resolution. This indicates that the local administration anticipated judgement or intervention from higher authority to settle the conflict over control of customs and governance. | |
332 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Fryday the 6th of May 1687 Capt Robt Adair informed yt the ship Providence arrived It is Ordered That the said ten slaves be received by ye sd Capt Adair & upon G B[...][...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 6 May 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, and Mr Ralph Care. Captain Robert Adair reported that the ship Providence had arrived in the road and had brought ten black slaves from India. He stated that these slaves had been carried at the charge of those on board and that, being in a position of need, he had brought them without prior order from the Council concerning their reception. The matter was debated as to whether they ought to be accepted. Captain Adair then produced an order under the Company’s seal, sent to him by Captain Adair while he was serving as an officer at Madras, authorising him to receive the slaves and sell them to the Company at St Helena. It was also considered that, according to the instructions brought by Thomas Grantham, particularly the twenty-fourth paragraph, no further slaves were to be sent from the factory in India to the island. It was ordered that the ten slaves should be received by Captain Adair on behalf of the Company and, upon their arrival, should be taken into the Company’s service. They were to be employed on the Honourable Company’s plantation until further order. The order was signed by Gregory Field and Ralph Care. Interpretations The production of an order under the Company’s seal demonstrates the importance of written authority in validating actions taken across different locations. Such documents served as formal proof that transactions or decisions made elsewhere were to be recognised locally. The debate over whether to receive the slaves reflects the tension between prior instructions and immediate circumstances. The Council was required to balance standing prohibitions against the presence of goods already delivered under authorised conditions. The reference to instructions forbidding further importation indicates that labour supply was subject to central regulation. This suggests that decisions about the number and movement of slaves were controlled at a higher administrative level. The decision to employ the slaves on the Company’s plantation shows that labour was directly allocated to corporate needs. This reflects the integration of coerced labour into the island’s economic and administrative system. Speculations The acceptance of the slaves despite existing instructions suggests that the Council prioritised the validity of the sealed order and the practical benefit of additional labour. This indicates a willingness to interpret or set aside restrictions when immediate advantage or obligation required it. The assignment of the slaves to plantation work implies that there was a demand for labour within the Company’s operations. This suggests that the prohibition on further imports may have conflicted with local needs, contributing to the decision to accept them. | |
333 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday the 9th of May Present Mr Blackmore Govr Capt Jo: Tyrrell Commander of his Majties ship Phoenix having And one Brian by his wife & Tho Heavdale Brick The sd bills were taken into consideration & the Honble Company Ordered That in regard the sd ship Phoenix is his Majties service in the To John Brian in present payment £ 3 : 18 : 00 G B[...][...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 9 May 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, and Mr Ralph Care. Captain John Tyrrell, commander of His Majesty’s ship Phoenix, having occasion to remain with the Company, requested that satisfaction be made to inhabitants of the island who had provided lodging for his sick men and had carried out work for the ship, as had been done on previous occasions for other vessels in the Company’s service. One Brian, together with his wife, and Thomas Heavdale, bricklayer, submitted two bills signed by Captain Tyrrell. The first amounted to £3 18s 0d for the diet of four sick men, and the second to £3 0s 0d for work performed on the ship’s masts. These bills were considered by the Council. Upon inspection, no standing order for payment of such charges was found, and there was no ready money available for shipping expenses. For this reason, payment was initially questioned. After extended discussion with Captain Tyrrell, it was agreed that, in consideration of the fact that the Phoenix was in His Majesty’s service as well as in the Honourable Company’s service, and had not previously called at the island, the bills should be satisfied in a suitable manner. It was therefore ordered that, since Captain Tyrrell had agreed to satisfy the debts, the total sum of £5 18s 0d should be paid to Brian and the others in the following manner: To John Brian in immediate payment £3 18s 0d The order was signed by Gregory Field and Ralph Care. Interpretations The submission of bills for lodging and labour shows that inhabitants could provide services to visiting ships and expect compensation. This reflects an informal but recognised system of local provisioning and repair support for maritime activity. The hesitation to pay due to lack of standing orders and ready money indicates financial constraints within the island administration. Payments required both authority and available funds, demonstrating the limits of local fiscal capacity. The arrangement to satisfy the debt through a combination of direct payment, allowances, and deductions shows flexibility in financial settlement. Obligations could be balanced through adjustments to existing accounts rather than relying solely on cash. The deduction of sums for duties on land and cattle indicates that outstanding tax liabilities could be offset against payments owed. This reflects an integrated system in which revenue collection and expenditure were closely linked. The involvement of a ship in both royal and Company service highlights overlapping jurisdictions. The decision to pay reflects recognition of obligations arising from both forms of authority. Speculations The decision to settle the bills despite initial hesitation suggests that maintaining good relations with visiting ships was considered important. This implies that cooperation with naval and Company vessels was necessary for the island’s security and supply. The use of deductions for land and cattle duties in the settlement suggests that cash shortages were significant. This indicates that the administration relied on accounting adjustments to manage limited liquidity while still meeting its obligations. | |
334 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Fryday the 20 of May 1687 at the fort James Present Mr Blackmore Governr Jo: Petygrane planter having gone on board the ship Sampson It is Ordered That the sd Petygrane be immediately Committed to prison Jo: Bowman planter who altho he had lycense to go on board It is Ordered That the sd Jo: Bowman be immediately Committed to Prison Geo Brian Planter having gone on board the sd ship Sampson It is Ordered That the sd Geo Brian be also immediately committed to prison After the sd persons had bin in prison & justice however for some Robt Deacon & Wm Price planter were surety for sd G B[...][...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 20 May 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, and Thomas Pyke. John Petygrane, planter, having gone on board the ship Sampson on Thursday last without leave and having remained there overnight, confessed to the offence. It was ordered that he be immediately committed to prison. John Bowman, planter, although having licence to go on board the ship Sampson on the same occasion, had taken his son with him without licence and both had remained there overnight. It was ordered that he also be immediately committed to prison. George Brian, planter, having likewise gone on board the same ship without licence and having remained there overnight until the following morning, was also ordered to be committed to prison. After these persons had been confined for some hours, sureties were provided for their good behaviour and their appearance before the Governor and Council when required. For John Petygrane, John Brian, Thomas Doveton, and Samuel Baker, planters, entered into surety. For John Bowman, Robert Deacon and William Price acted as sureties, and Thomas Goodwin stood surety for John Brian, all undertaking that they should appear when summoned. The record was signed by Gregory Field and Ralph Pyke. Interpretations The requirement for licence to go on board ships demonstrates strict regulation of movement between the island and visiting vessels. This control reflects concern over desertion, unauthorised trade, or communication beyond official oversight. The immediate commitment to prison for breaches of this rule shows that such offences were treated seriously, even when admitted. Detention functioned as an immediate disciplinary response to enforce compliance. The provision of sureties for good behaviour indicates a mechanism by which individuals could be released from custody under financial or personal guarantee. This system placed responsibility on others within the community to ensure future compliance. The inclusion of overnight stay as a factor in the offence suggests that extended contact with ships was particularly sensitive. Such stays may have been associated with risks to order, labour control, or security. Speculations The strict enforcement of licensing for boarding ships suggests that the authorities were attempting to prevent unauthorised departure from the island. This indicates concern over the loss of labour or the possibility of individuals leaving without permission. The acceptance of sureties after only a few hours of imprisonment suggests that the primary purpose of detention was corrective rather than punitive. This implies that the Council aimed to reinforce obedience while allowing offenders to return quickly to their roles within the community. | |
335 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the 11 Present Mr Blackmore Governr Roger Sutton & Geo Shearine Complaines of Geo Palmer The sd Palmer acknowledgeth yt breaking of the sd chest [...] Warburton & Geo were examined but they all denyed Upon the whole matter & the sd Sutton being deposed saith It is Ordered That the sd Palmer do forthwith pay and satisfy the sd Sutton | A consultation was held at Fort James on 11 June 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Mr Ralph Care, and Mr Edm[...]. Roger Sutton and George Shearine submitted a complaint against George Palmer for breaking open a chest during the night after supper and taking from it two bottles of arrack and a quantity of palm liquor. It was further stated that Sutton had found a dollar in his pocket, and that they had gone into the room where Palmer was, where it was suggested that Palmer had placed a large bottle of arrack into the chest during the night. George Palmer acknowledged that he had broken open the chest but denied taking any arrack from it or from any room. He stated that the chest and the quantity of arrack within it belonged to Sutton, and that the dollar had been placed in a bottle of arrack. He further claimed that he had acted as he had already described, and that Samuel Wa[...] and John Taylor could attest that his wife had been present with him, and that they had drunk a quantity of punch together. Warburton and George [...] were examined and denied that they had taken any arrack or interfered with the bottles. They stated that they had only drunk a bowl of punch in the room, which Palmer had prepared from his own arrack, drawn from a small keg. Upon the whole matter, Sutton stated in deposition that he believed a considerable quantity of arrack had been taken from his chest, and also a bottle from his room, though he could not be certain whether his own servant might have taken it earlier, before the dollar had been placed in the bottle. It was ordered that Palmer should immediately pay and satisfy Sutton the sum of 4 s 0 d in compensation for the liquor, and that he be committed to prison for seven days, or until the Governor and Council should grant his release sooner. Interpretations The admission by Palmer that he had broken open the chest demonstrates that forced entry itself constituted an offence, regardless of whether theft could be fully proven. This indicates that property security was protected not only against loss but also against unauthorised access. The uncertainty in Sutton’s testimony regarding the missing arrack shows that compensation could be awarded even where proof of exact loss was incomplete. This reflects a pragmatic approach, where responsibility was inferred from conduct rather than established with precision. The use of a monetary payment of 4 s 0 d in lieu of the liquor indicates that small-scale losses were converted into fixed sums for settlement. This suggests a customary valuation of goods in everyday disputes. The imposition of a fixed term of imprisonment alongside financial compensation demonstrates that both restitution and punishment were applied together. This reflects the Council’s dual role in enforcing order and compensating injured parties. Speculations The decision to impose a relatively small payment despite suspicion of greater loss suggests that uncertainty over the extent of the theft limited the penalty. This implies that the Council sought to balance accountability with the available evidence. The acknowledgement of breaking the chest, combined with denial of theft, suggests that Palmer may have attempted to minimise his culpability while admitting an act that could not be denied. This indicates that partial confession was used as a strategy in responding to accusations. | |
336 | Further It is Ordered That the sd Persons be severely fined for their irregularity & G B[...][...] Island St Helena At a Councill held on Wednesday Present Henry Landy having bin frequently on board the ship George Samuel Wrangham, James Nichol, John Smith & Joseph Upon consideration of Henry Landys confession & submission It is ordered That the sd Henry Landy be for this time forgiven, | It was further ordered that the persons concerned should be severely fined for their irregular conduct and warned not to offend again in the same manner. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Thomas Pyke, and Ralph Care. A council was held at Fort James on 15 June 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Care, and Thomas Pyke. Henry Landy, having frequently gone on board the ships George and Society, was called before the Council. He confessed that he had been on board those ships twice more than he had been permitted and humbly requested pardon, promising not to offend again. When questioned as to who else he had seen on board either vessel, he stated that he had seen Samuel Wrangham, James Nichol, John Smith, and Joseph Wills on board the ship George, and that they had come without licence from the Governor, having been brought in a boat. Samuel Wrangham, James Nichol, John Smith, and Joseph Wills were then called and admitted that they had gone on board the ship George without licence, having been taken there by boat from Butlers Nook Valley. They requested pardon and promised not to repeat the offence. Upon consideration of Henry Landy’s confession and submission, it was ordered that he should be forgiven on this occasion, but that he be severely admonished not to offend again in the same manner. Interpretations The repeated offences of going on board ships without licence indicate that restrictions on contact with vessels were difficult to enforce. The need for repeated admonitions suggests ongoing tension between regulation and practice. The requirement for offenders to confess and request pardon shows that submission to authority could mitigate punishment. This reflects a system in which acknowledgement of wrongdoing influenced the severity of the response. The identification of others involved demonstrates that individuals could be required to provide information about fellow offenders. This indicates a method of extending enforcement through testimony and disclosure. The distinction between forgiveness and formal penalty shows that the Council exercised discretion in sentencing. Minor or repeated offences could be addressed through warning rather than immediate punishment, depending on circumstances. Speculations The decision to forgive Henry Landy, despite repeated breaches, suggests that the Council may have considered his cooperation in naming others as grounds for leniency. This implies that providing information was valued in maintaining control. The continued unauthorised boarding of ships suggests that access to vessels was desirable, possibly for trade, communication, or opportunity to leave the island. This indicates that the restrictions were responding to persistent incentives rather than isolated misconduct. | |
337 | Likewise it is Ordered That Samuell Wrangham, James Nichol But whereas Joseph Wills had not before gotten It is Ordered That the sd Wills be fined one Dollar and Whereas John Coward & Steven Gordon were It is Ordered That each of them be fined one Dollar to the Complaint was made of Francis Deeger planter for Francis Deeger saith that the French ship going and & not approving that he sd Deeger did entertayne It is Ordered That he be cleared for his omission, & admonished Richard Strong & John Doyce being taken Prisoners | It was further ordered that Samuel Wrangham, James Nichol, and John Smith should each be fined 1 dollar to the poor for going on board a ship without licence. As Joseph Wills had not previously committed such an offence, it was ordered that he should be fined 1 dollar and receive an admonition. John Coward and Steven Gordon, having been previously convicted of going on board the ship Sampson without licence and bound to appear before the Council on that day, did appear. It was ordered that each of them should be fined 1 dollar to the Honourable Company’s proprietors, upon payment of which they were to be discharged. A complaint was then made against Francis Deeger, planter, for entertaining a Dutch man who had come from a French ship without the Governor’s knowledge. Deeger stated that, after the French ship had departed, a stranger who appeared to be a Dutchman had come to the fort unknown to him. As the Governor was at dinner, he had not thought it appropriate to report the matter immediately, but did so later in the evening. By that time, the man had fled, and Deeger stated that he had not had the power to detain him. It was determined that Deeger had not knowingly entertained the man in contempt of the government, nor had he kept him for any considerable time. It was therefore ordered that Deeger be cleared of the charge but admonished not to receive any seamen, especially foreigners, from ships in future without first informing the Governor and obtaining licence. Richard Strong and John Doyce, having been taken prisoners during the night, were, for their present release, [...]. Interpretations The imposition of fines directed either to the poor or to the Company’s proprietors shows that penalties served multiple purposes. They could provide relief within the community or contribute directly to the Company’s revenue, depending on the nature of the offence. The distinction in treatment of Joseph Wills, who had not offended previously, demonstrates that prior conduct influenced sentencing. First offences could result in both fine and warning, while repeated offences were treated more strictly. The requirement for prior licence to entertain strangers, particularly foreigners, reflects strict control over contact with outsiders. This indicates concern for security, regulation of movement, and oversight of individuals arriving from ships. The clearing of Deeger while issuing an admonition shows that intent and circumstance were considered in judgement. Failure to report immediately was treated as an omission rather than deliberate misconduct. The obligation for previously convicted individuals to appear before the Council demonstrates ongoing supervision. Compliance with orders, including payment of fines, was necessary to secure discharge from penalties. Speculations The allocation of fines to the poor in some cases suggests that minor offences were used as a means of supporting communal welfare. This implies that enforcement of discipline could also serve a redistributive function within the settlement. The emphasis on licensing and reporting strangers indicates heightened concern about external influence or unauthorised movement. This suggests that the presence of foreign ships and individuals was perceived as a potential risk requiring close regulation. | |
338 | It is ordered That they proceed to make the new way for the Fort Hill aforesd as conveniently & speedily as they can, & yt they take care to mend any other ways where it may be found needfull Alice Phillips brought in the Will of her late deceased husband William Phillips which she proved by two Witnesses, vizt Richard Lawles & Thome At[...] planters & also the Inventory of the sd Estate, appraised by Henry Case and John Draper planters, which being Read It is ordered That the sd Will & Inventory be kept with the rest of the Wills & that she have a Copy of both attested by Mr Do[...] Information was given that Martha Bolton widow had The sd Bolton confesseth the death of the sd black, but Henry Case & John Draper planters having bin desired It is ordered That the said Bolton be strictly admonished to | It was ordered that work should proceed on making a new way for Fort Hill as quickly and conveniently as possible, and that care should also be taken to repair any other roads where needed. Alice Phillips presented the will of her late husband, William Phillips, which she proved by two witnesses, Richard Lawles and Thomas At[...], planters. She also submitted the inventory of the estate, appraised by Henry Case and John Draper, planters. After these were read, it was ordered that the will and inventory be kept with the other wills, and that she be provided with a copy of both, attested by Mr Do[...]. Information was then given that Martha Bolton, widow, had treated one of her slaves, a woman included in the estate inventory, in an unreasonable and cruel manner, and that the slave had recently died. Martha Bolton acknowledged the death but denied that it had been caused by excessive beating. She admitted that she had often corrected the slave in what she described as a moderate manner, particularly for running away for extended periods. She further stated that the slave had once been absent so long that, upon returning, she had been nearly starved, and that this condition might have caused her death. Henry Case and John Draper, planters, having been requested to examine the body, reported that it appeared as though the slave had been thrown down at the back part of the premises, but they could not state that this had caused her death. It was ordered that Martha Bolton be strictly admonished to refrain from all violent and severe treatment of the remaining slaves on her estate. It was further ordered that her surety be charged to ensure that she did not subject them to excessive punishment, overwork, or the withholding of necessary food and clothing, particularly where such treatment might endanger their lives. Interpretations The ordering of road construction and repair shows the Council’s role in directing labour for infrastructure. Such work was treated as a collective responsibility, necessary for movement, defence, and communication within the island. The proving of a will before witnesses demonstrates the formal process required to validate inheritance. By recording the will and inventory, the Council ensured legal recognition of property transfer and preserved a permanent record. The inclusion of slaves within the estate inventory indicates that they were treated as assets subject to valuation and inheritance. This reflects their integration into the legal and economic framework governing property. The examination of the deceased slave’s body by appointed individuals shows that allegations of mistreatment could prompt official inquiry. This reflects a limited form of oversight over the treatment of slaves within private ownership. The admonition issued to Martha Bolton, and the involvement of her surety, indicates that responsibility for conduct could extend beyond the individual to those who guaranteed their behaviour. This created a mechanism for enforcing standards of treatment without immediate punitive measures. Speculations The absence of a formal penalty despite suspicion of harsh treatment suggests that the Council may have lacked sufficient evidence to impose stronger sanctions. This implies that proof requirements constrained intervention even in serious matters. The requirement that Bolton’s surety oversee her conduct suggests concern that the behaviour might continue. This indicates that the Council aimed to prevent further harm through supervision rather than retrospective punishment. | |
339 | Martin King given It is ordered That ye Councill be adjourned untill ye 7th Instant G B[...][...] Island St Helena At a Councill held by Adjournm on Present William Bowman planter having bin formerly convicted It is ordered That the sd William Bowman be fined one Dollar to the William Bowman & John Miller planters & Frances It is ordered That | A council was held at St Helena and then adjourned until 7 June 1687. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Nath[...], and Thomas Pyke. A council was then held by adjournment at Fort James on 27 June 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Care, and Thomas Pyke. William Bowman, planter, having previously been convicted for remaining all night on board the ship Sampson contrary to order, was brought before the Council. It was ordered that he be fined 1 dollar to the poor for the offence, that he should pay the sum immediately, and that he be committed to prison. William Bowman, John Miller, planters, and Frances Rooke appeared in relation to the Governor on behalf of Bowman [...]. Receipts and accounts were examined, and it was found that there remained a sum of £ s d in his possession. It was ordered that [...] Interpretations The adjournment of the Council demonstrates the continuity of proceedings, where matters could be paused and resumed formally at a later date. This reflects an organised administrative process rather than ad hoc decision making. The repeated punishment of William Bowman for the same offence shows that prior conviction did not prevent further sanction if compliance was not achieved. This indicates that enforcement relied on continued oversight and repeated correction. The requirement that the fine be paid immediately, combined with imprisonment, shows that penalties could be both financial and custodial. This ensured that payment was enforced and that the offender was held accountable without delay. The examination of receipts and accounts indicates that financial dealings were subject to review. This reflects the Council’s role in overseeing transactions and ensuring that monies were properly accounted for. Speculations The continued appearance of Bowman before the Council suggests that enforcement of regulations concerning ships required repeated intervention. This implies that such offences were persistent and not easily deterred. The examination of his accounts may indicate that his financial obligations were connected to his offence or prior dealings. This suggests that the Council sought to ensure that all outstanding matters were settled before concluding the case. | |
