Introduction: This is the third 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/EAP1364-1-1-3.
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: The edges of the early pages are tattered with some loss of text.
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: Apart from the earliest pages, most pages are numbered. However, there are several discrepancies. The page numbering appears to begin at film number 5 (that is, 5/1). The sequence continues until the page number jumps from 16 to 30 (20/16 to 21/30). The numbering then runs from 30 to 45 before jumping again to 48 (36/45 to 37/48). From 48 the pages are numbered up to 236, followed by another jump to 241 (225/236 to 226/241). The sequence then continues to page 448, which is repeated on the following page (433/448 and 434/448 are both marked 448, although their contents differ). From that point the numbering proceeds sequentially to the end of the volume.
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 5 January 1687 (1688 in the modern calendar) and the last date is 29 March 1693.
The Council meetings were held during the administrations of Major John Blackmore (1683-1689), Captain Joshua Johnson (1690-1693) and Captain Richard Kelinge/Keeling (1693-1697).
AI Generated Summary
This volume covers the proceedings of the Governor and Council of St Helena across roughly six years, from the early days of 1688 through to the spring of 1693. The bulk of the surviving entries fall in the four years between 1688 and 1692, during which the island moved from the long governorship of John Blackmore to the shorter and very different administration of Joshua Johnson. Throughout, St Helena was governed in the interest of the East India Company under its Lords Proprietors in London, and the meetings recorded here show in unusual detail how that interest was translated into orders, judgements and punishments on the ground. [Film No. 6-455]
The records do not present a tidy narrative. They are working minutes of a small administration that was simultaneously corporate office, military headquarters, civil court, parish vestry and probate registry. Almost every entry assumes that the reader already knows what came before, and many leave loose ends. The themes that follow have been reconstructed from this material, and where a record is partial, contradictory, or self-serving, that is noted in the text. The voices that the record preserves are overwhelmingly those of the council itself; the inhabitants, soldiers, sailors and slaves whose lives are documented in it appear chiefly when summoned, accused, examined or sentenced. [Film No. 6-9, 165, 318, 388, 450-455]
Governance and administration
The standing form of government was a Governor in council, sitting at Fort James in James Valley, with a small group of named officers and the right to coopt others as required. At the start of the period John Blackmore presided as Governor, with Robert Holden (sometimes written Haddon) as Deputy Governor and Richard Keeling, also written Kelinge or Helinge, as Ensign. Most consultations were attended by these three men together, with occasional additions such as visiting ship captains, an engineer, or a surgeon's mate, depending on the business at hand. [Film No. 6-7, 39-40, 60, 79, 88]
The council combined what would now be regarded as separate functions. It made standing orders, issued proclamations, fixed the dates of court sittings, audited accounts, granted leases, sold and hired out slaves, decided disputes between inhabitants, sentenced offenders, and corresponded with the Lords Proprietors in London by every returning ship. The same handful of men therefore acted as legislators, magistrates, executors and commercial managers in turn. The decision in early 1688 to fix four quarterly courts of judicature on the first Monday in April, July, October and January, with an additional court for disputes on the Monday after Christmas, was an attempt to bring at least the judicial side of this work onto a regular timetable. [Film No. 8]
The council also exercised firm control over who came and went from the island. Permission to leave for England, Bombay or elsewhere was granted by individual order on each consultation, recorded in the minutes by name. Soldiers reaching the end of their contracted terms, widows seeking to rejoin husbands, and orphans being placed in the care of returning passengers all required formal licences before they could embark. The pattern is consistent across the period: travel was a privilege controlled by the council, not a right of the inhabitants. [Film No. 56, 59, 81, 88-89, 140, 143, 314, 361, 363, 381]
The dependence of the council on its small store of literate and sober men becomes very visible when these supports failed. By the spring of 1691 the writer John Symes had been dismissed for persistent drunkenness, leaving John Vernon as the only writer in service, and the Governor and storekeeper alike struggling for clerical help. Thomas Goodwin, gunner's mate, was therefore engaged at ten shillings a month to assist with the writing in addition to his existing duties. The episode is a reminder that the smooth-looking surface of the consultations rested on a very thin layer of administrative manpower. [Film No. 296-297]
The relationship with London was central but slow. Instructions arrived by particular ships and were openly read into the consultation, often months or years after they were written. The general letter brought by the Benjamin under Captain Leonard Browne in early 1690 ran constantly through the records of the next two years, governing decisions on the condemned rebels, on prices, on the maintenance of fortifications and on the conduct of factors. The council in St Helena was simultaneously the agent of a distant authority and the only authority actually present on the island, and it had to balance these two roles in every meeting. [Film No. 135-140, 225, 236, 239, 292]