340 | That they do forthwith pay the sd sum unto John Whereas Charles Spiers Souldier was wounded in the evening It is ordered That a Coroner be presently nominated & appointed That Orlando Bagley be the Coroner & that the Sutton Sneak Which upon being summoned by warrant and they appearing It is ordered That they have the ensuing 2 dayes in Enquiry and view Island St Helena These are in his Majties name strictly to charge & command you whose | It was ordered that the sum in question should be paid immediately to John Draper and Thomas Pyke, planters, for work performed during the present year, and that upon such payment the parties should be discharged. It was then reported that Charles Spiers, a soldier, had been wounded on the evening of Tuesday 21 June 1687 and had died on the following day. It was ordered that a coroner be appointed without delay and that twelve men be summoned to attend with him in order to enquire into the manner of Spiers’s death and by whom it had been caused. Orlando Bagley was appointed coroner, and the following persons were named as jurors in the matter: Sutton Sneak, William Marsh, William Keayes, Edward Blaxford, John Mitchell, Ralph Will, John Long, Thomas Good, Thomas Goodwin senior, Joseph Spiers, son of the deceased Charles Spiers, John Wormall, and Daniel Chappell. Upon being summoned by warrant and appearing at the appointed time, it was ordered that they should have two days to conduct their enquiry and to view the place, in order to carry out their duty under the direction of the Governor and Council. A formal charge was issued in His Majesty’s name, requiring the named jurors to act as a jury and to enquire into the manner of the death of Charles Spiers, who had been wounded in the belly on the evening of Wednesday and had died on Sunday 26 June 1687 about noon, [...]. Interpretations The appointment of a coroner and jury demonstrates the formal procedure followed in cases of suspicious or unexplained death. This reflects the application of structured legal processes to determine cause and responsibility. The requirement that twelve men serve as jurors shows adherence to a recognised model of inquest. Their role was to examine evidence and deliver a finding, indicating a collective approach to establishing facts. The issuing of a warrant in His Majesty’s name underscores the authority under which the enquiry was conducted. This signifies that the investigation was not merely local but carried the weight of royal legal authority. The inclusion of the deceased’s son among the jurors indicates that community members, even those personally connected to the case, could be involved in the process. This suggests a reliance on available inhabitants rather than strict exclusion based on potential interest. The instruction to view the place of the incident shows that physical inspection formed part of the evidentiary process. This reflects an attempt to base conclusions on observation as well as testimony. Speculations The prompt ordering of an inquest suggests that the circumstances of Spiers’s death were considered serious or uncertain. This implies that the wound may have been inflicted under disputed or suspicious conditions requiring formal investigation. The allocation of two days for enquiry indicates that the Council expected a thorough examination rather than a summary judgement. This suggests that the outcome of the case may have had broader implications for discipline or justice within the garrison. | |
341 | you diligently to view his body & wound & to Examine also John Blackmore Sutton Sneak Further it is Ordered That the sd Coroner & Jury be all sworne, for which purpose And when after notice was given that the Coroner and It is ordered That the sd paper be openly read which was done Evidence By vertue of an order of the Governr & Councill | The coroner and jury were instructed diligently to view the body and wound of Charles Spiers and to examine any persons suspected of involvement, as well as any who might have knowledge of the matter. Their task was to ensure that the truth concerning his death might be made fully apparent. They were required to return their findings, together with their opinions and verdict, in writing under their hands to the Governor and Council. This order was issued under the hands and seal of John Blackmore, Gregory Field, Nathaniel Care, and Thomas Pyke, and was also subscribed by the appointed jurors. It was further ordered that the coroner and jury should all be sworn, and that all persons able to provide information or evidence in the matter should be warned to attend and be examined by the coroner. Notice having been given, the coroner and jury assembled and were sworn accordingly. The coroner then produced a written report, subscribed by himself and all the jurors. It was ordered that this document be read aloud, which was done, and its contents began with the heading “Evidence” and a statement that, by virtue of the order of the Governor and Council dated 27 June 1687, the following proceedings had been undertaken. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The instruction for the coroner and jury to examine both the body and witnesses shows that inquests combined physical inspection with testimonial evidence. This reflects a structured method of investigation aimed at establishing cause of death through multiple forms of proof. The requirement that the verdict be returned in writing and signed by all participants indicates the importance of formal documentation. Such records ensured accountability and provided an authoritative account of the findings. The swearing of the coroner and jury demonstrates that their role carried legal weight, with obligations enforced by oath. This emphasises the seriousness of the enquiry and the expectation of truthful and impartial judgement. The summoning of all persons with relevant knowledge shows that the process relied on community participation. Information was gathered broadly, rather than limited to a fixed set of witnesses, to ensure that all possible evidence was considered. The public reading of the coroner’s report reflects transparency in proceedings. By making the findings known openly, the Council reinforced the legitimacy of the enquiry and its conclusions. Speculations The detailed instructions given to the coroner and jury suggest that the circumstances of Spiers’s death were uncertain or contested. This implies that the Council anticipated conflicting accounts or difficulty in determining responsibility. The formal and collective nature of the enquiry, including written verdict and sworn participants, indicates that the outcome may have had significant consequences. This suggests that the case could influence discipline within the garrison or relations among those involved. | |
342 | to us Inhabitants of this Island being Impannelled a Orlando Bagley Coroner Sutton Sneak Which being done they did all unanimously declare it to be their Upon consideration of the premisses It is Ordered That John Miller sd be kept in safe custody until | The coroner and jury reported that they, being inhabitants of the island and duly impanelled as a jury of inquest, had viewed the body of Charles Spiers, a soldier in the service and pay of the Honourable Company of English merchants trading to the East Indies, the Lords Proprietors of the island. They stated that they had examined all witnesses who might contribute to their knowledge in order to discover the truth of the matter. Upon mature deliberation and careful consideration, and in the sight of God, they declared that John Miller, also a soldier of the island, was guilty of wilful murder in having inflicted a wound in the belly of Charles Spiers, from which he died. This verdict was signed by Orlando Bagley, coroner, together with Sutton Sneak, William Marsh, William Keayes, Edward Blaxford, John Mitchell, Ralph Will, John Long, Thomas Good, Thomas Goodwin, Joseph Spiers, John Wormall, and Daniel Chappell, on 27 June 1687. The jurors unanimously declared this to be their opinion and verdict, after which they were dismissed with thanks. Upon consideration of these findings, it was ordered that John Miller be kept in safe custody until Wednesday 29 June 1687, and that he be brought on that day to a public trial at the Sessions House before a jury of life and death. It was further ordered that John Wormall should immediately summon fifteen jurors, being freemen, for that trial, and also ensure that all evidence and witnesses be served to appear at the appointed time. Interpretations The verdict of “wilful murder” indicates a formal legal distinction between intentional killing and other forms of homicide. This classification determined that the act was deliberate and subject to the most serious level of prosecution. The reference to the Honourable Company of English merchants trading to the East Indies as Lords Proprietors shows that the Company held both commercial and governing authority over the island. This dual role framed the legal context within which the case was tried. The use of a jury of inquest followed by a separate jury of life and death demonstrates a two-stage judicial process. The first body determined cause and responsibility, while the second was responsible for conducting the formal criminal trial and determining punishment. The requirement that jurors for the trial be freemen indicates that participation in such proceedings was limited to those holding recognised status within the community. This reflects a structured hierarchy in legal participation. The summoning of fifteen jurors and all witnesses shows the scale and formality of the trial process. This ensured that the case would be heard with sufficient representation and evidence, reinforcing the legitimacy of the outcome. Speculations The swift progression from inquest to trial suggests that the evidence against John Miller was considered strong and conclusive. This indicates that the authorities sought to proceed quickly in a serious criminal matter affecting discipline among soldiers. The inclusion of the deceased’s son among the inquest jurors, followed by a separate jury for trial, suggests an attempt to balance practical necessity with procedural fairness. This implies that the second jury was intended to provide a more detached judgement in determining guilt and punishment. | |
343 | to us Inhabitants of this Island being Impannelled a Orlando Bagley Coroner Sutton Sneak Which being done they did all unanimously declare it to be their Upon consideration of the premisses It is Ordered That John Miller sd be kept in safe custody until Hereupon proceeded | The coroner and jury, being inhabitants of the island duly impanelled as a jury of inquest, declared that they had viewed the body of Charles Spiers, a soldier in the service and pay of the Honourable Company of English merchants trading to the East Indies, Lords Proprietors of the island. They stated that they had examined all witnesses who might contribute to a full and clear discovery of the truth concerning the matter. After mature deliberation and careful consideration, and in the sight of God, they found that John Miller, also a soldier of the island, was guilty of wilful murder, having inflicted a wound in the belly of Charles Spiers, from which he died. This verdict was signed on 27 June 1687 by Orlando Bagley, coroner, together with Sutton Sneak, William Marsh, William Keayes, Edward Blaxford, John Mitchell, Ralph Will, John Long, Thomas Good, Thomas Goodwin, Joseph Spiers, John Wormall, and Daniel Chappell. The jurors unanimously declared this to be their opinion and verdict, and were then dismissed with thanks. Upon consideration of these findings, it was ordered that John Miller be kept in safe custody until Wednesday 29 June 1687, and that he be brought on that day to a public trial at the Sessions House before a jury of life and death. It was further ordered that John Wormall should immediately summon fifteen jurors, being freemen, and that all evidence and witnesses be served to appear at the appointed time. Proceedings then continued. Interpretations The finding of “wilful murder” established that the killing was judged to be intentional, placing it within the most serious category of offence and requiring formal trial and judgement. The structure of proceedings, with an inquest followed by a separate trial before a jury of life and death, shows a layered judicial process. The inquest determined responsibility, while the trial was required to adjudicate guilt formally and determine punishment. The requirement that jurors be freemen indicates that participation in capital trials was restricted to recognised members of the community, reflecting a hierarchy in legal authority and responsibility. The summoning of a fixed number of jurors and the formal service of witnesses demonstrates a regulated and procedural approach to criminal justice, ensuring that evidence would be presented in an organised manner. Speculations The unanimous verdict of the inquest suggests that the evidence presented was considered clear and convincing. This implies that the subsequent trial was expected to confirm rather than overturn the finding. The rapid scheduling of the trial indicates urgency in dealing with a capital offence involving a soldier. This suggests that maintaining discipline within the garrison was a priority influencing the pace of proceedings. | |
344 | ou say you have writ yourself & complain to them of And sd John Miller now being at the House of Custody [the] 23 paragraph of their long Instructions sent by [...] Mr Holden [...] said would [...] yes. I am enjoined to render an account | John Miller stated that he had written to the Honourable Company and had complained that the proceedings in this matter had been irregular and unjust. He declared that, being now held in custody, he was willing to be tried. Reference was made to the twenty-third paragraph of the Company’s long instructions, by which all former rules and contrary practices were set aside. It was asserted that this paragraph not only required certain procedures to be followed but was clearly intended to be observed wherever possible. It was further suggested that proper regard to these instructions would have ensured more regular conduct of the proceedings. It was indicated that matters relating to the execution of Company business, including accounts, debts, and administration, had been under consideration, and that disputes had arisen concerning authority and responsibility in carrying out these functions. It was also stated that communications had been made, or were to be made, to the Proprietors concerning these affairs, including the handling of monies arising under the Governor’s authority. Further remarks suggested that challenges had been raised against the authority of the Proprietors, and that refusals to comply with established procedures had occurred. It was alleged that, since the assumption of command, actions had been taken in contempt of that authority, with proposals and alterations affecting the Company’s interests. These matters were described as causing potential damage, including in relation to the fort and its management. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The appeal by John Miller to the Company’s instructions shows that formal written directives were used as a basis for challenging the legality of proceedings. This reflects the importance of central authority in determining correct procedure. The reference to specific paragraphs within the instructions indicates that governance operated according to detailed written frameworks. These documents served as a standard against which local actions could be judged. The mention of disputes over accounts, debts, and administration shows that financial management was closely tied to authority. Control over money and records was a key aspect of governance and a source of conflict. The assertion that actions had been taken in contempt of the Proprietors’ authority demonstrates that legitimacy depended on adherence to hierarchical command. Failure to comply could be framed as a serious breach of duty. Speculations The claim that proceedings were irregular and unjust suggests that Miller was attempting to challenge the legitimacy of the trial process. This implies a strategy aimed at undermining the authority of the Council or delaying judgement. The broader references to disputes over authority and administration suggest that the case occurred within a context of wider conflict. This indicates that tensions between different officials or interpretations of authority may have influenced how the proceedings were conducted. | |
345 | I am [...] now informd how the Honble Company are [...] Then you make use of the 23d Paragraph, that is laid on For which you think we have not proceeded conformable but in generall we cannot conceive that we have Neither doth reasoning upon private opinion Concerning what hath been done, & executing any of Having endeavoured in all respects to do justice | It was reported that John Miller declared he had been informed that the Honourable Company would not approve the proceedings in this action, asserting that they had been irregular and unjust. He stated that such proceedings ought not to be accepted or justified by himself or others, and that the matter should stand to be examined by reference to the Company’s books, where the truth would be determined and remain on record. He insisted that this should be accepted accordingly. He further referred to the twenty-third paragraph of the Company’s instructions, which had been imposed and required to be followed. It was argued that the Council had not proceeded in full conformity with those instructions or within the expected time, and that their actions had not adhered strictly to the prescribed rules set out in the Company’s records. In response, it was stated that, although it was alleged that there had been failures, omissions, and deviations from the instructions for which the Council should answer, no specific charges had been identified. It was declared that a response would be given if particular instances were named, but that, in general, it was not accepted that such failures had occurred as suggested. It was acknowledged that every detail of procedure might not have been observed on all occasions, but it was maintained that there had been a consistent effort to administer justice fairly and equally. It was asserted that such deviations should not be interpreted as breaches of duty, nor as grounds for accusation. It was further stated that differences of private opinion should not be treated as offences. In carrying out the Company’s commands, it was affirmed that due regard had always been given, and that actions had been taken according to the best understanding available. It was concluded that all efforts had been directed towards doing justice between parties and maintaining peace and good order on the island, as far as lay within their power. Interpretations The appeal to the Company’s books as the ultimate authority shows that written records held a decisive role in determining disputes. These records functioned as a higher standard against which local actions could be judged. The reference to specific instructional paragraphs indicates that governance operated under detailed written directives. Compliance with these instructions formed the basis for evaluating the legality of proceedings. The distinction made between general accusations and specific charges demonstrates a procedural expectation that allegations be clearly defined. This reflects an administrative approach requiring precise grounds before accountability could be enforced. The acknowledgement that not every procedural detail was observed, combined with the defence of overall fairness, shows a balance between strict adherence to rules and practical administration. This indicates that outcomes and intentions were considered alongside formal compliance. The assertion that private opinion should not constitute a fault highlights an effort to separate personal disagreement from official misconduct. This reflects a concern to maintain authority despite differing interpretations of duty. Speculations The emphasis on defending adherence to the Company’s instructions suggests that the Council perceived a challenge to its legitimacy. This implies that the dispute extended beyond the specific case to broader questions of authority and governance. The reliance on general justification rather than detailed rebuttal indicates that the accusations may not have been formally structured. This suggests that the conflict may have arisen from ongoing tensions rather than a single clearly defined complaint. | |
346 | h[e]r[r]ily b[e]come that [...] or shall pret[...] But one more had hap[p]i[...] when was opened on in [...]le This Paper I Recd from Capt Holden which he | A paper was received from Captain Holden, which he desired to be delivered to the Governor and Council as his answer to their letter dated 28 June 1687. The contents were fragmentary but conveyed that he disputed certain actions and arrangements, asserting that matters ought to remain as originally established, or otherwise not be altered at all. It was indicated that a deed or arrangement had been made in such a manner as to give rise to reports and dissatisfaction, and that obligations arising from it ought to be fulfilled and repaid. Reference was made to difficulties in managing affairs, including issues concerning authority, orders, and the handling of money. It was suggested that the Governor and Council had acted in ways that were contested, particularly in relation to trade and plantation matters. Holden’s statement further indicated that he had delivered his answer concerning authority and financial dealings, and that he expected opportunities to address these matters further as occasions arose. It was also implied that repeated communications had been sent, both in writing and by message, and that these exchanges had caused unease and disturbance. The paper concluded by noting that it had been received from Captain Holden and delivered as his formal response to the Governor and Council’s letter of 28 June 1687, as attested by the hand of the person conveying it. Interpretations The submission of a written answer by Captain Holden shows the use of formal correspondence in disputes over authority. Written replies provided a record of positions taken and were used to assert or defend administrative actions. The reference to deeds and obligations indicates that formal agreements governed aspects of trade or property. Disputes over their execution suggest that such instruments had binding force and could become points of contention. The repeated mention of authority and control over money reflects the central importance of financial administration. Control of funds and accounts was closely tied to claims of legitimate power. The delivery of the paper through an intermediary demonstrates the structured manner in which communications were transmitted. This ensured that statements were formally presented and acknowledged within the Council’s proceedings. Speculations The emphasis on maintaining arrangements “as originally established” suggests that Holden was resisting changes introduced by the Governor and Council. This indicates a conflict between established practice and new administrative decisions. The reference to repeated messages causing discomfort implies that the dispute had become persistent and disruptive. This suggests that relations between Holden and the Council had deteriorated to a point where routine administration was affected. | |
347 | Blank page | ||
348 | A[r]e[...][...] of the [...][...] Aprill the 2[...][...] last with some other Wher[e]as M[r] R[...][...] received quietly & informed that he had Some hours after M[r] R[...][...] was sent againe to Capt Holden It is Ordered You say you are met together to consider of R[...][...] the I say the last written order from y[e] R[...][...] Govern[o]r But had on a foresaid being stated our storekeeper we would | A letter was sent from the Governor and Council referring to earlier matters, including those of April 1687, and to other concerns requiring prompt action to prevent loss and damage. In this letter, concurrence was requested from Captain Holden so that the matters might be resolved easily and unanimously. Alternatively, he was asked to provide a clear and definite answer as to whether he would act jointly with them or relinquish control over any part of the revenues in question. It was stated that, depending on his response, the Governor and Council would adopt the most suitable means to regulate the Proprietors’ authority and revenues in a manner more advantageous to the island. The letter was signed by John Blackmore, Gregory Field, Nathaniel C[...], and Thomas C[...]. It was then reported that Mr R[...] had delivered the letter to Captain Holden, who refused to provide an immediate answer. After some hours, Mr R[...] was sent again and returned with a paper written in Holden’s own hand, without superscription. This document was presented as Holden’s answer to the letter. Upon consideration, it was ordered that Mr R[...] should formally attest that the paper had been received from Captain Holden as his response, which he did. A copy of the paper was then entered into the record. In his answer, Captain Holden stated that the Governor and Council had met to consider matters relating to the Proprietors’ revenues. He asserted that the most recent written order from the Proprietors, particularly the third paragraph of their last instructions sent by Sir Thomas Grantham, had annulled all prior written orders to the contrary. He further claimed that this interpretation had been confirmed to him verbally in England. He suggested that, under these instructions, authority over stores and related matters on the island ought to be exercised accordingly, implying that the management of such resources should be brought under the terms of those instructions. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The request for Captain Holden’s concurrence shows that the Governor and Council sought joint action in administering revenues. This indicates that authority over financial matters was shared or contested among officials. The option given to Holden to either cooperate or relinquish control reflects an attempt to clarify jurisdiction. This suggests that overlapping claims to authority required formal resolution. The attestation of Holden’s written response demonstrates the importance of verifying documents within official proceedings. Such certification ensured that communications could be relied upon as accurate records. The reference to specific paragraphs of the Proprietors’ instructions shows that governance was guided by detailed written directives. These instructions could override earlier orders, indicating a hierarchical system of authority. The emphasis on revenues and stores highlights their central role in administration. Control over these resources was directly linked to power and the functioning of the island’s economy. Speculations The insistence on either cooperation or relinquishment suggests that the Governor and Council were attempting to force a clear division of authority. This implies that ambiguity in control had led to operational difficulties or conflict. Holden’s reliance on both written instructions and verbal confirmation from England suggests that he was strengthening his position by appealing to higher authority. This indicates that the dispute was not only local but connected to differing interpretations of directives from the Proprietors. | |
349 | [...] he is desirous & all such things as the Governo[r] shall His These orders I am content with and in ordering I am here also Generall & Receiver Generall etc I affirme not if of the Receipt from money is to be laid out or That Expence particularly is to be kept Plantation like Government held strong because according to my | Captain Holden’s statement continued by asserting that he was willing to allow such reforms or appointments as the Governor might think fit for the Company’s use. He declared that a full account should be rendered of all past transactions, including debts outstanding and all effects received from America and other parts of the English dominions. He further stated that he was ready to account for and pay over any monies received in the course of these dealings. He affirmed that he accepted the orders under which he acted and that the trust and management of these matters were vested in him. He insisted that the Governor and Council had no authority to interfere or meddle in these affairs, and that any obstruction of his execution of the instructions amounted to contempt of authority, causing damage for which some persons ought to answer. He further declared that, as General Receiver, all monies received, accounts, and debts were to be managed by him or under his order. He maintained that all such transactions should be entered into the account books, so that the flow of money and debts on the island might be clearly recorded and reviewed. At the same time, he stated that money should not be disposed of by any single individual, but rather by the Council, with every expense recorded. Such expenditures were to be entered into the books and accounted for, with particular care taken to distinguish plantation accounts, including profits, charges, stock of cattle, and debts. He observed that these methods of accounting had been proposed previously and, if implemented earlier, would have produced more precise results. He contended that his appointment by the Lords Proprietors demonstrated their confidence in his ability to perform these duties, and that it was not appropriate for others to question how he should carry out his office. He concluded by asserting that he acted under his commission from England and expected to execute it accordingly. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The assertion of authority as General Receiver shows that financial administration was concentrated in a specific office. Control over receipts, debts, and accounts formed a central aspect of governance. The insistence that all transactions be entered into account books reflects the importance of record-keeping. These records functioned as the official means by which financial activity was tracked and verified. The distinction between receipt and expenditure, with the latter requiring Council involvement, indicates a division of financial powers. While collection might be centralised, spending required collective approval. The emphasis on accounting for plantation profits, livestock, and debts shows that economic management extended beyond simple revenue collection. It involved structured oversight of productive assets and liabilities. The reference to a commission from England demonstrates that authority derived from external appointment. This highlights the hierarchical nature of governance, with local officials acting under instructions from higher authorities. Speculations The strong assertion that the Governor and Council had no role in certain financial matters suggests an ongoing conflict over jurisdiction. This implies that overlapping responsibilities had led to disputes about control of revenue and administration. The emphasis on proper accounting and prior proposals suggests that deficiencies in record-keeping may have contributed to the disagreement. This indicates that competing approaches to financial management were a source of tension between Holden and the Council. | |
350 | [...] my orders & cause all others of the Comp[any] to observe No man can ever live happily when he submits himself This paper I Recd from Capt Holden which he desired This paper being very seriously weighed & considered & finding therein It is agreed concluded & ordered | A further paper from Captain Holden was delivered by Richard Keigwin, stating that he would enforce his own orders and require all others in the Company’s service to observe them. He declared that he would not submit to interference when executing his commission, nor accept obstruction that might lead to disputes being referred to a higher authority. He suggested that, if the Council insisted on imposing upon his authority, it would demonstrate that they were not fit to command, and would create confusion in administration. He stated that he would not continue in service jointly under such conditions, as he could not act where his authority was not respected or where he could not operate in safety. He distinguished between his own responsibilities and those of the Governor, acknowledging that the Governor held authority over the fort and the general government of the island, including the maintenance of peace. However, he maintained that matters relating to his office required separate control. He further complained that the present state of administration lacked proper order and control, creating unease and difficulty in carrying out duties. This paper, dated 28 June 1687, was attested by Richard Keigwin as having been received from Captain Holden and delivered as his answer to the Governor and Council. Upon serious consideration of this response, it was determined that it did not provide a direct answer to the matters requested. It was further observed that Holden had effectively refused to yield obedience to the Governor’s orders or to those acting under them. Concern was expressed that such refusal and delay would lead to loss and damage, particularly in the collection of duties on land and cattle. It was therefore agreed, concluded, and ordered that the whole of the Company’s revenue arising from lands, houses [...]. Interpretations The assertion by Holden that he would enforce his own orders and not submit to interference shows a clear division of authority. This reflects a conflict between different offices over jurisdiction and control of administration. The acknowledgement of the Governor’s authority over general governance, alongside Holden’s claim to separate authority, indicates a fragmented structure of power. Different areas of responsibility were claimed independently rather than subordinated to a single command. The Council’s concern over delays in collecting duties highlights the importance of revenue to the functioning of the island. Efficient collection of taxes on land and cattle was essential to maintaining administration and resources. The formal attestation of Holden’s response by an intermediary demonstrates the importance of documenting communications. Such certification ensured that statements could be entered into official records and relied upon in decision making. The Council’s conclusion that Holden had refused obedience shows that compliance with orders was a central expectation. Failure to comply was treated not only as disagreement but as a threat to governance. Speculations Holden’s refusal to act jointly with the Council suggests that he viewed cooperation as compromising his authority. This implies that the dispute had reached a point where shared administration was no longer workable. The Council’s concern about potential losses indicates that Holden’s actions were already affecting revenue collection. This suggests that the conflict had moved beyond theoretical disagreement into practical disruption of the island’s economy and administration. | |
351 | [...] That in regard Capt Holden did at present refuse It is also agreed, concluded & Ordered & that one considered or such person shall be appointed for the It is agreed & ordered It is further ordered After this was considered the arrears due for one year of | It was considered that Captain Holden had refused to receive money, goods, or other payments in conformity with the paper he had previously presented concerning the payment of duties. Reference was also made to a declaration dated 20 November 1685, which had been presented to the Governor and Council by John Wyborne and others. Having been fully informed of these matters, it was resolved that inhabitants should be permitted to pay their several duties in accordance with the arrangements previously endorsed on their grants, as had been recorded by Captain Holden and Wyborne. It was further agreed, concluded, and ordered that a person should be appointed to collect the Company’s revenues. This collector was to receive as much current money on the island as possible, and where money was not available, to accept good and sound cattle at a set price. After consideration, John Smith was nominated for this role. It was agreed and ordered that Lovell Baile be appointed sergeant, William Wells and John Grover constables, and John Smith as the Honourable Company’s reeve, with authority to collect the revenues due for land and cattle. These officers were to receive formal orders and commissions, with instructions under the hand and seal of the Governor and Council, and were to begin their duties on Monday 4 July 1687. It was further ordered that a proclamation be issued on Saturday 2 July 1687, being the day of the returning of the guards, to give notice to all inhabitants of the enforcement of the duties, specifying to whom payment was to be made and when the collector would begin. It was also considered that arrears for one year, previously collected, had been retained by Captain Holden and not accounted for. It was proposed that orders be drawn so that the sum in question might be repaid, with provision that it should be refunded to Captain Holden if he were willing to receive it. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The decision to allow payment of duties in forms other than money shows flexibility in revenue collection. Acceptance of cattle in lieu of cash reflects the limited availability of currency and the reliance on livestock as a medium of value. The appointment of a reeve to collect revenues indicates a structured administrative role specifically responsible for taxation. This position functioned as an intermediary between the inhabitants and the governing authority in financial matters. The issuing of commissions under the Governor and Council’s seal demonstrates the formal delegation of authority. Such documents provided legal backing for the actions of appointed officers. The use of a public proclamation to announce the collection of duties shows the importance of notifying inhabitants formally. This ensured that obligations were clearly communicated and enforceable. The reference to arrears retained and not accounted for highlights the expectation of financial accountability. Officials responsible for collecting revenue were required to render accounts, and failure to do so prompted corrective measures. Speculations The appointment of a new collector in place of Captain Holden suggests that his refusal to act had created an administrative gap. This implies that the Council sought to maintain revenue flow despite his non-cooperation. The provision to refund money to Captain Holden if he accepted it indicates an attempt to avoid escalating the dispute. This suggests that the Council aimed to assert control while leaving open the possibility of reconciliation. | |
352 | [...] St Helena I went to Capt Holden by the Governours and R[...][...] | A statement was recorded, dated 8 June 1687, reporting that a messenger had been sent by order of the Governor and Council to Captain Holden to obtain his answer as to whether he would receive the Honourable Company’s customs then in arrears, or appoint another person to do so. It was reported that Captain Holden replied that the collection of customs belonged entirely to himself, and that he would gather them at such time as he thought convenient. He stated that the Governor and Council had no authority to question him as to when he would receive the customs, nor whether he would appoint another person to act in that capacity. He further declared that, whether he collected them or not, the Governor and Council had no concern in the matter, as he alone was accountable for them. He also warned the messenger not to involve himself in collecting the customs under the authority of the Governor and Council, stating that he was aware of the conflicting claims and of who had been appointed for that purpose. He added that, if the messenger were to act without his order, the Company would proceed against him on his bond in England. This statement was recorded as the substance of Captain Holden’s answer to the best of the messenger’s recollection. Interpretations The assertion that the collection of customs “belonged wholly” to Captain Holden indicates a claim of exclusive jurisdiction over revenue. This reflects a direct challenge to the authority of the Governor and Council in financial administration. The reference to accountability for customs shows that responsibility for revenue collection was tied to personal obligation. Holden’s statement that he alone must answer for it suggests that office holders could be held individually liable. The warning that legal action might be taken on a bond in England demonstrates the use of financial securities to enforce compliance. Such bonds ensured that officials adhered to their duties under threat of legal and financial consequences. The prohibition against others collecting customs without his order highlights the contested nature of authority. Competing appointments created uncertainty over who was entitled to act, leading to potential legal risk for those involved. The recording of the statement “to the best of remembrance” shows that testimony could be entered as evidence even when not formally written by the speaker. This reflects the reliance on reported speech in administrative proceedings. Speculations Holden’s insistence on exclusive control suggests that he perceived any interference as a threat to his position. This implies that the dispute had escalated into a struggle over institutional authority rather than a disagreement over procedure. The warning about legal action in England indicates that Holden was invoking higher authority to deter compliance with the Council’s orders. This suggests that the conflict was being extended beyond the island to the Company’s central administration. | |
353 | Blank page | ||
354 | It is Ordered Upon consideration of Collecting the Customes in Arrear It is agreed & Ordered Mr Keeling forthwith returned & gave an acc[...][...] that he did Hereupon it is Ordered Island St Helena June the 8th 1687 | It was ordered that further consideration of these matters should be adjourned until the next session of assembly, to be held after the next general survey. Upon consideration of the failure to collect the customs in arrear, which had not been carried out for a period of three months by Captain Holden as had previously been the practice, it was observed that this delay had caused concern. It was noted that he had earlier been cautioned on this matter, and that he had since sent a message through Mr Keeling indicating that he would not proceed further in collecting the said customs. Reference was made to the consultation held on 23 April 1687, where it had been recognised that delays in receiving customary goods, whether in wheat or other merchantable items exported and imported, might lead to loss and damage to the Honourable Company. In order to prevent such loss arising from continued delay or neglect in collection, further action was deemed necessary. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Mr Keeling should immediately go to Captain Holden and inform him that the Governor and Council required to know whether he would himself receive the Company’s customs now in arrear, or appoint another person to do so, and that he should return with his answer. Mr Keeling returned shortly afterwards and reported that he had delivered the message. Captain Holden replied that the collection of customs belonged entirely to himself, and that he would gather them at such time as he thought convenient. He further stated that the Governor and Council had no authority to question him in this matter or to send others to act in his place. It was then ordered that Mr Keeling should draw up this answer in writing and deliver it to the Governor, which he did. The written account followed, beginning with the statement dated 8 June 1687, recording that he had been sent by order of the Governor and Council to receive Captain Holden’s answer concerning the collection of customs in arrear. The record then continues as previously set out. Interpretations The adjournment of the matter until a session following a general survey indicates that administrative decisions could be tied to broader assessments of resources. This suggests that financial and regulatory issues were considered alongside wider evaluations of the island’s condition. The concern over three months’ delay in collecting customs highlights the importance of regular revenue collection. Such delays threatened the financial stability of the administration and required corrective action. The reference to customary goods, including wheat and other merchantable items, shows that duties were not limited to money but could be levied in kind. This reflects a mixed system of taxation adapted to local economic conditions. The repeated use of messengers to obtain formal answers demonstrates a structured process of communication. Official positions were required to be clearly stated and recorded before further action could be taken. The instruction to reduce Holden’s verbal reply to writing indicates the importance of documentary evidence. Written records ensured that disputes could be reviewed and decisions justified in relation to higher authority. Speculations The emphasis on preventing loss through delayed collection suggests that the Council believed the situation had already begun to affect the Company’s revenues. This implies that Holden’s refusal had practical financial consequences beyond administrative disagreement. The decision to formalise Holden’s response in writing suggests that the Council anticipated the need to present evidence of his refusal to higher authority. This indicates preparation for escalation of the dispute beyond the island. | |
355 | [...] That the Collecting of the Customes belong wholy Upon consideration of the same being greatly desirous to It is Ordered Likewise it is ordered Things were considered about Receiving money for the It is Ordered | The answer given by Captain Holden was again recorded, stating that the collection of customs belonged wholly to himself, and that he would gather them at such time as he thought convenient. He maintained that the Governor and Council had no authority to question him regarding the timing of collection or the appointment of any person to carry it out. He further declared that, whether he collected the customs or not, the responsibility lay solely with him. He warned that no person should interfere in the collection without his order, and that any such action might result in proceedings against their bond in England. This statement was attested by Richard Keigwin as being given to the best of his recollection. Upon consideration of this, and being desirous to comply with Captain Holden while avoiding disorder in the island, especially where the Honourable Company’s interests might suffer through delay, it was ordered that further consideration of the matter be deferred until the next session of assembly, to be held on the next general pay day of the garrison. It was expected that by that time it would become clear whether Captain Holden would proceed to collect the customs or appoint another to do so. It was also ordered that, if Captain Holden wished to receive the accounts arising from the customs, he should be permitted to do so, subject to the proper rights associated with them. Matters were then considered regarding the receipt of money for the Honourable Company’s salaries. It was determined that payments should be made either to the Governor and Council or to the storekeeper, and that such payments should take place on 4 July 1687, being the general pay day of the garrison. It was further ordered that a ship should be secured under certain conditions, with seamen appointed for its service, and that arrangements for its use and maintenance should be made among several persons according to agreed proportions. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The repeated assertion by Captain Holden of exclusive authority over customs collection demonstrates a persistent dispute over jurisdiction. This reflects a fundamental conflict between offices concerning control of revenue. The decision to defer action in order to avoid disorder shows that maintaining stability was prioritised alongside enforcing authority. The Council sought to prevent escalation while allowing time for resolution. The provision allowing Holden to receive accounts, subject to rights, indicates an attempt to accommodate his claims without conceding full authority. This reflects a balancing approach to contested power. The arrangement for payment of salaries through designated officials shows the structured handling of financial obligations. Regular pay days ensured orderly distribution of wages within the garrison. The reference to acquiring a ship and assigning seamen suggests organisational planning for transport or service. This indicates that maritime resources were managed collectively and required formal allocation. Speculations The deferral of the customs dispute suggests that the Council hoped Holden might resume his duties voluntarily. This implies that immediate enforcement might have risked further conflict or disruption. The arrangement concerning a ship may indicate a need for improved communication or transport linked to ongoing administrative issues. This suggests that control over movement and supply was becoming increasingly important in the context of the dispute. | |
356 | John Miller [...] having bin found guilty of Wilfull It is Ordered Whereas in the Councill held February 9th 1686 an Order It is Ordered Whereupon it is Ordered Likewise it is Ordered | John Miller, having been found guilty of wilful murder of Charles Spiers by a jury and sentenced to death, was granted a temporary reprieve. It was ordered that on Monday 11 July 1687 he should suffer death according to law, and that all officers and soldiers of the garrison should assemble, with sergeants present, to attend and assist at the execution. Reference was made to an order passed in Council on 9 February 1687 concerning lands and revenues connected to the Governor Thomas D[...]. It was noted that duties arising from these lands were to be accepted and placed in the hands of Mr Smith for the establishment of a plantation. It now appeared that the lands and revenues had since been disposed of by Mr Thomas Groves, Mr John Smith, and others, and that sums amounting to £[...] had not been paid or received as required. It was ordered that the said sum of £[...] be immediately brought into the Honourable Company’s treasury by order of the Governor. A complaint was then made against William Goodrum for disorderly behaviour and misconduct while on guard. He appeared before the Council, confessed his faults openly, and expressed remorse, promising amendment and good behaviour in future. It was ordered that he be released for the present, but that, if he should commit a similar offence again, his prior misconduct should be taken into account. It was further ordered that on Monday 19 July 1687 a session of Council should be held at Fort James to hear and determine any criminal causes that might be brought forward, and to conclude further matters of business, provided that no ships were then in the road. Interpretations The sentencing and scheduled execution of John Miller demonstrate the enforcement of capital punishment following conviction for wilful murder. The requirement for the garrison to attend reflects the use of execution as a public act reinforcing discipline and authority. The reprieve granted before execution indicates that sentences could be temporarily delayed. This suggests a procedural pause, possibly allowing for further consideration or confirmation before carrying out the penalty. The reference to unpaid revenues from land shows that financial obligations attached to property were strictly enforced. Failure to account for such sums led to direct orders for repayment into the Company’s treasury. The involvement of named individuals in disposing of land revenues indicates that responsibility for financial management could be distributed among several parties. This created potential for disputes or irregularities requiring Council intervention. The conditional release of William Goodrum demonstrates the use of leniency combined with warning. Prior offences were retained in memory as a basis for future judgement, reinforcing ongoing behavioural control. The scheduling of a Council session to hear criminal causes shows a structured judicial calendar. The proviso concerning the absence of ships indicates that administrative priorities could shift depending on maritime activity. Speculations The requirement that the entire garrison attend the execution suggests that the case of John Miller was intended to serve as a warning. This implies concern about maintaining order and discipline among soldiers. The need to order repayment of land revenues suggests that earlier administrative arrangements had not been effectively enforced. This indicates possible gaps in oversight that required corrective action by the Council. | |
357 | Complaint being made of George Denton Seckerman Called which the said Denton was heard & Confest It is Ordered Edwd St [...] | A complaint was made against George Denton, seckerman, for misconduct, including striking and quarrelling with several persons, leaving the fort after the watch had been set, and being frequently intoxicated. He was called before the Council, where he confessed that he had transgressed through ignorance and promised to behave in a peaceable and sober manner in future. Upon this submission, he was pardoned. It was ordered that Denton be severely rebuked for his misdemeanours and admonished to conduct himself more regularly thereafter. It was further ordered that he should immediately deliver up his arms under the authority of the Governor, and that he should not carry or use them again without the Governor’s licence. The order was signed by Gregory Field, Nathaniel Fox, and Thomas Groves. Interpretations The offences of striking, quarrelling, and leaving the fort after the watch was set indicate breaches of both civil order and military discipline. Such conduct was treated as a threat to the security and regulation of the garrison. The acceptance of Denton’s confession and promise of amendment shows that acknowledgement of wrongdoing could result in leniency. This reflects a disciplinary approach that combined correction with opportunity for reform. The requirement to surrender arms demonstrates the control exercised over access to weapons. Removal of arms functioned as a preventative measure to limit further disorder or violence. The condition that arms could only be worn with the Governor’s licence indicates that possession of weapons was subject to formal authorisation. This reflects a structured system of military oversight within the settlement. Speculations The decision to remove Denton’s arms rather than impose imprisonment suggests that the Council aimed to reduce the immediate risk he posed while allowing him to remain within the garrison. This implies a balance between maintaining manpower and enforcing discipline. The reference to repeated intoxication suggests that alcohol-related disorder may have been a recurring issue. This indicates that such behaviour was a recognised concern affecting order within the fort. | |
358 | [...] St Helena Present Information was given, that John Cannady and John Cannady humbly confesseth his fault in going out John Cannady | A council was held at Fort James on 18 July 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Fox, and Thomas Groves. Information was presented that John Cannady and John Cannady J[...] had failed to remain at their duties on the night of Monday 11 July 1687. Instead, they had gone to drink brandy and remained there for approximately two hours after they should have been on watch, patrolling in and around Fort James. It was further reported that John Cannady had gone to fetch his musket about midnight, thereby causing an alarm within the garrison. It was also stated that William Collins, who had been assigned to the guard that same night, had not been present in the fort at the time of taptoe, nor had he attended when called to duty, but had remained absent and drinking with Cannady. The individuals concerned were called before the Council and made their statements. John Cannady confessed his fault in leaving his duty and requested pardon. He stated that he had gone to William Collins’s house, where they had been tempted to drink by Collins and another person who brought a bottle of arrack and sugar. When they expressed willingness to drink, Collins replied that they would have none unless they procured another bottle. Cannady and Collins then went to Captain Holden’s storehouse and spoke with an officer, after which they obtained permission from Joseph Clarksmith to go to his house. There, they mixed the liquor into punch and continued drinking. Cannady further stated that, after becoming quarrelsome, he was turned out of the house and returned towards the fort, passing the guard about midnight. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The failure to remain on watch and patrol duties demonstrates a serious breach of military discipline. Guard duty was essential for the security of the fort, and absence from post exposed the garrison to risk. The mention of taptoe indicates a regulated daily routine within the fort, marking the time when soldiers were required to be present. Failure to attend at this time constituted a clear violation of established order. The act of causing an alarm by fetching a musket suggests that weapons handling was strictly controlled. Unauthorised use or disturbance involving arms could disrupt the entire garrison. The involvement of multiple individuals in drinking while on duty shows that misconduct could occur collectively. This reflects the challenges of enforcing discipline among groups rather than isolated individuals. The reference to obtaining leave from another person to continue drinking indicates confusion or misuse of authority. Permission given outside proper channels could undermine formal command structures. Speculations The sequence of events suggests that the drinking episode escalated beyond initial intent, leading to disorder and alarm. This implies that alcohol consumption posed a recurring risk to discipline within the garrison. The fact that Cannady sought and obtained some form of permission, though not properly authorised, suggests that boundaries of authority were not clearly enforced. This indicates that ambiguity in command may have contributed to the misconduct. | |
359 | John Cannady acknowledgeth the greatest part William Collins confesseth that he was out Joseph Charlesworth confesseth that about Ten of Upon consideration of the whole matter with the It is Ordered That John Cannady & William Collins be | John Cannady acknowledged most of Montus’s account but denied that he had fired his musket wilfully. He stated that, while lighting his pipe of tobacco, the musket had discharged accidentally. William Collins confessed that he had been absent from the fort when the taptoe was beaten and the gates were locked. Being unable to gain entry, he went with a companion to the planters’ houses intending to remain there for the night. He stated that they encountered John Montus and John Cannady, who were on duty, and that, after discussion, they agreed to share arrack only if another bottle were obtained. Collins, Cannady, and another then went to Captain Holden at the storehouse and, after much entreaty, obtained leave for a gallon of arrack. They proceeded to John Clarksmith’s house, where the liquor was made into punch and consumed over about two hours. Collins further stated that Cannady became disorderly, was put out of the house, and shortly afterwards discharged his musket. Joseph Charlesworth confessed that he had arrived at about ten o’clock and had assisted in preparing the punch after leave had been obtained. He stated that he had not known that Cannady and Montus were on duty, as they had arrived after Collins. He further stated that he had not expected any disturbance, considering the quantity of arrack to be only half a gallon, but that Cannady later became troublesome and was removed from the house. Upon consideration of the entire matter and its circumstances, it was ordered that, this being the first such offence by John Montus, he be pardoned but severely rebuked and seriously admonished not to offend again in the same manner. It was further ordered that John Cannady and William Collins be immediately committed to prison and remain there until Monday 25 July 1687, at which time further punishment was to be imposed upon them within the garrison. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The distinction made between wilful and accidental discharge of a musket shows that intent was a significant factor in determining culpability. This reflects an early form of assessing responsibility based on circumstance and intention. The reference to taptoe and locked gates highlights the strict regulation of movement within the fort. Once secured, entry and exit were controlled, and absence at that time constituted a serious breach. The process of obtaining leave to take arrack from the storehouse indicates that access to Company goods was regulated. Such goods required authorisation before use, reflecting controlled distribution of resources. The differing treatment of Montus, Cannady, and Collins shows that punishment was graded according to involvement and prior conduct. First offences could be pardoned, while repeated or more serious breaches led to imprisonment. The use of imprisonment followed by further punishment within the garrison demonstrates a staged disciplinary process. Immediate confinement was used to secure offenders before final penalties were carried out. Speculations The claim that a musket discharged accidentally while lighting a pipe suggests that handling of weapons in informal settings was not uncommon. This implies a potential overlap between daily life and military readiness that could lead to dangerous incidents. The fact that arrack was obtained from the storehouse with permission, despite being used for drinking during duty hours, suggests that control over provisions may not have been strictly enforced. This indicates that ambiguity in authority or oversight contributed to the misconduct. | |
360 | That Joseph Charlesworth be Reproved & Admonished Andrew Willson Planter complains of Henry Berry Henry Berry acknowledgeth the sd Debt, but saith that his It is ordered Henry Gale complains of Joseph Prate for Damages Joseph Prate acknowledgeth that his Cattle were on the sd Jeremiah Ellis & John Cannon who viewed the fences & John Boul saith that he hath driven the sd Prates Cattle Joseph Gale saith that for time past he will accept of It is ordered Thomas Goodin was convicted by Joseph Prate upon oath John Draper | It was ordered that Joseph Charlesworth be reproved and admonished not to entertain any soldiers in his house after taptoe, especially those assigned to guard duty. Andrew Willson, planter, complained against Henry Berry, planter, for non-payment of a debt of £4 : 0s : 0d, as evidenced by a written agreement. Henry Berry acknowledged the debt but stated that his wife had been long afflicted with sickness, rendering him unable to pay at present. He offered to satisfy the debt in goods, which Willson accepted. It was therefore ordered that each party should choose an impartial person to appraise Berry’s cattle for payment of the debt. Berry chose Orlando Bagley, and Willson chose Thomas Drabel as appraisers. Henry Gale complained against Joseph Prate for damages caused by his draught oxen, valued at £3 : 0s : 0d. Joseph Prate acknowledged that his cattle had been on Gale’s land but argued that Gale’s fence had not been sufficient to keep them out. Jeremiah Ellis and John Cannon, having viewed the fences and damage, stated that the fence had been sufficient to exclude lawful cattle and that the damage could not be valued at less than £3 : 0s : 0d. John Boul testified that he had driven Prate’s cattle out of Gale’s ground two or three times. Joseph Gale declared that he would accept 2s : 0d in full satisfaction for the damage, to which Prate agreed. It was ordered that Prate should immediately pay Gale the sum of £0 : 2s : 0d in full satisfaction for the damage done. It was further ordered that Gale should maintain a good and sufficient fence around his ground, and that Prate should take care to prevent his cattle from trespassing. Thomas Goodin was convicted upon the oath of Joseph Prate of forswearing and was fined £0 : 1s : 0d. The order was recorded by John Draper. Interpretations The admonition against entertaining soldiers after taptoe shows the enforcement of curfew regulations. This measure aimed to maintain discipline and ensure that soldiers remained at their posts during designated hours. The acceptance of goods in place of monetary payment demonstrates flexibility in settling debts. Livestock functioned as a recognised form of value, reflecting the limited circulation of cash on the island. The use of appointed appraisers indicates a formal mechanism for valuing property in disputes. Independent valuation ensured fairness in converting goods into equivalent payment. The dispute over fencing highlights the shared responsibility between landholders and livestock owners. Liability for damage depended on whether proper boundaries had been maintained. The reduction of the claimed damages by agreement shows that settlements could be negotiated between parties. The Council facilitated compromise rather than enforcing the full assessed value. The conviction for forswearing demonstrates that giving false testimony under oath was treated as an offence. Even minor fines reinforced the expectation of truthfulness in legal proceedings. Speculations The willingness of Gale to accept a reduced sum suggests a practical approach to dispute resolution. This implies that maintaining neighbourly relations may have been considered alongside strict enforcement of claims. The repeated need to drive cattle from enclosed land indicates that control of livestock was an ongoing issue. This suggests that agricultural practices and fencing standards were not consistently maintained across the island. | |
361 | John Draper complaines of Sutton Isaack for Sutton Isaack allegeth that Drapers Plantation is Jonathan Higham & John Lipt Planters who William Marsh in the behalfe of the defendant Sutton Isaack desired that the fence might be It is ORDERED Thomas Townsdale planter complaines of Joseph Joseph Wilkes denyeth that he assaulted the sd Townsdale Katherine Essop being sworn saith that she | John Draper, planter, complained against Sutton Isaack for damage caused by Isaack’s cattle in Draper’s plantation, which was valued at £5 : 0s : 0d. Sutton Isaack argued that Draper’s plantation was not sufficiently fenced to keep cattle out. Jonathan Higham and John Lipt, planters who had viewed the damage, stated that it could not be valued at less than £5 : 0s : 0d and that the fence appeared sufficient to exclude lawful cattle. However, William Marsh, speaking on behalf of Isaack, stated that the fence was not sufficient, describing it as old and decayed. Isaack requested that the fence be reviewed again, but Draper refused and relied on the testimony of Higham and Lipt. When those witnesses were asked whether they would swear that the fence was sufficient, they declined and admitted that it was somewhat old, rotten, and decayed. Upon consideration, it was judged that Draper had no valid cause of action, as it did not appear that his fence was adequate to exclude lawful cattle. It was therefore ordered that Draper should immediately pay Isaack £0 : 2s : 0d for his costs and charges. Thomas Townsdale, planter, then complained against Joseph Wilkes for assault and battery. Wilkes denied the accusation and stated that Townsdale had first provoked him with insulting language and had struck him, which led to the quarrel. Katherine Essop, being sworn, stated that she was walking along the street towards Wilkes’s house and shortly afterwards saw Joseph Wilkes and William [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The requirement that a plantation be properly fenced in order to claim damages shows that landholders bore responsibility for protecting their property. Without adequate fencing, claims for trespass by cattle could fail. The distinction between “lawful cattle” and others suggests that standards existed for what constituted properly managed livestock. Liability depended on whether both parties met expected obligations. The refusal of witnesses to swear to the sufficiency of the fence demonstrates the importance of sworn testimony. Only statements given under oath carried full evidential weight in determining outcomes. The awarding of costs against Draper indicates that unsuccessful claims could result in financial penalty. This discouraged unfounded or weak complaints. The handling of the assault complaint shows that disputes over violence were examined in terms of provocation and sequence of actions. Determining who initiated the conflict was central to judgement. Speculations The dispute over the condition of the fence suggests that maintenance of agricultural boundaries was uneven. This implies that enforcement of such standards relied heavily on individual diligence rather than systematic oversight. The hesitation of witnesses to swear to the fence’s adequacy suggests uncertainty or reluctance to commit fully under oath. This may indicate social pressures or concern about the consequences of giving definitive testimony. | |
362 | the said Townsdale & overtaking him, the said Wilkes Hannah the wife of Jasper Way planter being sworn Upon consideration of the whole Businesse It is Ordered Martha Bobson widdow complaines of James Rider James Rider confesseth that the sd Cabbnet of Ordered Martha Bobson widdow complaines of John Stonard John Stonard saith that Thomas Borke came for Thomas Borke saith that he went by Mrs Bobsons Upon Debate of this Matter It is ordered | Katherine Essop testified that Thomas Townsdale pursued Joseph Wilkes and, upon overtaking him, Wilkes struck Townsdale, whereupon they engaged in fighting until separated. Hannah, wife of Jasper Way, being sworn, gave the same account. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that Joseph Wilkes be fined £0 : 0s : 1d to the Honourable Company for breach of the peace, and that he pay £0 : 0s : 1d to Townsdale for costs and damages. Martha Bobson, widow, complained against James Rider for detaining a cabinet belonging to her. Rider admitted that the cabinet was in his custody but stated that he was unwilling to return it because he was bound for her whole estate and feared loss as a result. It was ordered that Rider should deliver the cabinet to Bobson. Martha Bobson also complained against John Stonard, planter, for non-payment of £0 : 1s : 0d, which had been ordered in a Council held on 12 April 1687. Stonard stated that Thomas Borke had come on Bobson’s behalf to receive the debt, and that he had offered payment in a young hog, valued at £0 : 10s : 0d by Benjamin Miller, but that Borke had refused to accept it. He added that the debt had not been demanded since that time. Thomas Borke stated that he had gone by Bobson’s order to receive the debt but had refused the hog because he believed its valuation was excessive and that Bobson might not accept it. He also stated that he had refused a larger hog because he was uncertain whether Bobson would agree to pay the difference above the debt. Upon debate of this matter, it was ordered that Mrs Bobson should send to the said Thomas [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The imposition of fines for breach of the peace shows that physical altercations were penalised even where mutual involvement occurred. Monetary penalties served both as punishment and compensation. The distinction between payment to the Company and payment to the injured party indicates a dual function of fines. One portion upheld public order, while the other addressed private harm. The refusal of Rider to return the cabinet on the grounds of being bound for the estate reflects the use of surety obligations. Individuals responsible for another’s estate could retain property as a form of security against potential loss. The dispute over payment in goods demonstrates the complexities of non-cash transactions. Valuation and acceptance depended on agreement between parties, and refusal could delay settlement. The involvement of an intermediary to collect a debt shows that agents could act on behalf of others in financial matters. However, their discretion in accepting payment could affect the outcome of the transaction. Speculations The hesitation to accept livestock as payment suggests uncertainty in valuation standards. This implies that disagreements over the worth of goods could complicate routine financial exchanges. Rider’s reluctance to release the cabinet indicates concern over personal liability tied to estate management. This suggests that holding property was used as a safeguard in situations where legal responsibility for assets was unclear or contested. | |
363 | Whereas in an Action between the sd Bobson & the It is Ordered The sd Bobson complains of Thomas Goodwin for Thomas Goodwin saith that the Cow complained Upon consideration of the Damages that the sd It is Ordered Samuel Maxwell hath Petitioned to have Liberty to Whereupon examining the tenour of the Comp[any] orders about It is Ordered William Hayes planter complains of Sutton Isaack | In an action between Martha Bobson and Thomas Borke, it was found that the sum of £0 5s 0d was due to Bobson. Upon her request that payment be enforced, it was ordered that Borke should immediately pay or satisfy her the said sum. Martha Bobson also complained against Thomas Goodwin for damage caused by a cow in his custody, belonging to one Mary Orphan. Goodwin stated that the cow had long pastured near Bobson’s ground but that he would restrain it in future. Upon consideration of the damage sustained, it was ordered that Goodwin should immediately pay Bobson the sum of three dollars in full satisfaction. Samuel Maxwell petitioned for permission to marry Elizabeth, widow of Francis Howard. It was shown that she had assigned her land and cattle to William Groves for the use and benefit of her children, as evidenced by a written document submitted with the petition. Upon examination of the Company’s orders relating to such matters, and after consultation of the document and discussion with Groves, it was determined that, if Maxwell were to marry the widow, he would not thereby gain possession of her land and cattle, in accordance with Company regulations. It was therefore ordered that Maxwell be granted permission to marry Elizabeth Howard, provided that he did not possess any land and cattle unless he had first left the Company’s service or obtained licence to do so. William Hayes, planter, then complained against Sutton Isaack for damage caused by Isaack’s cattle, valued at £2 10s 0d. The record then breaks off. | |
364 | Sutton Isaack saith that Hayes his fence is not Christopher Jerman & John Lewis Planters say that George Dought saith that he hath driven out the Upon consideration of the whole matter & Evidence It is Ordered Walter Mead Esq having been some considerable It is Ordered Anne the wife of John Cannady planter complains Edward Bleft acknowledgeth that he hath the same Severall parts of the honoble Comp[any] or Masters Revenues | Sutton Isaack stated that William Hayes’s fence was not sufficient to keep out ordinary cattle. Christopher Jerman and John Lewis, planters, declared that they had carefully viewed the fence and found it sufficient to exclude lawful cattle. George Dought testified that he had driven Isaack’s cattle out of Hayes’s ground several times. Upon consideration of the whole matter and the evidence presented, it was ordered that Sutton Isaack should immediately pay William Hayes the sum of £1 0s 0d in full satisfaction for damages and costs of suit. Walter Mead, Esquire, having for some time been confined within the fort to prevent him causing harm due to disordered behaviour, now appeared to show improved compliance and requested permission to go into the country for the benefit of the air, in hope of recovery of his reason. It was ordered that he should go to the Honourable Company’s plantation and remain there under the direction of Mr B[...] for his good behaviour until further order, and that he should not be employed in any work beyond what he was capable of, but should be maintained in his diet. Anne, wife of John Cannady, planter, complained against Edward Bleft, Esquire, for detaining clothes which she had entrusted to him to make up, and which he had not returned despite repeated requests. Bleft acknowledged that the clothes were in his possession and that he had not yet completed them, but promised to return them promptly. It was ordered accordingly, with Cannady’s consent, that the clothes be returned. Several parts of the Honourable Company’s revenues held in leases were then considered in Council. These matters were deferred and referred to the next general pay day of the garrison, when it was resolved that [...]. Interpretations The assessment of fencing again demonstrates that liability for damage by cattle depended on whether adequate boundaries had been maintained. Testimony under oath determined whether a fence met the standard required to exclude lawful cattle. The award of damages and costs in a fixed sum shows that compensation could be standardised rather than strictly tied to estimated loss. This reflects a practical approach to resolving disputes efficiently. The confinement and supervised removal of Walter Mead to a plantation indicates a method of managing individuals considered mentally unfit. Rather than imprisonment alone, controlled relocation was used to ensure safety and oversight. The restriction on Mead’s labour shows that care was taken to match duties to capacity. This suggests an administrative concern for both productivity and welfare. The complaint regarding unfinished clothing demonstrates that service obligations, even informal ones, were enforceable. Entrusted goods had to be returned or completed upon demand. The deferral of revenue matters to a later session shows that complex financial issues were handled collectively and at designated times. This reflects structured governance over leased revenues. Speculations The repeated reliance on witness testimony about fences suggests that such disputes were frequent and that physical inspection was essential. This implies that agricultural boundaries were a common source of contention requiring regular adjudication. The decision to send Walter Mead to a plantation rather than keep him confined in the fort suggests an attempt to manage his condition through environment. This implies a belief that change of setting could improve behaviour or mental state. | |
365 | Capt Holden would informe what he have Received But we understand that he hath not Recd them Now although we are sorry for the delay in It is thought fitt & accordingly Ordered William Marsh complaineth of John Draper Planter Draper denyeth the said Debt & saith that all matter of | It was stated that Captain Holden would provide information regarding what he had received of the revenues, including arrears and duties unpaid for several periods, namely customs unpaid since 22 April 1687 and duties on coffee unpaid up to 20 March 1687. It was understood, however, that he had not received any part of these sums, despite repeated demands and offers made to him. He had refused to accept them, declaring that he would receive the money only when he thought fit. Although concern was expressed that the delay in receiving rents and duties might cause damage and loss to the Honourable Company, and uncertainty in the management of what properly belonged to them, it was nevertheless considered appropriate to proceed cautiously. It was therefore ordered that the payment of the said customs for the past year, together with those due since 22 April 1687 and the coffee duty to 20 March 1687, should remain to be paid to Captain Holden, allowing him the opportunity to receive them until the next general pay day of the garrison. This was fixed, according to the usual course of three months, as 6 October 1687. If these revenues were not received by him by that time, further consideration was to be given in order to prevent loss and damage to the Company. William Marsh then complained against John Draper, planter, for non-payment of a debt of £2 8s 0d. Draper denied the debt and stated that all matters of account and dispute between them had recently been referred to arbitrators, to whose award both parties had bound themselves. He stated that, after hearing both sides, the arbitrators had awarded Marsh the sum of £0 18s 0d, and that the additional sum now claimed had not been included in the reference. He further stated that he had not expected Marsh to make any further demand following that settlement, particularly in relation to matters concerning land or buildings. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The repeated refusal by Captain Holden to receive customs demonstrates the persistence of the dispute over financial authority. His control over collection created a bottleneck in the flow of revenue. The decision to allow Holden further time to collect revenues shows a cautious administrative approach. Rather than immediately overriding his authority, the Council delayed action to avoid escalation. The reference to specific dates for unpaid customs and duties indicates that revenue collection was expected on a regular schedule. Failure to meet these deadlines created financial uncertainty for the administration. The use of arbitration to resolve disputes between Marsh and Draper shows that alternative mechanisms existed alongside Council judgement. Binding agreements to accept an arbitrator’s award reduced the burden on formal proceedings. The distinction between sums included and excluded from arbitration demonstrates the importance of clearly defining the scope of disputes. Only matters explicitly referred could be decided and enforced. Speculations The decision to wait until the next pay day before taking further action suggests that the Council hoped Holden might comply voluntarily. This implies concern that immediate intervention could intensify the conflict. The disagreement over whether a claim was included in arbitration suggests that informal or incomplete agreements could lead to renewed disputes. This indicates that record-keeping and clarity in settlement terms were critical but not always achieved. | |
366 | Upon serious weighing of all circumstances it doth not Therefore it is Ordered Martha Bobson widdow complaines of John Smith Upon examination of work done and it appeareth that It is ordered Serjt Bayliss, William Wells & John Smith gave in accompt It is ordered Edwd St[...] | Upon careful consideration of all circumstances, it was determined that William Marsh had no valid cause of complaint, either in this matter or in respect of any debt, and that his claim appeared to proceed from pride or malice. It was therefore ordered that the complaint be dismissed without any damages or costs awarded. Martha Bobson, widow, then complained against John Smith, the Honourable Company’s reeve, for non-payment of £0 0s 1d. Smith acknowledged that he owed approximately that amount. Upon examination of work performed, it appeared that a greater sum might be due from Smith to Bobson. It was ordered that Smith should immediately pay and satisfy Bobson the sum of £0 0s 1d in full of all demands, to which both parties consented. Sergeant Bayliss, William Wells, and John Smith submitted a written account of their collection and receipt of revenues from land and cattle for the year 1686, carried out under the order of Council dated 12 June 1687. This account was examined and subscribed by them. It was found that, in addition to cattle appraised, they had received more than £1 0s 0d in copper money. It was ordered that all such monies in copper be paid by the collectors to the Governor and remain in his custody until further order. The proceedings were signed by Gregory Field, Nathaniel Fox, and Thomas Groves. Interpretations The dismissal of Marsh’s complaint on the grounds of malice or pride shows that the Council assessed not only the facts of a claim but also the intent behind it. Claims perceived as vexatious could be rejected without penalty to the defendant. The role of the reeve in owing and settling small sums demonstrates that even officials were subject to ordinary financial obligations. Accountability applied across ranks within the administration. The submission of written accounts by collectors indicates a formal system of financial reporting. Officials responsible for revenue were required to document and certify their collections. The distinction between cattle appraised and money received reflects the mixed nature of revenue collection. Payments could be made in kind or in currency, requiring separate accounting. The retention of copper money by the Governor shows centralised control over certain forms of currency. This suggests that different types of payment may have been managed differently within the treasury. Speculations The decision to settle Bobson’s claim at a fixed amount despite indication of a larger sum suggests a preference for expedient resolution. This implies that the Council sometimes prioritised closure over precise calculation. The requirement to hold copper money under the Governor’s custody suggests concern about its use or value. This indicates that not all currency was treated equally, and that copper coin may have required additional oversight. | |
367 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Saturday the 20th of Augt 1687 at Fort James Present Jno Blackmore Governr Capt Gregory Field Mr Nath Fox Mr Tho Groves A paper of Capt Holden sent on thursday the 18 Instant evening concerning Articles proposed for making Coffee pass currt was read and seriously considered & the Comp[any] Instructions abt them perused together with an ord of Councill made Sept 8th 1685 for their passing in payments & receipts, after which upon very mature deliberation it was judged that there was not sufficient ground in the Rt Honble Comp[any] order for causing the proposed articles & penalties mentioned in Capt Holdens paper to be enacted & imposed. But because mention is made in the sd paper of a Mutiny or rebellion is like both ser It is Ordered That an answer to the said paper be presently sent to Mr Keeling to Capt Holden in writing subscribed by Governr & Councill in which answer he be desired to make known if probability for Mutiny or rebellion Copy of which paper from Capt Holden & answer to it hereafter follows 1. Money is a measure of trade & cause of Commerce, there is altogether unquestionable that this Measure of Exchange for the guidance of buying & Barter When the Subject a large & freedom might be examined upon this juncture of times & affairs etc I submit & refer it to a more For the Currantness of Coffee beans in payment with other moneys That any sum of Coffee beans not exceeding three shillings value be refused to be recd 2 But if a larger sum is to be pd the receiver shall not be compelled | A consultation was held at Fort James on 20 August 1687. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Captain Gregory Field, Nathaniel Fox, and Thomas Groves. A paper sent by Captain Holden on the evening of Thursday 18 August 1687, concerning proposed articles for making coffee pass as current payment, was read and carefully considered. The Company’s instructions relating to such matters were examined, together with an order of Council dated 8 September 1685 concerning the acceptance of payments. After full deliberation, it was judged that there was no sufficient authority in the Honourable Company’s orders to enact or impose the articles and penalties proposed in Holden’s paper. However, as the paper referred to the possibility of mutiny or rebellion, it was ordered that a written answer be immediately sent by Mr Keeling to Captain Holden, subscribed by the Governor and Council, requiring him to make known the grounds for any such concern. A copy of Holden’s paper and the Council’s answer was then entered into the record. In his paper, Holden stated that money served as the measure of trade and the basis of commerce, providing a standard for exchange in buying and barter. He suggested that, in the present circumstances, the matter might require fuller consideration at a more suitable time. He then proposed that coffee beans should be made current in payment alongside other forms of money, with the condition that any sum of coffee beans not exceeding £0 3s 0d should not be refused when tendered in payment. He further proposed that, where larger sums were to be paid, the receiver should not be compelled [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The proposal to make coffee beans current in payment shows an attempt to adapt the medium of exchange to local conditions. In the absence of sufficient coin, commodities could be formalised as currency. The reference to earlier Company instructions and prior Council orders demonstrates that new measures required conformity with established authority. Local innovation in economic practice was constrained by higher directives. The limitation placed on small payments indicates an effort to regulate the use of alternative currency. By setting a threshold, the proposal aimed to balance convenience with control over larger transactions. The concern about mutiny or rebellion suggests that economic instability was perceived as a potential threat to order. Disputes over payment and value could have wider implications for discipline and governance. The requirement for Holden to provide justification for such claims reflects the Council’s insistence on accountability. Assertions of serious risk required evidence before action would be taken. Speculations The proposal to use coffee as currency suggests that shortages of conventional money were affecting trade. This implies that economic conditions on the island required practical substitutes to sustain transactions. The mention of mutiny or rebellion in connection with monetary policy suggests that Holden viewed economic grievances as a source of unrest. This indicates that control over payment systems was closely tied to maintaining stability within the settlement. | |
368 | [...] the [...] halfe & value be in other moneys & such as 3 Ten or any other Number of Dollers above being to be p[ai]d the receiver shall 4 That the Storekeeper may take notice hereof that there be no good issued 5 That this declaration may be of such efficacy & force & continue inviolable Hence will arise these conveniences 6 The silver with brass will be p[ai]d into the Comp[an]y for their debts, receiving The delivery of goods only for salary will want in goods as well as English It absolutely necessary to lay aside all fear, & speedily fall to the | The paper from Captain Holden further proposed that, in payments where coffee beans were tendered, part of the value should be made up in other money, and that coffee should not be received above a stated rate, being valued at £0 2s 3d per unit, with proportional adjustment according to quantity, provided that the greater part of any larger sum was paid in recognised money. It was further proposed that, in payments of ten dollars or more, the receiver should not be compelled to accept more than half the sum in coffee beans, the remainder being paid in other money, and that this proportion should apply similarly to larger sums in English currency. It was also proposed that the storekeeper should observe these rules, and that no goods should be issued from the store except in payment of salaries, for shipping, or for the supply of strangers. The declaration was intended to remain in force until a ship arrived from England or further instructions were received from the Honourable East India Company or the local government. It was proposed that any person violating these articles in relation to payments should forfeit £1 2s 6d, with half to the Lords Proprietors and half to the informer. It was further stated that any disturbance arising from these provisions, or resistance to them, should be treated as tending towards mutiny, and punished to the full extent of the law. Holden argued that these measures would result in silver and other coin being brought into the Company’s hands in payment of debts, and would regulate the distribution of goods for salaries. He suggested that this would prevent the accumulation of debts and maintain a balance between silver and coffee in circulation, thereby supporting trade and stock. He further warned that, without such measures, the island might face disorder, including the risk of mutiny, arising from dissatisfaction among inhabitants and soldiers regarding payment. He urged that prompt action be taken to establish a regulated system of payment, arguing that delay would result in financial loss to the Company and weaken governance. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The proposal to regulate the proportion of coffee beans in payments shows an attempt to standardise a mixed currency system. By limiting the share of commodity payment, it aimed to preserve the role of coined money. The fixed valuation of coffee demonstrates an effort to impose an official exchange rate. This would reduce uncertainty in transactions and prevent disputes over value. The restriction on issuing goods from the store indicates controlled distribution of Company resources. Goods were tied to specific purposes such as salaries and external obligations, reinforcing administrative oversight. The imposition of penalties for non-compliance reflects the use of financial sanctions to enforce economic regulations. Sharing fines between authority and informers encouraged reporting and compliance. The association of economic disobedience with mutiny shows that financial regulation was linked to maintaining order. Economic behaviour was treated as a matter of discipline as well as commerce. Speculations The detailed structure of the proposal suggests that irregular payment practices were already causing disruption. This implies that barter and mixed payments had become difficult to manage without formal rules. The repeated warnings of mutiny indicate that dissatisfaction over pay and trade conditions was a real concern. This suggests that economic instability was seen as a direct threat to the security of the settlement. | |
369 | [...] [...] when a Ship arrives here to find us in a bad if not a worse condition August 19th 1687 To the Governor & Councill The bearer will open many Meaning ab[ou]t passage of money w[hi]ch is wholly Now followeth Gov[er] & Councill Answer Capt Holden S[i]r We read y[ou]r paper as directed, & have considered of it together accordingly As to [...] of Coffee Beans we never questioned y[e] legality of their Now setting aside y[ou]r 1st paragraph how you would have us bind & oblige Now not having the least [...] suspicion that any extraordinary | The paper concluded that, unless action were taken, the island might be found in as bad or worse a condition upon the arrival of the next ship, and that the matter required speedy remedy, with the cooperation of all persons. It was dated 19 August 1687 and addressed to the Governor and Council, signed R. Holden. It was added that the bearer would further explain the meaning concerning the passage of money, which was said to be directed towards the peace and safety of all. The answer of the Governor and Council then followed. They stated that they had read Holden’s paper and considered it together. Beginning with his second position concerning trade, they indicated that they made little of it, observing that a free and voluntary commerce in that place gave them little cause to concern themselves with trade or its standard of money. They noted that private interests already occupied the inhabitants and did not prompt further inquiry into such matters. As to the payment in coffee beans, they stated that they had never questioned the legality of such payments, although they had discussed among themselves the convenience and inconvenience of receiving or refusing them. Setting aside Holden’s first proposal, by which he would bind all persons to receive and pay in coffee beans, they observed that he himself was aware that the Council had previously allowed him to establish their acceptance, and that if faults had existed in his order and proclamation, those matters had already been addressed in earlier proceedings, to which they referred him. Since that time, no law or order had been made to prohibit the use of coffee beans. They further remarked that Holden had on several occasions expressed his own judgement and capacity in dealing with large sums and financial matters beyond the scale of their own salaries, which had given satisfaction as to his ability in such affairs and had been accepted by the Company. They added that they had no suspicion that any extraordinary or emergent danger would arise, either to him or otherwise, from the present situation, despite his assertions concerning the management of these matters. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The Council’s response shows a deliberate minimisation of Holden’s economic argument. They treated the island’s trade as too limited to require strict monetary regulation. The acceptance of coffee beans as lawful payment indicates that alternative currency was already normalised. The issue lay in enforcement rather than legitimacy. The reference to earlier Council actions demonstrates that Holden’s authority to regulate coffee payments had already been recognised to some extent. The dispute concerned extension rather than origin of that authority. The Council’s emphasis on Holden’s own claimed competence suggests that they held him responsible for managing the situation without additional powers. His previous assertions were used to limit his present claims. The rejection of claims of imminent danger indicates that the Council did not accept the link between monetary disorder and threats such as mutiny. They required clearer evidence before acting on such concerns. Speculations The Council’s restrained response suggests an underlying tension with Holden’s attempts to expand control over financial regulation. This implies a broader conflict over authority within the administration. The reliance on Holden’s prior claims of competence may indicate a strategic response, shifting responsibility back onto him. This suggests that the Council sought to avoid direct involvement in potentially contentious economic measures. The dismissal of urgent warnings about disorder may reflect either confidence in existing stability or reluctance to acknowledge unrest. This suggests that perceptions of risk differed significantly between Holden and the Council. | |
370 | Upon consideration of the whole Businesse it was thought It is Ordered That the sd Francis Corn doe pay unto Thomas Information was given that John Colgrave Planter had This John Colgrave confesseth that he had cut down some But the Lord Pro[prie]tors having order that whosoever cuts It is Ordered That the sd John Colgrave be fined to the honble Comp[an]y Thomas Harper planter Complaines of Wm Marsh Planter Thomas Slow complaineth against Wm for Damages done Marsh saith that his Dogs killed the Sheep of Upon every serious Consideration of all that was alleadged That the sd Wm Marsh doe forthwith pay unto the | Upon consideration of the whole business, it was thought fit that Thomas Buntham should abate six dollars from the total debt. It was therefore ordered that Francis Corn should pay unto Thomas Buntham the sum of sixteen dollars in full satisfaction of the whole debt. Information was then given that John Colgrave, planter, had cut down timber trees belonging to the Right Honourable the Lords Proprietors on their waste land, as witnessed by Sergeant Henry Jackson, William Welch, and Mark [...]. Colgrave confessed that he had cut down some small growing trees on the Company’s waste land, believing that he might do so without offence, and requested pardon. However, as the Lords Proprietors had ordered that any person cutting timber trees on their waste land should be punished, and it being affirmed that these were such trees, it was ordered that John Colgrave be fined to the Honourable Company the sum of £1 0s 0d, to be paid immediately. Thomas Harper, planter, complained against William Marsh, planter, for damage caused by Marsh’s swine in killing one of Harper’s sheep. Thomas Slow also complained against Marsh for damage done, including the killing of a dove and eggs, and for theft of goods, together valued at £5 0s 0d. Marsh stated that his dogs had killed Harper’s sheep, for which he was willing to make some satisfaction. However, he alleged that Harper’s dogs had previously caused him damage and sought to set this off against the value of the sheep, which he had taken for his own use. He further refused to allow Thomas Slow reasonable satisfaction for his losses, except in respect of the ducks’ eggs, which he stated had been left before he departed. Upon serious consideration of all that had been alleged by the parties, it was ordered that William Marsh should immediately pay Thomas Harper the sum of £1 10s 0d for all damages caused by his swine, and £1 0s 0d to Thomas Slow in satisfaction of his losses. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The reduction of Buntham’s claim shows that negotiated settlement was used to resolve debts. The Council intervened to adjust the amount rather than simply enforce the original sum. The fine imposed on Colgrave demonstrates that the cutting of timber on proprietary land was regulated and punishable, even when the offender claimed ignorance. This indicates the importance of preserving Company resources. The dispute over damage caused by animals shows that liability extended to owners of livestock and dogs. Responsibility for damage was enforced regardless of counter-claims. Marsh’s attempt to offset damages reflects a practice of mutual accounting between parties. However, the Council did not accept this as sufficient to avoid payment. The award of fixed sums for damages indicates that compensation was determined by judgement rather than precise valuation in each case. Speculations Colgrave’s claim that he believed he could cut the trees without offence suggests that the boundaries of proprietary rights were not always clearly understood. This implies that enforcement may have been necessary to reinforce authority. The refusal to accept Marsh’s set-off argument suggests that the Council prioritised clear and immediate restitution over complex balancing of claims. This may indicate a preference for practical resolution over detailed accounting. The presence of multiple disputes involving livestock and property damage suggests that such conflicts were frequent. This implies ongoing tension in a setting where animals moved freely and boundaries were difficult to enforce. | |
371 | [...] William Price planter complaines of John Cleaver Upon consideration of the whole matter It is ordered That the sd Cleaver do forthwith deliver the sd Pig And William Andrews Wilson planter complaining of sd Cleaver Cleavers John Cleaver saith that the sd Pigs were his own that Phillip Savery planter saith that he hath seen the Alexander Kirkpatrick soldier saith that he hath known Upon debate of the whole matter it was agreed and Andrew Wilson complaineth that the sd Cleavers Black It is ordered That the sd Black be corrected by his Master Robert De Gargay planter complaines of Frances Evins And the sd Widow Evins declares her readiness & willingness | William Price, planter, complained against John Cleaver for detaining a pig which he had bought from him, alleging that Cleaver had not delivered it according to their agreement. Cleaver did not deny the matter but alleged that Price had not performed his part of the agreement in due time. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that John Cleaver should immediately deliver the said pig to William Price. William Andrews Wilson, planter, then complained against Cleaver for marking and detaining two pigs which he claimed as his own, stating that they bore his mark. Cleaver replied that the pigs were his own, having brought them into his stock, where they had remained at least three weeks unmarked, and that they had been marked by his slave by mistake. He further stated that he had altered the mark slightly, which made it resemble Wilson’s mark, and that he had three pigs marked in that manner, though Wilson claimed only two. Phillip Savery, planter, stated that he had seen two pigs in Cleaver’s custody which Wilson claimed, and that they appeared similar to Wilson’s mark, though somewhat altered. Alexander Kirkpatrick, soldier, testified that he had seen the pigs in Cleaver’s custody for three weeks without any mark before they were first marked by Cleaver’s slave. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was agreed and concluded by both parties to refer the dispute to arbitration by Orlando Bagley and John [...]. Andrew Wilson further complained that Cleaver’s slave had used reproachful and scandalous language towards him. It was ordered that the slave should be corrected by his master for this offence, and that Cleaver should pay Wilson the sum of one dollar for the abuse. Robert De Gargay, planter, complained against Frances Evins, widow, for refusing or delaying to settle accounts relating to a small debt. The widow declared her readiness to settle the account and produced her late husband’s books for that purpose. Upon due examination, it appeared that the accounts between them were more than equally balanced, and no further claim was sustained. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The order compelling delivery of the pig shows that agreements of sale were enforceable even when one party alleged delay or non-performance. The Council prioritised completion of the transaction. The dispute over marked pigs demonstrates the importance of physical identification marks in determining ownership of livestock. Alterations to such marks could create significant uncertainty. The testimony that the pigs were unmarked for a period suggests that ownership could be contested if animals were not promptly marked. This indicates a reliance on timely marking as proof of possession. The referral to arbitration shows that the Council sometimes delegated resolution of complex disputes. This suggests a recognised alternative to direct judgement in contested matters. The requirement that a slave be corrected by his master reflects the expectation that masters were responsible for the behaviour of those under their authority. Compensation for verbal abuse was also enforceable. The balancing of accounts between De Gargay and Evins shows that written records were used to resolve disputes over debts. The production of account books was accepted as evidence. Speculations The confusion over pig ownership suggests that livestock management practices may have been informal or inconsistent. This implies that disputes over animals were common in such an environment. The alteration of ear marks may indicate either mistake or deliberate attempt to claim ownership. This suggests that marking systems could be manipulated. The use of arbitration in the pig dispute suggests that the Council may have wished to avoid direct judgement where evidence was inconclusive. This implies a pragmatic approach to resolving uncertainty. The reliance on account books in settling debts suggests that literacy and record-keeping were important for financial dealings. This implies that those without such records may have been disadvantaged in disputes. | |
372 | It is Ordered That they do for shorthwith give each other Gen[er]all John Mudie Planter complaines of the sd Simons Planter John Simons acknowledgeth the Contract & agreem[en]t but Henry Cades & Jonathon Skigham planters Witnesseth that Richard Leach Planter Witnesseth that he was at the sd John Knight planter saith that about 8 days after the time as Upon Consideration of the whole It is Ordered That John Simons do immediately provide in the sd John Simons Complaines of Henry Cades planter for Wm [...] | It was ordered that both parties should immediately give each other general releases up to that day, in order to prevent any further cause of dispute. John Mudie, planter, complained against John Simons, planter, for non-performance of a contract made for building and finishing Mudie’s house. Simons acknowledged the agreement but stated that Mudie had not fulfilled his part by providing sufficient materials to employ him in the work. Henry Cades and Jonathan Skigham, planters, testified that they had been at Mudie’s house and judged that there were materials sufficient to employ Simons for a considerable time, although Simons had refused them on the grounds that they were not suitable for a good house. Richard Leach, planter, stated that he had recently seen sufficient materials at Mudie’s house to employ Simons for some time. John Knight, planter, stated that about eight days after the work began, Simons failed to attend according to the agreement. After discussion, it was acknowledged that this absence had been due to sickness. Simons then requested that Mudie be allowed further time to provide sufficient materials to complete the house, and agreed to allow him two months for that purpose. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that John Simons should immediately proceed with the work on Mudie’s house and not neglect it until completion. It was further ordered that Mudie should not fail to provide sufficient materials for the work, and that if he did so, Simons should not be penalised for any delay. John Simons then complained against Henry Cades, planter, for non-payment of a debt of £0 11s 3d for work performed by Simon White and Thomas White, who had been employed by Simons to carry out that work. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The requirement for both parties to issue general releases shows a formal mechanism for ending disputes completely. Such releases prevented the reopening of claims arising from the same matter. The dispute between Mudie and Simons illustrates the reciprocal obligations in building contracts. The worker was required to perform labour, while the employer was required to supply adequate materials. Witness testimony focused not only on the existence of materials but also on their quality. This indicates that standards of workmanship were recognised and could justify refusal to proceed. The acknowledgement of sickness as a cause for absence shows that personal circumstances could be considered in contractual performance. This suggests some flexibility in enforcement. The order requiring both continued labour and provision of materials demonstrates that the Council aimed to enforce completion rather than dissolve agreements. The emphasis was on finishing the work rather than assigning fault alone. The recognition of debts for work carried out by hired labourers shows that responsibility extended through chains of employment. A contractor could be held accountable for payment even when others performed the work. Speculations The disagreement over the quality of building materials suggests that construction standards were a source of tension. This implies that not all available materials were considered suitable for durable structures. The Council’s decision to compel continuation of the contract rather than terminate it suggests a practical concern for completing buildings in a developing settlement. Labour and materials may have been too scarce to allow abandonment of projects. The reliance on multiple witnesses indicates that disputes over labour and materials were common. This suggests that informal agreements frequently required formal adjudication. The incomplete record at the end of the debt dispute may indicate that such cases were routine and not always fully recorded, or that the outcome was considered straightforward. | |
373 | [...] Henry Cades brought into Court a [...] Book which he [...] upon serious Consideration agreed & [...] It is Ordered That the sd Henry Cades do forthwith pay unto The sd John Simons complaines of Richard Leach Richard Leach saith that Simons Cattle breaking into the sd Simons according to the opinion of two then the sd Leach is Recovered without any damages done Simons alleageth that the sd Leachs fence is broken down Upon consideration of all the Circumstances of the It is Ordered That the sd Leach be charged to keep up his Whereas the 23th of June 1683 John one of Robert It is Ordered That the sd John [...] shall dwell & abide Thomas Powell planter complaines of George Sherrin | Henry Cades brought into court a book of accounts which he stated amounted to the sum of [...]. Upon serious consideration it was agreed and ordered that Henry Cades should immediately pay unto [...] the sum of [...] in full satisfaction of all demands. John Simons complained against Richard Leach for damage caused by Leach’s dogs to one of Simons’s cattle. Richard Leach stated that Simons’s cattle had broken into his ground, whereupon his dogs ran at them and bit one, for which he offered to make satisfaction according to the judgement of two indifferent men chosen for that purpose. Simons refused this arrangement. Leach further stated that the cattle recovered without lasting damage, and that Simons’s cattle had also caused him damage in his plantation, though he did not press any complaint for it. Simons alleged that Leach’s fence had been broken in places, allowing the cattle to enter, and that Leach was therefore responsible for keeping it properly repaired. Upon consideration of all circumstances, it was ordered that Richard Leach should keep his fence good and lawful, and that he should not permit his dogs, under any pretence, to injure his neighbours’ cattle. Reference was then made to a complaint dated 23 June 1683, in which John [...], associated with Robert [...], had made complaint against William Bishop. It was ordered that the said John should dwell and remain with John Simons, the said Bishop’s son being a servant [...]. Thomas Powell, planter, complained against George Sherrin for purloining or stealing a pig, which Sherrin was alleged to have killed. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The use of account books in court demonstrates the importance of written financial records in settling debts. Such documents were treated as valid evidence when disputes arose. The dispute between Simons and Leach shows that responsibility for damage depended both on animal behaviour and the condition of fences. Proper maintenance of boundaries was a key factor in determining liability. Leach’s offer to submit the matter to neutral arbiters indicates that informal dispute resolution was common and could precede formal judgement. Refusal of such arbitration could lead to a court decision instead. The order requiring Leach to maintain a lawful fence reflects a general obligation placed on landholders. Preventing animals from straying was considered part of that duty. The instruction that dogs should not injure neighbours’ cattle shows that owners were accountable not only for livestock but also for other animals under their control. The reference to an earlier complaint suggests continuity in administrative records. Past disputes could influence present arrangements, particularly in matters involving service or residence. Speculations The reliance on account books suggests that those who kept detailed records had an advantage in legal disputes. This implies that record-keeping may have been uneven among inhabitants. The repeated emphasis on fencing indicates that boundary maintenance was a persistent issue. This suggests that land use and grazing practices created frequent conflict. Leach’s willingness to accept arbitration, contrasted with Simons’s refusal, may indicate differing levels of confidence in informal judgement. This suggests that parties sometimes preferred formal authority to settle disputes. The incomplete nature of the final complaint may indicate either loss of record or that such cases were routine and not fully recorded. This suggests that minor theft or livestock disputes were common occurrences. | |
374 | [...] [...] Ellison Planter being sworn saith that he and The sd Ellison further declareth upon Oath that he hath Upon Consideration of all the Circumstances of this Matter It is Ordered That the sd Sherrin be immediately committed to prison That he be fined to the Lords propriety the sum of [...] that on Wednesday next the 2d of this instant before [...] Martha Botton widow complaineth of James Rider Planter The sd Rider allegeth that he stands bound for the sd It is Ordered That the sd Martha Botton shall give unto the sd John Mudge Planter complaineth of Thomas Dixon [...] | [...] Ellison, planter, being sworn, stated that he and [...] Cotterell went with Thomas Powell into the woods to William Sherrin’s house. There Powell accused George Sherrin of taking the pig. Sherrin at first denied it with some evasion, but afterwards confessed and requested that Powell accept a hog in satisfaction, which Powell refused. Ellison further declared upon oath that, since the last shipping time about nine months earlier, he had lost several sheep, two sows, a hog, and a pig, besides those already mentioned, all of which he alleged had been stolen by Sherrin. Upon consideration of all the circumstances of this matter, and of the several accusations that had previously been brought against Sherrin, although nothing had been positively proved against him before, yet a strong probability had then appeared of his guilt. It was ordered that George Sherrin be immediately committed to prison, and that he be fined to the Lords Proprietors the sum of [...], and that he should forthwith pay unto Thomas Powell the sum of £3 0s 0d together with costs. It was further ordered that on Wednesday the 2nd of the instant [...]. The record is incomplete. Martha Botton, widow, complained against James Rider, planter, for detaining a bill of sale from her, which she stated she had placed in his hands when she sold her plantation. Rider alleged that he stood bound for the widow in relation to her estate and therefore refused to deliver it. It was ordered that Martha Botton should give James Rider sufficient security to indemnify him, and that upon doing so Rider should deliver up the bill of sale. John Mudge, planter, complained against Thomas Dixon [...] for trading [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The confession by Sherrin after initial denial shows that admissions of guilt could arise during confrontation rather than solely through formal evidence. Offers of compensation were not necessarily accepted in place of formal judgement. The accumulation of prior accusations against Sherrin demonstrates that reputation and repeated suspicion could influence the Council’s decision, even where earlier proof had been insufficient. The order of imprisonment indicates that detention was used both as punishment and as a precaution in cases of suspected theft. The imposition of both a fine and compensation reflects a dual approach to justice, addressing both offence against authority and injury to individuals. The requirement for Botton to provide security before receiving her document shows that obligations tied to suretyship were taken seriously. Legal documents could be withheld to protect those bound for another’s liabilities. The use of a bill of sale demonstrates the formalisation of property transactions. Such documents were essential for proving ownership and completing transfers. Speculations The number of animals alleged to have been stolen suggests that livestock theft may have been a persistent concern. This implies that enforcement relied partly on cumulative suspicion rather than single decisive proof. The refusal of Powell to accept compensation in kind suggests that trust between parties may have broken down. This implies that monetary settlement was sometimes preferred over replacement goods. The Council’s reliance on probability rather than clear proof in committing Sherrin may indicate practical limitations in evidence gathering. This suggests that maintaining order could take precedence over strict evidentiary standards. The requirement for security before returning the bill of sale suggests that financial risk and debt obligations were closely monitored. This implies that property transfers could be entangled with wider liabilities. | |
375 | [...] [...] of the clock missing some of his Hoggs he & his Thomas Dixon saith that the Day that the said Mudge Joseph Davis saith that his Landlord Mathews Jonathan the son of John Mudge aged about 11 years John Colgrave Planter saith that he the sd Mudge | [...] John Mudge, planter, stated that, having missed some of his hogs, he and his son went out about eleven o’clock to look for them at the usual place where his cattle fed. At some distance, his son saw two men carrying hogs, one of whom he believed to be Thomas Dixon, while the other he could not identify. Mudge then went about noon to Mr Mathews’s house to make further inquiry, where he found Thomas Dixon but not John Oliver, who, it was said, had not been seen on the plantation. As Mudge went towards Mathews’s house, he observed a man driving two sows and a boar hog, which upon inquiry were found to bear the marks of John Oliver. Continuing his search, Mudge went towards the suspected ground near where his hogs had fed and there met Joseph Davis with a dog, whom he asked whether he had come from Prosperous Bay. Davis answered that he had come from that direction, which Mudge considered suspicious. Thomas Dixon stated that on the day in question, when Mudge came to his quarters at Mathews’s house and accused him of taking the hogs, he had not been out of the house but had remained in bed until nine o’clock that morning. Mudge, however, stated that he and his son had left their house about ten o’clock to search for the hogs. Joseph Davis stated that his landlord, Mathews, had asked him to look for hogs near Sampson’s Path, which he did. In the afternoon, about three o’clock, he met Mudge and Colgrave, who asked him whether he had come from Prosperous Bay, to which he replied that he had come from that direction. Jonathan, son of John Mudge, aged about eleven years, stated that while searching with his father he saw three men at a distance carrying two hogs on their backs, two of whom he believed to be Thomas Dixon and John Oliver, while he could not identify the third. John Colgrave, planter, stated that after Mudge told him he had lost some hogs and had found their marks, they went out together to search for them. They followed a track which led them to a place where they met Joseph Davis, whom they [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The testimony shows reliance on eyewitness identification, even at a distance, as part of evidence in suspected theft. The uncertainty expressed by witnesses indicates the limitations of such identification. The sequence of movements described by Mudge reflects a methodical search process, combining observation of tracks, questioning of individuals, and inspection of livestock marks. The mention of hog marks demonstrates their importance as proof of ownership. Identification by marking was central to resolving disputes over livestock. The conflicting statements regarding time and presence highlight the role of alibi in defence. Dixon’s claim of remaining indoors contrasts with the timeline given by Mudge. The questioning of Joseph Davis indicates that association with a location or route could raise suspicion, even without direct evidence of wrongdoing. The inclusion of testimony from a child shows that all available witnesses, regardless of age, could contribute evidence in such cases. Speculations The difficulty in identifying individuals at a distance suggests that livestock theft could be carried out with some expectation of avoiding clear recognition. This implies that enforcement depended heavily on circumstantial evidence. The reliance on marks and tracks suggests that physical traces were often more reliable than witness identification. This implies a practical approach to investigation in a rural environment. The suspicion cast on Davis based on his route may indicate that certain areas, such as Prosperous Bay, were associated with illicit activity. This suggests informal reputational geography within the settlement. The involvement of multiple individuals in carrying hogs suggests that theft may have been a cooperative activity rather than an isolated act. | |
376 | John Oliver saith that his Master employed John Mathews saith that he left Tho Dixon in Upon consideration of all the severall Circumstances It is Ordered That the cause be dismissed untill further proofe Simon Whale complains of the sd Mudge for non Mudge acknowledgeth the Debt & saith he will pay Whale replies that Mudge promised him money which he It is Ordered That the said Mudge do pay unto the sd Whale Katharine Ishy being very poor petitioned to Whereas | John Oliver stated that his master had employed him all the morning about the house, and that he had not been working in the afternoon with Thomas Dixon at his master’s house. John Mathews stated that he had left Thomas Dixon in bed about nine or ten o’clock in the morning, and that he had employed his servant John Oliver during the forenoon with sheep and other work, and in the afternoon with Dixon at a well near the house. He also stated that he had directed Joseph Davis to look after his hogs if he passed by the place where they usually ranged. Upon consideration of all the circumstances alleged by each party, it was judged that, although there was strong suspicion and mistrust, there was not sufficient evidence to convict Thomas Dixon, Joseph Davis, and John Oliver of felony. It was therefore ordered that the case be dismissed until further proof, and that John Mudge should pay the costs of suit. Simon Whale then complained against John Mudge for non-payment of a debt of £0 17s 8d for work done. Mudge acknowledged the debt and stated that he would pay in goods, as Whale’s partner had accepted such payment. Whale replied that Mudge had promised payment in money, which he expected, having already satisfied his partner. For accommodation of this difference, by consent of both parties, it was ordered that Mudge should pay unto Whale the sum of £0 12s 0d in money and £0 5s 9d in goods. Katharine Ishy, being very poor, petitioned for leave to carry about the island a paper to receive charitable contributions from well-disposed persons. This request was granted. Interpretations The dismissal of the case despite strong suspicion shows that conviction required sufficient evidence rather than probability alone. The Council distinguished between suspicion and proof. The requirement that Mudge pay the costs of suit indicates that unsuccessful complainants could bear financial consequences. This discouraged weak or unproven accusations. The acceptance of mixed payment in money and goods reflects flexibility in settling debts. Agreements could be adjusted to accommodate the circumstances of both parties. The dispute over the form of payment demonstrates that expectations of payment in money were significant, even where goods were commonly used as substitutes. The granting of permission for Ishy to collect charitable contributions suggests an organised approach to poor relief. Assistance required formal approval rather than informal collection. Speculations The inability to convict despite multiple testimonies suggests that coordinated theft could be difficult to prove. This implies that evidentiary standards limited successful prosecution. The division of payment between money and goods may indicate scarcity of coin. This suggests that full cash payment was not always feasible. The formal permission required for charitable collection suggests that authorities monitored public appeals. This implies concern over unregulated solicitation. The imposition of costs on Mudge may reflect an attempt to deter repeated accusations without sufficient proof. | |
377 | [...] Whereas by some [...] of Capt Hodges produce It is Ordered That the consideration of all arrears due to the Whereas in the Councell held on Monday last It is Ordered That a Copy of the sd accoᵗ be sent to Capt Hodges Whereas there are severall Slaves brought hither It is ordered That 10 men and 7 Women with one Boy [...] [...] | It was reported, from papers produced by Captain Hodges, that he had retained certain sums since the last Council, being arrears due to the Honourable Company for slaves and [...]. It was ordered that the consideration of all arrears due to the Honourable Company should be deferred until the next Council, to allow Captain Hodges time to receive them, or any part of them, in the meantime. Whereas, at the Council held on the preceding Monday, it had been ordered that Captain Hodges should provide an account of what was due for customs since he had ceased receiving them in April last past, and this had not been done, it was ordered that a copy of the said account be sent to Captain Hodges to be transcribed and returned without delay. Whereas several slaves had been brought to the island from India during the last summer shipping, by order of the Honourable Company, and might remain for some time before being employed on the plantation, it was ordered that ten men, seven women, and one boy should be exposed to public sale on Wednesday 9 October 1687, upon the same conditions and articles as those previously sold. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The deferral of arrears collection shows continued difficulty in enforcing payment of Company revenues. Responsibility remained tied to specific officers such as Captain Hodges. The requirement for Hodges to produce and return an account demonstrates the importance of written financial reporting. Administrative control depended on documented records. The repeated delays suggest that collection of customs and other dues was irregular and contested. This reflects ongoing administrative challenges. The order for public sale of slaves indicates that they were treated as Company assets to be liquidated when not immediately required for labour. The specification of numbers and categories shows structured management of such property. The reference to earlier sales under similar conditions demonstrates continuity in procedure. Established terms governed the disposal of Company property. Speculations The need to resend the account to Hodges suggests either reluctance or inefficiency in complying with administrative orders. This implies tension or disorder in financial administration. The delay in employing newly arrived slaves may indicate limits in plantation capacity or organisation. This suggests that labour supply could exceed immediate demand. The decision to sell rather than retain all slaves suggests a balance between labour needs and financial return. This implies that revenue generation was prioritised alongside plantation development. | |
378 | [...] Blacks sold at March 27. 1686 To Mr De[...] one black 18:00:00 [...] 170:06:00 Aug 20ᵗ 1686 To [...][...] 16:09:00 117:09:00 Sales sold To Henry Cades - 04:05:00 27:05:00 Black sold 19 1687 To Sam Stephene - 20:01:00 [...] 367:07:00 Abstract Blacks sold March 27. Blacks sold Augᵗ Sales sold - 027:05:00 Blacks sold Octᵇ [...] 682:7:00 | Account of slaves sold. Slaves sold on 27 March 1686 To Mr [...] one slave — £18 0s 0d Total — £170 6s 0d 20 August 1686: To [...] — £16 9s 0d Total — £117 9s 0d Sales (cattle or other goods): To Henry Cades — £4 5s 0d Total — £27 5s 0d Slaves sold on 19 October 1687: To Samuel Stephene — £20 1s 0d Total — £367 7s 0d Abstract Slaves sold 27 March 1686 — £170 6s 0d Total — £682 7s 0d Interpretations The record shows that slaves were sold systematically at multiple dates, with detailed accounts of purchasers and prices. This indicates organised commercial handling of human property by the Company. Prices varied but generally fell within a relatively narrow range, suggesting an established market valuation. Some higher sums, such as £33 12s 0d and £25 3s 0d, may reflect multiple individuals, particular attributes, or negotiated terms. The inclusion of an abstract demonstrates formal accounting practices, summarising revenues across different sales. This reflects administrative oversight and financial tracking. The presence of repeat purchasers, such as Thomas Goodwin and Mr Matthews, suggests that some individuals acquired more than one slave, indicating concentration of labour ownership. The separation of “sales” (likely cattle or goods) from slave sales shows that different categories of Company property were accounted for distinctly, though within the same financial framework. Speculations The relatively consistent pricing suggests that the market for slaves on the island was stable, possibly due to limited supply routes and controlled distribution by the Company. Higher-value transactions may indicate purchase of particularly valued individuals, perhaps based on age, health, or perceived labour capacity, though this is not explicitly stated. The concentration of purchases among certain individuals suggests emerging economic stratification, with some planters able to invest more heavily in labour. The careful accounting and aggregation of totals imply that slave sales were a significant component of Company revenue, rather than incidental transactions. | |
379 | Blank page | ||
380 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday ye 17th of Present John Blackmore Govᵣ The good Ship Robert coming into the Road before It was agreed and Ordered That Capt Holden be immediately sent unto to know Which message was delivered him by Mr Levinge It is Ordered That William fflell & Thomas Goodwin Jno Blackmore | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday 17 October 1687 at Fort James Present The ship Robert arrived in the road before 1 October 1687. It was considered what should be done, both for the present and for the future, to preserve the Honourable Company’s interest and prevent damage, since Captain Holden had for some time been absent from taking account of all commodities imported or exported and from collecting the customs due on them. It was agreed and ordered that Captain Holden should immediately be sent to, to ask whether he would take responsibility for keeping an account of the said customs and collecting them, or appoint some other suitable person to do so. This message was delivered by Mr Levinge, to which Holden replied that he would not involve himself or take any further part in the matter. It was ordered that William fflell and Thomas Goodwin, or either of them, should for the present and for the future, until ships next arrived in the road or until further order, attend at the Lower Guard by the bridge near the Crane Battery. There they were to take a precise account of all goods liable to customs that were imported or exported, including their quantity and type, together with the names of the merchants from whom such goods were shipped and to whom they were consigned. This account was to be set down in writing and, at each shipping time, delivered to the Governor. John Blackmore Interpretations The Council acted to maintain control over customs collection despite Holden’s refusal to perform his duties, showing the importance of this revenue. The appointment of substitutes indicates a practical response to an official’s non-compliance and a willingness to redistribute responsibilities. The requirement for detailed written accounts shows a structured system of monitoring trade and ensuring accountability. The designation of a fixed location for recording goods suggests that trade passed through controlled points where it could be supervised. Regular submission of accounts at shipping times indicates an established administrative routine linked to maritime activity. Speculations Holden’s refusal may reflect continuing disputes over authority between Company officers. The need to appoint replacements suggests that administration depended heavily on individuals and could be disrupted by their resistance. The emphasis on careful record-keeping implies concern about loss of revenue through unrecorded or informal trade. | |
381 | [...] St Helena At a Consultation held on Wednesday forenoone the 2ᵈ Day of November 1687 at Fort James Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Governᵣ Capt Gregory Feild Mr Nath: Gee Mr Tho: G[...] Capt Tho: Cale Comandᵉʳ of the good Ship Herbert Complaines of Capt Robt Holden for deteyning some goods of his being brought on shore for his ships Compᵗ & he hath received some part thereof in Rice which goods the sᵈ Capt Holden hath locked up in his Warehouse never having refused to deliver them untill he deliver unto himself a barrell of powder, wᶜʰ he hath already pᵈ to the Governᵣ It is Ordered That an ordᵣ be Immediately drawne & sent to Capt Holden forthwith to deliver or cause to be delivered unto the sᵈ Capt Cale the goods or their value as the Companys (that Mr Bea- * [...] one of the writers & Sgt Ashingwood be joyned to accompany Capt Cale with the said order Copy of the Order hereafter followeth Island St Helena Novem: 2, 1687 Whereas Capt Tho: Cale Comᵈʳ of the good Ship Herbert hath made a Complᵗ to me & Councill now sitting that you Capt Robt Holden have illegally deteyned certaine goods of his in the Compᵗs Warehouse near the Crane The there- -fore the Governᵣ & Councill do hereby order you Capt Robt Holden forthwith to deliver or cause to be delivered the said goods to the said Capt Cale or else to shew cause to the Contrary whereof Jnᵒ Blackmore Gregory Feild Nath: Gee Tho: G[...] To Capt Robt Holden These | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Wednesday in the forenoon, 2 November 1687, at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Captain Thomas Cale, commander of the ship Herbert, complained against Captain Robert Holden for detaining some of his goods which had been brought ashore for the use of his ship’s company. Part of these goods had already been received in rice, but the remaining goods had been locked up by Holden in his warehouse. Holden had refused to deliver them unless Cale first gave him a barrel of powder, which Cale had already paid to the Governor. It was ordered that an order should immediately be drawn up and sent to Captain Holden, requiring him to deliver, or cause to be delivered, to Captain Cale the said goods or their value, according to the Company’s direction. It was further ordered that [...] one of the writers and Sergeant Ashingwood should accompany Captain Cale with the said order. Copy of the order follows: Island St Helena Whereas Captain Thomas Cale, commander of the ship Herbert, has made complaint to the Governor and Council now sitting that Captain Robert Holden has unlawfully detained certain goods belonging to him in the Company’s warehouse near the Crane, The Governor and Council therefore order that Captain Robert Holden shall immediately deliver, or cause to be delivered, the said goods to Captain Cale, or otherwise show cause to the contrary. John Blackmore To Captain Robert Holden Interpretations The complaint shows that disputes could arise between ship commanders and Company officials over control of goods landed on the island. The Council treated Holden’s actions as potentially unlawful, indicating that even senior Company officers were subject to oversight. The requirement to deliver either the goods or their value reflects an emphasis on restitution rather than punishment at this stage. The involvement of officials to accompany Cale suggests concern that the order should be properly enforced and not ignored. The reference to prior payment in powder indicates that barter arrangements were used in transactions alongside other forms of payment. Speculations Holden’s demand for a barrel of powder may suggest attempts to leverage control over stored goods for personal or administrative advantage. The need for formal intervention by the Council implies ongoing tension surrounding Holden’s conduct, consistent with earlier disputes over customs and authority. The use of rice and powder in exchange suggests limited availability of coin and reliance on commodities in trade. | |
382 | [...] In a very short time Capt Cale & the rest returned & gave acct that they It is Ordered That the said Capt Cale have his goods forthwith delivered to him Information was given that Capt Holden had this day uttered many dangerous It is Ordered That this being a matter of great moment & two of the two Ships Also Gabriel Towse planter declared that being this day in the Ware- | In a very short time Captain Cale and the others returned and reported that they had delivered the above written order to Captain Holden, who received it but did not properly read it. Captain Cale then informed him of its contents and requested his answer. Holden replied that when Captain Cale had paid him anchorage, delivered a barrel of powder, and shown him his account, which he claimed Cale had settled with the Governor for Company goods and warehouse charges, he would then deliver the goods, otherwise he would not. He further stated that Captain Cale should understand that there were two governors in the island, a Governor and a Deputy Governor, and that in this matter he was above the Governor. This answer, being read and seriously considered, showed that Captain Holden had, in contempt of the government, refused to comply. It also appeared that Captain Cale had already delivered a barrel of powder to the Governor according to the order, had disposed of goods in accordance with the instructions brought by Mr Thomas Grantham, and had settled all accounts with the Governor for what was due to the Company. It was therefore judged that Holden had no just cause for his refusal. It was ordered that Captain Cale should immediately have his goods delivered to him from the Honourable Company’s warehouse, so that he would not be hindered in his voyage home. Information was then given that Captain Holden had that day spoken many dangerous and seditious words, tending to create disturbance in the government. It was ordered that, as this was a matter of great importance, the captains of the two ships then lying in the road, together with Captain Megson, a passenger, should be asked to attend, hear the matter, and report the truth of the words. They accordingly appeared. Gabriel Towse, planter, declared that, being that day in the warehouse, Captain Holden had made a long speech, not only to the Governor and Council but to all present, including Company servants and seamen. In that speech, Holden stated that the Governor and Council were rebels, and that he would treat them as such for not obeying him and his orders. He further declared that he was as much Governor as the Governor himself, and alleged that the Governor was leading the people towards ruin or into another rebellion, and threatened that he would [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations Holden’s refusal to comply with a formal order shows a direct challenge to the authority of the Governor and Council. His claim to be above the Governor in this matter indicates a dispute over jurisdiction. The Council’s decision to enforce delivery of the goods demonstrates their attempt to assert control and prevent disruption to maritime operations. The reference to settled accounts and prior payment suggests that the dispute was not purely financial but involved authority and control over administration. The summoning of independent witnesses, including ship captains, indicates an effort to establish credible testimony in a potentially serious political matter. The allegation of seditious speech shows that verbal statements could be treated as threats to public order, especially when directed against governing authority. Speculations Holden’s assertion that he was effectively equal or superior to the Governor may reflect a competing interpretation of Company authority, possibly tied to his role in revenue collection. The public nature of his speech suggests an attempt to influence opinion among settlers and seamen, indicating factional tension within the island community. The Council’s concern about “rebellion” implies that previous unrest may have shaped their sensitivity to dissent, leading to swift action against perceived threats. | |
383 | [...] to the Governᵣ when a Ship comes from England & in many other The two planters reteyned of the head Capt Holden speaking these But if he shall Continue to utter Invectives agᵗ the Governᵣ A Memorandum That this Coppy of the Councill Book Memᵒ That the following Consultation should have been inserted before [...] Gregory [...] Nath: [...] Tho: Goffe | Further words were reported, implying that the Governor would be removed when a ship arrived from England, together with other statements suggesting that the Governor had long since been displaced from authority. Two planters confirmed that Captain Holden had spoken words describing the Governor as a rebel and declaring that all who supported him were likewise rebels. They also confirmed, along with Gabriel Towse, that Holden had used many other expressions containing serious reflections against the Governor. Upon consideration, it was the opinion of all present that these words were of a dangerous nature and clearly tended to create division and to encourage rebellion and mutiny. It was therefore judged that Captain Holden deserved to be secured. However, as a ship from the Honourable Company was expected daily, it was considered appropriate to suspend Holden’s confinement for the present. It was further ordered that, if he continued to speak against the Governor and government or to stir up discontent, he should immediately be secured and sent to England at the first opportunity. Memorandum A copy of the Council Book to this point was sent to Captain Holden, commander of the ship Herbert, on 8 November 1687. Memorandum It was noted that the following consultation ought to have been inserted before the preceding consultation. Gregory [...] Interpretations The confirmation of Holden’s statements by multiple witnesses strengthened the case against him and shows reliance on corroborated testimony. The classification of his words as tending toward rebellion indicates that political speech was closely monitored and could be treated as a serious offence. The decision to suspend immediate confinement reflects a cautious approach, likely influenced by the imminent arrival of a Company ship and the potential for escalation. The provision to send Holden to England shows that higher authority was expected to adjudicate serious disputes involving senior officials. The sending of the Council Book to Holden suggests a formal process of notification and record-sharing, possibly to ensure transparency or to justify the Council’s actions. Speculations The expectation of a ship from England may have influenced restraint, as the Council may have preferred to defer decisive action until higher authority could intervene. Holden’s repeated public statements suggest he may have been attempting to rally support, indicating factional divisions within the island community. The threat of sending him to England implies that local mechanisms for resolving such high-level disputes were limited, necessitating appeal to the Company’s central authority. | |
384 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held the 21 of Octoᵇʳ 1687 Jnᵒ Blackmore Governᵣ Mr [...] Cox a member of the Councill having in a paper It is Ordered That a Warrant be forthwith drawne & signed, directed to Capt Which Warrant was caused to be written & Capt Holden Mr Cox returned in a short time & declared that he had Thereupon Mr Cox earnestly desired the supply of the said Therefore It is Ordered That the said Mr Cox have 20 pᵈ forthwith paid unto him in Ten pounds & ten pence in three bullocks out of the Honᵇˡ Jnᵒ Blackmore | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on 21 October 1687 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Mr [...] Cox, a member of the Council, stated in a written paper that he had served the Honourable Company on the island for more than two years and had received only part of one year’s salary. He requested that £20 0s 0d be paid to him so that he might complete one full year’s salary and provide necessary support for his family. It was ordered that a warrant should immediately be drawn up and signed, directed to Captain Holden, requiring him forthwith to pay to Mr Cox the said sum of £20 0s 0d, to be entered to account as a debt of the Honourable Company. The warrant was written, and Mr Cox and Mr [...] Broadmore attended with it. Mr Cox returned shortly afterwards and declared that he had met Captain Holden with the warrant, but that Holden had refused payment, saying that he had already engaged to pay others and therefore could not pay him. This was also affirmed by Mr Broadmore. Mr Cox then earnestly requested immediate supply of the said sum of £20 0s 0d, being under pressing necessity at that time. It was therefore ordered that Mr Cox should at once be paid £20 0s 0d in the following manner: £10 10s 0d in three bullocks out of the Honourable Company’s stock of cattle, and £9 2s 0d in money [...]. The record then becomes defective. John Blackmore Interpretations The written petition by Mr Cox shows that unpaid salary claims could be brought formally before the Council. Service to the Company created an acknowledged financial obligation that could be pressed through official channels. The order directing Captain Holden to make payment indicates that control over Company funds remained concentrated in his hands, despite earlier disputes over his compliance with Council instructions. The refusal to honour the warrant demonstrates that even a signed Council order might fail in practice if the officer controlling payment would not obey it. This reveals the weakness of enforcement when financial authority and administrative authority were divided. The substituted payment, partly in cattle and partly in money, shows that salary could be discharged in mixed forms rather than entirely in cash. Company livestock functioned as a financial resource that could be converted directly into compensation. The reference to entering the payment to the Company’s debt shows that salary arrears were treated as formal liabilities in account. This reflects an administrative practice of recognising unpaid service as a book debt owed by the Company. Speculations Holden’s refusal to pay Cox, despite a direct warrant, suggests that he was prioritising other obligations or deliberately resisting the Council’s authority over disbursement. This implies that salary payment had become entangled in the broader struggle over control of Company finances. The decision to satisfy part of the salary with bullocks suggests a shortage of ready money. This implies that the Council was trying to relieve immediate hardship with whatever assets could most quickly be mobilised. The emphasis on Cox’s family necessities suggests that delayed salaries could create real domestic strain for Company servants. This implies that arrears were not merely accounting problems but could affect the stability of households dependent on Company pay. | |
385 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Saturday the 5ᵗʰ of Novemᵇʳ Jnᵒ Blackmore Govᵣ Capt Gregory Feild being one of the Councill Informes that It is Ordered That the said Capt Feild have his desire granted & that Jnᵒ Blackmore | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Saturday 5 November 1687 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Captain Gregory Field, being one of the Council, reported that Captain Holden had for the past two quarters refused to pay him his quarterly salary, although he had full authority by warrant to do so. For the better payment of the garrison, he and Mr Thomas Goffe had attended Captain Holden and requested payment, but Holden had firmly refused. As a result, for twelve months past Captain Field and Mr Goffe had received no money to supply their necessary occasions. Captain Field therefore requested that he might, for the present, receive one quarter’s salary, amounting to £7 10s 0d, so that he could obtain necessary goods from the ships now in the road. Upon consideration, it was ordered that Captain Field should have his request granted. He was to receive eight Spanish dollars at 5 shillings each, out of money belonging to the Honourable Company in the Governor’s hands, together with an additional 5 shillings from money due for land and cattle tax for the year 1686 deposited in the Governor’s custody, and a further 5 shillings from the same source, making up the full sum of £7 10s 0d. John Blackmore Interpretations The report confirms that Holden’s refusal to make payments extended beyond isolated cases and affected senior officials, including members of the Council. The inability of officers to obtain their salaries for an extended period shows a breakdown in the financial administration of the island. The Council’s decision to pay Field directly from funds held by the Governor indicates a shift in financial control away from Holden. The use of Spanish dollars alongside sterling values reflects the mixed currency system in use on the island. The reference to land and cattle tax funds shows that revenue from inhabitants could be redirected to meet Company obligations such as salaries. Speculations The prolonged non-payment of salaries suggests that Holden may have been deliberately withholding funds as part of a broader dispute over authority. The reliance on alternative funds under the Governor’s control implies that the Council was attempting to bypass Holden’s financial authority. The need for immediate payment to purchase goods from ships suggests that access to trade opportunities depended on having ready money at specific times. | |
386 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the 24ᵗʰ of Novemᵇʳ Jnᵒ Blackmore Governᵣ Mr [...] complaines of Andrew Rooker Commander of yᵉ yesterday morne Samuell Beare supra cargo of yᵉ ship Margaretta from New York Likewise saith Mr Gee was going off yᵉ ship into yᵉ boat and have | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday 24 November 1687 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Mr Nath: Gee complained against Andrew Rooker, commander [...], stating that on the previous morning, while he was on board the ship Margaretta in the road, Rooker used abusive language towards him and treated him with insulting words and gestures. He said that although he had the Governor’s licence to go on board the ship, Rooker told him that unless he also had Captain Holden’s licence he should return to his boat. Rooker further declared that he was as good a man as Gee and threatened to beat him, saying he would not be at peace until he had done so. He also struck his foot upon the deck, saying that he valued the Governor no more than the dirt under his shoes. Gee stated that Rooker despised him on board and acted spitefully over a small straw box of little value, and he requested protection from such behaviour and intended affronts. Samuel Beare, supercargo of the ship Margaretta from New York, being sworn, stated that he was on board when he heard many angry words pass between Nath: Gee and Rooker. He could say little more, but confirmed that Rooker said that if he were on shore he would prove himself as good a man as Gee, although he was only a blacksmith and Gee a gentleman. He also stated that Rooker said that if any boats came on board from shore or elsewhere without Captain Holden’s authority, he would seize them, even if they came from Mr Glover. He further confirmed that Rooker said he valued Gee no more than the dirt under his foot, striking his foot upon the deck as he spoke. Beare also stated that when Gee was leaving the ship and going into the boat, carrying a small straw box, Rooker demanded to see what was in it. Gee refused, whereupon Rooker said he should not leave the ship. Gee replied that he would go ashore and report the matter to the Governor and Council. Shortly afterwards, Gee opened the box, which contained nothing, and Rooker then told him he might go. Interpretations The complaint shows that disputes between Company officials and ship commanders could involve questions of authority, particularly regarding who had the right to grant permission to board ships. Rooker’s insistence on Captain Holden’s licence suggests that Holden’s authority was being asserted beyond financial matters into general control over maritime activity. The use of insulting language and gestures, including threats of violence, was treated as a matter requiring formal complaint and Council attention. The testimony of an independent witness, the supercargo, was used to confirm key elements of the dispute, showing reliance on corroboration. The incident over the straw box indicates concern over inspection and control of goods leaving ships, even when the item proved to be of no value. Speculations Rooker’s behaviour may reflect alignment with Holden’s authority, suggesting that divisions within the administration extended to those connected with shipping. The emphasis on licence to board ships implies that control of access to vessels was a contested issue, possibly linked to regulation of trade and prevention of smuggling. The readiness of Gee to appeal to the Council suggests that official channels were relied upon to address personal and administrative conflicts. The trivial nature of the straw box incident may indicate heightened suspicion or tension, where even minor matters became points of conflict. | |
387 | [...] being further [...] of yᵉ Ship Mr Gee would not cause Mr Hugh [...] who [...] Engagemᵗ of yᵉ said ship Margaretta being sworne [...] Brabourne mate being sworne saith that being on board the Will Deareing Master of yᵉ ship Margaretta saith yt he heard | Further evidence stated that Mr Gee remained on board the ship for some time, considering himself under restraint, and did not immediately depart until another boat came. Mr Hugh [...], engaged with the ship Margaretta, being sworn, stated that he heard Andrew Rooker say to Mr Gee that if they were together on shore he considered himself as good a man as Gee, and that he would seize any boat coming on board without Captain Holden’s order. [...] Brabourne, mate, being sworn, stated that on Wednesday 23 November 1687, while on board the Margaretta, he heard heated words pass between Mr Gee and Andrew Rooker. The dispute began with words of reflection spoken by Rooker. Mr Gee replied that he had never spoken anything against him, but Rooker disagreed. The exchange escalated, and Rooker declared that whether on board or on shore he would not be subject to Gee, and that he was accustomed to dealing with such a man. Brabourne further stated that Mr Gee observed a small parcel of tobacco brought on board in the boat, which he believed to be contrary to Rooker’s authority. Mr Gee refused involvement and threw it overboard or removed it into the ship. Afterwards, as Mr Gee attempted to leave the ship carrying a small straw box, Rooker demanded to inspect it. Gee refused, whereupon Rooker said he should not go ashore until he had done so. Gee proceeded towards the boat, which pushed off, and the box was opened and found to be empty. Rooker then allowed him to depart, though Gee did not immediately return to shore. Brabourne also stated that he heard Rooker say to Gee that if Gee would lay aside his authority on shore, then although Rooker was a blacksmith and Gee a gentleman, he considered himself as good a man. He further heard Rooker state that he would seize anything brought on board without Captain Holden’s authority, even if it came under the Governor’s order. William Deareing, master of the ship Margaretta, stated that he heard Mr Gee and Rooker quarrelling in heated words about the small straw box, and confirmed that he heard Rooker use the expressions described in Brabourne’s testimony, including claims of equality with Gee and assertions that he would seize goods belonging to Holden. Interpretations The repeated testimony from multiple witnesses establishes a consistent account of Rooker’s conduct, reinforcing the credibility of the complaint. The statements about being “as good a man” reflect social tensions between occupational status and rank, particularly between a blacksmith and a gentleman. Rooker’s insistence on Holden’s authority over goods and boats indicates that Holden’s influence extended into maritime control, challenging the Governor’s authority. The incident of detaining Gee on board suggests that Rooker exercised practical control over movement on the ship, even against a Council member. The focus on inspecting goods, even trivial items, shows concern with regulating the movement of commodities and preventing unauthorised transfer. Speculations Rooker’s alignment with Holden suggests that the conflict over authority had spread beyond the Council to include those connected with shipping operations. The emphasis on status equality may indicate resentment or resistance among lower-status individuals toward the authority of Council members. The detention of Gee, even briefly, suggests that enforcement of authority at sea could differ from that on land, creating opportunities for confrontation. The scrutiny of small items such as a straw box or tobacco parcel may reflect heightened suspicion of illicit trade or smuggling. | |
388 | Robt Goodwine saith concerning [...] that Box as is Upon very mature & serious Deliberation of this whole busines It is the Opinion of Governᵣ & Councell & Resolved Therefore It is Ordered That the said Rooker do forthwith acknowledge his offence & The said Rooker being called before the Governᵣ telling him what J B[...] The Consultation continued in the afternoon and Wᵐ Welles & Jno Finn Make informn that Peter Richard | Robert Goodwine stated, concerning the box mentioned in the earlier depositions, that Rooker had said he would seize any boat and whatever was in it, even if it carried the Governor’s order, unless it also had an order from Captain Holden. He further stated that Mr Gee had said he believed he had the right to go into such a place or harbour and to dispose of goods as he thought fit, and that if he wished to carry and sell goods on board he would do so whether others approved or not. Upon very careful and serious consideration of the whole matter, together with all the circumstances, it was the opinion of the Governor and Council, and so resolved, that Andrew Rooker was guilty of a serious misdemeanour in his rude and abusive behaviour, threatening words, and conduct towards Mr Gee, a member of the Council. It was therefore ordered that Rooker should immediately acknowledge his offence and ask Mr Gee’s pardon. If he refused to comply or to submit, he was to be committed to prison. Rooker was then called before the Governor and informed of the order. Before the Governor had finished speaking, Rooker, in a fierce and insolent manner, declared that he would rather go to prison and that he did not doubt he would soon be released, adding that he would live as well in prison as Gee would elsewhere. He was then committed to prison. John B[...] The consultation continued in the afternoon, and Mr Nathaniel Coxe was added. William Welles and John Finn gave information that Peter Richard’s slave, who had run away and was recently taken, confessed [...] that he had paid his master and himself to his former master, and that he had made payments to Captain Robert Blake, to Mr Philip [...], to Mr Clarke, and to Gabriel Lovell’s slave [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The Council’s judgement shows that verbal abuse and defiance of authority were treated as punishable offences, especially when directed at a Council member. The requirement that Rooker apologise publicly reflects an expectation of submission and restoration of social order, rather than immediate financial penalty. Rooker’s refusal and willingness to go to prison indicates open defiance of authority, suggesting that imprisonment was not always seen as a severe deterrent. The emphasis on Holden’s authority in Rooker’s statements reinforces the ongoing division between competing centres of power on the island. The mention of the runaway slave and payments suggests the existence of informal or illicit transactions involving slaves, possibly including self-purchase or transfer between masters. Speculations Rooker’s confidence that he would soon be released may suggest that he expected support from Holden or others, indicating factional backing. The casual attitude towards imprisonment implies that enforcement mechanisms may have been inconsistent or negotiable. The fragmentary account of the slave’s payments may point to unofficial systems of exchange or arrangements that operated alongside formal Company control. The continuation of the consultation into the afternoon and addition of another Council member suggests that the matter was considered significant and required broader participation. | |
389 | [...] Robinsons Black to poyson their Masters & Mistresses, & yt he Woola the Guinny Black Woman testifies that one day the sd Black Toby Gunner Black man saith yt the sd Black Peter did bid Gabriell Brown Black saith yt the sd Black Peter never gave Thomas Black confesseth he did take something of him to poyson Tho Borets Black saith he was with the sd Peter at Hensley Mrs Ebon saith that when the sd Black Peter lived with her Elinor wife of Richᵈ Griffin saith she can remember | Further information was given concerning Peter, a slave belonging to Robinson, who was accused of encouraging other slaves to poison their masters and mistresses. It was alleged that he had received poisonous substances mixed with meal for that purpose, but that those who received it did not use it. Woola, a Guinea-born slave woman, testified that Peter had urged her to run away from her master, telling her he would accompany her and that she need not fear punishment, as he could provide something that would cause her master and mistress to die if they beat her. He claimed that he had killed his own master by giving him coffee mixed with crushed glass and other ingredients. He also said that he had given poison to another slave woman belonging to Robinson, who had poisoned her mistress, and to a slave belonging to Gabriel [...], who had likewise poisoned her mistress. He further said that if they could not poison their masters or mistresses, they should kill them with stones. Woola stated that Peter had given her and another slave, Hannah, poison for this purpose, but that they threw it away. Toby, a slave gunner, stated that Peter had asked him to fetch the slave woman and said he would give them poison to kill their masters and mistresses. He claimed that Peter said he had mixed glass with earth taken from graves to make poison, and that he had given Woola, Toby, and Hannah substances for this purpose, which they also threw away. Gabriel Brown, a slave, stated that Peter had offered him something to poison a dog that had bitten him, but that he refused to take it. Thomas [...], a slave, admitted that he had taken something from Peter to poison [...], but that he later discarded it and did not act upon it. Thomas Borets, a slave, stated that he had been with Peter at an old house at Hensley, where Peter crushed glass and mixed it with his own blood and sweat, saying it was intended to poison his master Phillips. He also claimed that Peter said he had already poisoned his master. Mrs Ebon stated that when Peter lived with her, she remembered seeing him crush glass and mix it into a drink, though she did not then understand its purpose. Elinor, wife of Richard Griffin, stated that she remembered on a certain Sunday, when they had pork for dinner, that [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The testimonies present a consistent pattern of accusations that Peter encouraged and attempted to organise poisoning among slaves. The repetition of similar claims across multiple witnesses suggests that the matter was treated as serious and credible. The alleged use of crushed glass and other substances indicates contemporary beliefs about poisoning methods, whether effective or not. The emphasis on encouraging others to poison their masters shows that the offence was understood not only as individual wrongdoing but as an attempt to incite wider violence. The repeated statements that the poison was not used demonstrate that, despite the allegations, no successful act of poisoning was clearly established in this portion of the record. The inclusion of both slave and free witnesses indicates that testimony was taken from all available sources in cases considered dangerous to the community. Speculations The consistency of the accusations may reflect either genuine concern about a coordinated threat or the rapid spread of fear and suspicion within the community. The references to poisoning multiple masters and mistresses suggest anxiety about internal threats within households, particularly from enslaved individuals. The description of poisoning methods involving glass and grave earth may indicate a mixture of practical knowledge and superstition. The fact that several witnesses claimed to have rejected or discarded the poison suggests either reluctance to participate or an attempt to distance themselves from the accusation. | |
390 | going to supper on yᵉ remands, & they did not imagine poyson therein at that time untill The sd Black Peter confesseth he hath oft spoken agᵗ him Upon the whole it is yᵉ Opinion of yᵉ Governᵣ & It is Ordered That yᵉ present Black Peter be burnt to death on Fryday J B[...] Island St Helena At a Consultation held Decem 3ᵈ 1687 att Fort Jnᵒ Blackmore Govᵣ Mr Brabourne one of the Writers being equally deputed wᵗʰ | Further testimony stated that, when going to supper on the remains, they had not suspected any poison at the time, until later reports were heard. Although Peter did not fully confess to poisoning, it was said that he had been heard speaking of such matters as described above. The said slave Peter admitted that he had often spoken in such a manner, but claimed that it was others who had asked him for poison to kill their masters and mistresses, and that he had never actually given any poison to them. Upon the whole matter, it was the opinion of the Governor and Council, without any dissent, that the said Peter deserved death. It was therefore ordered that the said Peter be burned to death on Friday 29 December 1687, and that a proclamation be made requiring all inhabitants to ensure that their slaves, except young children, should be present at the execution, in order to deter them from committing similar acts. Each was to bring a bundle of wood for the execution. It was further ordered that Robert Black should receive severe punishment for failing to report Peter’s actions earlier, and that, according to an order of Council of 3 August 1686, he might be liable to forfeiture in proportion to the number of slaves aged fifteen years and above in his possession. Compensation for the loss of Peter was to be borne by the relevant parties as requested. John B[...] Island St Helena At a Consultation held on 3 December 1687 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Mr Brabourne, one of the writers, being jointly appointed with Mr Keeling by Captain Holden to assist in the collection of customs and in the duties of watch both on board and on shore, during [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The Council’s unanimous decision indicates that the case was treated as extremely serious, even though the accused denied actually distributing poison. The punishment of burning reflects the severity with which attempted poisoning and incitement to violence were regarded. The requirement that slaves attend the execution shows that punishment was intended to act as a public warning and deterrent. The obligation for each person to bring wood suggests that the community was made to participate directly in carrying out the sentence. The additional punishment of Robert Black for failing to report the matter demonstrates that withholding information about such offences was itself treated as a serious breach. Speculations The decision to execute despite the lack of clear proof of actual poisoning suggests that fear of potential insurrection or violence among slaves strongly influenced the outcome. The public and collective nature of the execution may have been intended to reinforce control and authority over the enslaved population. The penalties imposed on others for failing to report the matter suggest concern about wider networks of knowledge or complicity. The severity of the sentence may reflect broader anxieties about security on the island and the vulnerability of masters within their households. | |
391 | stay of this ship Margaretta, & yᵉ Signification of his pleasure to The Master makes answer that being upon yᵉ works neare or upon All which being at large, the Case yᵉ Master was put off in yᵉ Boat It is Concluded That Mr Brabourne ought not to have gone abᵗ to search J B[...] | Mr Brabourne, acting during the stay of the ship Margaretta and in relation to duties connected with customs, complained that the ship’s master had obstructed and insulted him while he was carrying out his role. He stated that the master pushed him aside, refused to allow a search on shore, called him a rascal, and threatened to throw him from the rocks if he attempted to search him. He also said that the master later repeated similar threats in the street, declaring he would treat him violently if he tried again. The master replied that he had been near the landing place speaking with others when Brabourne approached and said he had been sent by Captain Holden to search him for goods. One pocket was examined, and Brabourne attempted to search another, which contained only a small piece of aloes used for tobacco. The master then demanded to see his authority, and stated that without it he would not submit and would throw him into the sea if he persisted. He admitted pushing Brabourne away and did not deny the substance of the accusations, but argued that Brabourne had no authority to stop or search him. It was further stated that, when the master was in the boat, he asked to see Brabourne’s commission, and was told it would be shown to his superiors instead. After full consideration, it was determined that Brabourne should not have attempted the search without proper authorisation, which he acknowledged he did not possess at that time. The matter was therefore dismissed, with both parties cautioned. John B[...] Interpretations The ruling shows that formal authorisation was required before conducting searches, even in matters related to customs enforcement. The master’s admission of physical resistance did not lead to punishment, indicating that improper procedure by Brabourne was the decisive factor. The emphasis on written authority reflects the administrative reliance on commissions and formal delegation. The outcome suggests that maintaining correct procedure was prioritised over addressing personal misconduct. Speculations The incident may reflect wider uncertainty or conflict over enforcement powers in relation to customs. Brabourne’s attempt to act without clear authority may indicate pressure to enforce regulations in a contested administrative environment. The master’s reaction suggests that ship officers resisted actions they considered illegitimate or unsupported by proper authority. | |
392 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Munday the 12 Day of Decem Jnᵒ Blackmore Governᵒʳ Widdᵗ Doctor Plowden Complaint of Alarom Kirkpatrick Kirkpatrick answerᵗ he came neare yᵉ Doctors house, but Says yᵉ Wife of yᵉ sd Doctor on Friday last as she went to fetch water she espyed yᵉ Kirkpatrick | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Monday 12 December 1687 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Doctor Plowden brought a complaint against Alarom Kirkpatrick, stating that on Tuesday 6 December 1687 Kirkpatrick came to his house while he was absent and tried to force entry. The doctor’s wife, being inside, secured the door, whereupon Kirkpatrick went towards the chimney and threatened to enter the house from the rear. She became greatly frightened and attempted to flee to nearby neighbours, but Kirkpatrick seized her, threw her to the ground, and attempted to assault her. She managed to escape towards the door, but he took hold of her again and tried to drag her down into the gully near the house, until the doctor himself returned. It was further stated that Kirkpatrick had previously entered into a bond of £5 0s 0d not to trouble the doctor or his household, nor to approach his house, which obligation the doctor produced. Kirkpatrick answered that he had been near the doctor’s house but denied forcing the door or assaulting the wife. He claimed that she had opened the door, that he entered the house, and that when he came out with her the doctor arrived. The doctor’s wife stated that on Friday last, as she went to fetch water, she saw Kirkpatrick near the house and ran back inside, securing the door. She said that he tried to break it open, swearing at her and demanding entry. Failing to gain access, he moved to the chimney and again threatened to enter by that way. Fearing this, she opened the door and ran out to seek help, but he pursued her, seized her, and threw her onto the bed, from which they both fell behind the door [...]. The record then breaks off. Interpretations The complaint presents an alleged violent intrusion into a household, including attempted forced entry and assault, treated as a serious offence. The existence of a prior bond shows that Kirkpatrick had already been under formal restraint, indicating a history of conflict. The testimony of the wife provides detailed evidence of both threats and physical force, forming the core of the accusation. Kirkpatrick’s defence relies on denial and reinterpretation of events, suggesting consent or lesser misconduct. The reference to threats of entering by the chimney reflects concern about breaches of domestic security. Speculations The earlier bond suggests ongoing hostility between the parties, which may have influenced both behaviour and testimony. The severity of the allegations indicates fear of personal violence within domestic spaces. The wife’s decision to open the door despite danger suggests the immediacy of the threat and lack of secure alternatives. The case may have been shaped by prior disputes, potentially affecting how the events were reported and judged. | |
393 | he pulled of his Mother, & would have forced her, but she gott a [...] Elizᵗ the wife of Tho: Etheridge planter being sworn saith That Likewise this Deponent saith she heard yᵉ sd Kirkpatrick say Sarah yᵉ wife of Widdᵗ Browne (a sojourner at Etheridges) Kirkpatrick saith by way of Defence, That what is sworn | He seized her clothing and attempted to overpower her, but she managed to reach the door. He followed, took hold of her hand, and, continuing to use violent language, tried to drag her down into the valley near the house. When he saw her husband approaching, he withdrew. Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Etheridge, a planter, being sworn, stated that Kirkpatrick had recently come to her house, which stood near that of the doctor. He had said that he had heard the doctor had gone to complain to the Governor, and declared with oaths that if he had done so he would make an example of the doctor’s wife so that she would not trouble him again. She said she had driven him away and kept her distance. He had then sworn again that he would give her a “mark of a whore”. When she asked what he meant, he replied that he would cut off her nose. She told him that such an act was punishable by death, to which he responded that the usual punishment on the island was only about twenty lashes, and that he would willingly endure that to take revenge. She further stated that she had heard him say that if he believed the doctor had gone to complain, he would lie in wait and kill him on the road. She also stated that he had said that if the doctor’s wife refused him entry, he would force the door or drive nails through it, and made several other threatening and abusive remarks which she could not fully recall. Sarah, wife of Widow Browne, residing at Etheridge’s, confirmed on oath that the deposition was true so far as she had heard the words spoken by Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick, in his defence, stated that the accusations made against him, particularly by Mr Nathanael Coxe, were malicious and false, and that false testimony had been given. He claimed that in passing to and from the doctor’s house it had been said that he would have his ears cut off, and that he had merely replied that such actions could lead to the loss of both nose and ears, and that there had been prior involvement between Coxe and the doctor in the matter. Interpretations The testimony portrayed repeated threats of serious violence, including attempted assault, mutilation, and murder, indicating that the case was treated as highly serious. The corroboration by multiple witnesses strengthened the credibility of the accusations and showed reliance on sworn testimony. The reference to punishments such as whipping and mutilation reflected contemporary understandings of legal penalties on the island. The defence relied on denying intent and alleging malice in the testimony, suggesting an attempt to undermine the credibility of witnesses. The repeated references to prior disputes indicated that the case arose within an ongoing conflict rather than as an isolated incident. Speculations The intensity of the threats may have reflected deep personal hostility between the parties, possibly aggravated by earlier legal or social disputes. The mention of relatively light punishment for violent acts may have indicated perceptions of weak enforcement, potentially encouraging aggressive behaviour. The involvement of multiple witnesses suggested that the incident had become widely known, increasing pressure on the Council to act. The defence’s focus on alleged bias implied that factional divisions within the community may have influenced the proceedings. | |
394 | [...] which hath stood him in almost [...] when he heard yᵉ Doctᵒʳs Upon mature and mature Consideracon of this Matter & the whole It is Agreed That yᵉ sd Kirkpatrick is guilty of very heynous Crimes and Mis- Ordered That he be Comitted to prison & that on some [...] Tuesday Morning Whereas yᵉ Governᵒʳ hath received a Bill of Offences for Nathaniel It is Ordered That yᵉ Governᵒʳ have [...] by yᵉ sd Compᵃⁿʸ in her accᵗ for Whereas yᵉ Governᵒʳ held this 5ᵗʰ 1686 upon a serious debate Now whereas a man Black Slave left by Richᵈ Griffith wᵗʰ | […] which had nearly cost him […]. When he heard that the doctor was going down to complain to the Governor, he said he had been minded to strike him. After careful consideration of the matter and all the circumstances, it was agreed that Kirkpatrick had been guilty of very serious crimes and misdemeanours. It was therefore ordered that he should be committed to prison, and that on the following Tuesday morning at eight o’clock he should be made to ride the wooden horse for one hour in the morning, and at each turn receive punishment as appointed, and that he should stand in a public place for set periods each day. It was further ordered that if he should at any time thereafter trouble the doctor’s wife, or go to the doctor’s house or door without permission, or strike or threaten the doctor, his wife, or any of their household, he should suffer further punishment accordingly. Whereas the Governor had received a bill of offences against Nathaniel, one of the Honourable Company’s slave boys, who served as a drummer in the garrison, and he had confessed himself guilty, it was ordered that punishment be carried out, to be entered to the Company’s account at the value of twenty […]. Whereas in a Council held on 5 August 1686 it had been debated what should be done for the relief of those who suffered loss when their slaves were killed by others or executed for capital crimes, it had then been agreed that if any slave was convicted of such offences and put to death, the owner should receive compensation. This was to be raised by contribution from all slaveholders on the island, in proportion to the number of slaves they possessed, the value to be set by the Governor and Council. Now, a male slave formerly belonging to Richard Griffith, and left with Ellen his wife when he departed the island with licence, had been convicted at a consultation held on 24 November 1687 of serious crimes and sentenced to death, and had been executed according to law. The Governor and Council therefore assessed the value of the said slave […]. Interpretations The punishment imposed on Kirkpatrick combined imprisonment, physical punishment, and public exposure, indicating a graded approach to discipline for serious but non-capital offences. The reference to the wooden horse shows the use of corporal punishment designed both to inflict pain and to shame the offender publicly. The conditional clause imposing further penalties for any future offence reflects an attempt to prevent recurrence through deterrence. The case of Nathaniel shows that enslaved individuals in Company service were subject to formal discipline and accounting procedures. The compensation scheme demonstrates a structured system for distributing financial loss arising from the execution or killing of slaves. Speculations The severity of Kirkpatrick’s punishment suggests that the Council viewed his conduct as dangerously disruptive to social order. The existence of a compensation system implies recognition of slaves as economic assets whose loss required collective mitigation. The requirement for contributions from all slaveholders may have been intended to maintain stability among owners and reduce resentment. The valuation of executed slaves suggests an effort to standardise compensation, though the process may have been influenced by local conditions or negotiation. | |
395 | And whereas at yᵉ Execution of yᵉ sd negro slave one of yᵉ Inha- It is Ordered That every Owner and Possessor of any Black slave (on this [...] | It was also recorded that, at the time of the execution, those inhabitants who were present were informed by the Governor and Council that a general contribution should be raised to compensate losses arising when slaves were executed. Those present agreed almost unanimously. Lists were then produced, including those belonging to the Company, showing that there were about 250 enslaved men and women on the island aged 15 years and above. It was therefore ordered that every person who owned or held any enslaved person of that age should immediately pay a fixed sum in money for each individual they possessed, this payment to be made to Ellen Griffith as compensation for her loss. In addition, she was to receive a further payment of £1 6s 0d sterling […], calculated according to the number of such individuals. It was further directed that a formal proclamation should be issued requiring all those concerned to make payment in the manner ordered. Gregory Field Interpretations The order set out a collective compensation scheme, requiring all slaveholders to contribute according to the number of enslaved people they held. The inclusion of Company-owned individuals within the total shows that the Company was treated as part of the same system of liability. The near-unanimous agreement at the execution suggests that the measure was publicly endorsed, likely to strengthen compliance. The use of a proclamation indicates that enforcement depended on formal public notice and obligation. The focus on those aged 15 years and above reflects a valuation based on working capacity. Speculations The system of shared contribution may have been intended to reduce conflict among slaveholders by spreading financial loss. The public setting in which agreement was obtained may have created social pressure to accept the policy. The structured nature of the payments suggests an attempt to standardise compensation, though actual collection may have varied. The emphasis on age categories implies that economic considerations dominated the assessment of value. | |
396 | James Barre Supᵃᵐ (a large on yᵉ ship Margueritte from Newyorke) Likewise as yᵉ said mr Coxe was going off yᵉ ship into yᵉ boate having James Barre To the Truth whereof I have hereunto sett James Barre | James Barre, supercargo on the ship Margueritte from New York, and William Deareing, its commander, gave evidence that he had been on board when a dispute took place between Nathaniel Coxe and Andrew Rooker. He stated that he could not recall every word, but remembered that Rooker said that, if they had been on shore, he would have shown himself equal to Coxe, even though he was only a blacksmith and Coxe was a gentleman. He further stated that Rooker dismissed the importance of rank, saying he cared nothing for gentility, and added that, unless his family reduced him to poverty, he expected to live as well as Coxe. He also declared that he would seize any boat coming on board the ship without permission from Captain Holden, even if it came with the Governor’s authority. He stated that Rooker told Coxe that he valued him no more than dirt beneath his feet, stamping on the deck as he spoke. He also described how, when Coxe was preparing to leave the ship and had a small box or bag in his hand, Rooker demanded to inspect it. Coxe refused, and Rooker said he would not be allowed to leave the ship. Coxe then told the boat to depart, saying he would remain as he was being detained. Shortly afterwards, Coxe opened the box, which proved to be empty, and Rooker then told him he might go. However, as the boat had already moved away, Coxe did not call it back, believing himself to have been restrained until another boat arrived. James Barre confirmed this account under his hand, dated at the island on 24 November 1687. Interpretations The testimony showed that the dispute involved both personal insult and a challenge to social hierarchy, particularly regarding status and rank. Rooker’s assertion of authority to control access to the ship indicated that he recognised the authority of Captain Holden over that of the Governor in such matters. The refusal to allow Coxe to leave without inspection suggested an attempt to enforce control over goods and movement on board. The witness’s partial recollection highlights that not all testimony was complete, but key statements were still considered sufficient. The formal attestation under signature demonstrates the importance of written and sworn evidence in Council proceedings. Speculations Rooker’s rejection of social distinctions may have reflected resentment toward elite authority figures such as Council members. The emphasis on Holden’s authority suggests that divisions within the administration influenced behaviour at sea. The incident involving the box may indicate suspicion of unauthorised movement of goods, even when trivial. Coxe’s decision not to return immediately may suggest that he wished to emphasise that he had been improperly detained. | |
397 | Book cover | ||
398 | EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date Dimensions (height x width x depth) (cm) No. written pages No. blank pages Spine and cover Inside pages Time taken to photograph (hours) Additional comments |