The transition of authority on Blackmore's death in November 1690 was carried out within hours. The minute for 2 December opens with the bare record that the Governor had died suddenly on 30 November at about six in the evening, identifies the loss to the affairs of the East India Company, and immediately appoints Joshua Johnson as Governor and Captain Stephen Corier to the council. Johnson had until then been Deputy Governor, and the smoothness of the transfer reflects both the council's standing routines and the practical need to keep government in being on a small and exposed island. The continuity is also reflected in personnel: Richard Kelinge moved to Deputy Governor, and from this point on the steady triumvirate of Johnson, Kelinge and a captain of council (variously written Borrier, Bowyer, Bonner, Poirier or Dorrie) appears at almost every consultation through the spring of 1693. [Film No. 249-251, 273, 296, 348, 444]
Military affairs and defence
St Helena was a small fortified island with a permanent garrison of soldiers in the pay of the East India Company. Fort James in the main valley was the centre of operations, with subsidiary posts at Munden's Mount, Prosperous Bay, Flagstaff Hill and other lookouts on the windward side, where sentinels watched for approaching sails. The garrison was supplemented by an armed militia of planters, who turned out at the beat of the drum on general rendezvous days and were expected to bring their slaves with them. The system was therefore mixed, depending on a small core of paid soldiers and a much larger body of part-time inhabitants under arms. [Film No. 178, 293-294, 329, 416-417]
Discipline within the garrison was harsh and often theatrical. Soldiers who deserted, slept on watch or stole from the stores were sentenced to the wooden horse, on which they sat for an hour with culverin shot tied to their heels, often in front of the assembled garrison. Isaac Mill and Thomas Luffings, who had absconded onto the Nathan in August 1689, were dealt with in this way after their youth and inexperience were taken into account, although their offence was technically capital under martial law. A French soldier in the autumn of 1691 received the same penalty for being drunk on guard, swearing at his officer and breaking a musket. [Film No. 114, 224, 348-349]
Watchmen who failed in their duty were demoted on the spot. When the Williamson came near the road in April 1690 without any of the appointed lookouts raising the alarm, the six soldiers concerned, William Bodes, Alexander Kirkpatrick, Thomas Frien, Walter Clapton, George Wright and Joseph Davis, were immediately removed from their posts. The minute does not say what replaced them, but the speed of the response shows how seriously the council took the integrity of the warning system. [Film No. 178]
From the summer of 1689 onwards the records are dominated by news of war in Europe. On 24 July 1689 Captain John Bromwell of the Rochester reported that, on his voyage from India, he had spoken with a small New York vessel bound for Madagascar whose master had been told by his owners to avoid the Cape of Good Hope because war was expected with the Dutch. Within ten or twelve days another ship from Europe had brought intelligence that England was at war with both France and Holland, and that the French had fitted out six or seven men-of-war which were thought to be heading for the Cape, possibly the East Indies. The arrival of this news transformed the priorities of the council. [Film No. 110-111]
The council's response was systematic. Powder rooms were stocked with cartridges and casks proportionate to the number and weight of the guns, shot, match and flints were issued to each post, and an account was kept by the gunner and his mate. Flags and flagstaffs were repaired or replaced, slaves belonging to the Company were assigned to particular tasks on the alarm, and planters were ordered, on warning of two ships approaching, to muster at their stations and bring their slaves with them. Some of the slaves were to be sent with iron crowbars to the mouths of the valleys to help white inhabitants prevent any landing. The plan for defence therefore rested visibly on the labour of enslaved Africans and Asians as well as on free soldiers. [Film No. 112-113]
This footing was not relaxed when the war proved to be a long one. The conflict, known in England as King William's War and in continental terminology as the Nine Years' War, ran from 1689 until 1697, and the records show the strain mounting through the period. In April 1691 Joshua Johnson and his council reread the Company's general letter brought on the Benjamin, which confirmed the war with France and the danger to the island, and ordered new buildings at Munden's Mount and Prosperous Bay to protect soldiers and ammunition at those exposed posts. They also added planters to the paid garrison to strengthen the outlying defences and ordered a new pair of gates and a curtain wall across the passage from the landing rocks below Fort James. Carpenters and sawyers were summoned at once, and the storekeeper Richard Keeling was authorised to pay them out of stores. [Film No. 292-295]
Fresh recruits were drawn from among the planters as the war continued. In May 1691 Peter Williams, Jonathan Higham and others applied to be entered as private sentinels because of the threat from France, and were taken into pay. James Castupe, who had land of his own and was therefore in principle ineligible, transferred his ground by deed of gift to a partner in trust for his son so that he could enlist. The records show a small society reorganising itself for war, rather than a peaceful trading station. [Film No. 306, 309]
The lookout system was reformed in September 1692 in light of practical experience. It was observed that alarms were more often correctly raised from Prosperous Bay because that post had the longest seaward view, and that earlier dependence on the higher mast mounts and flagstaffs had introduced delays of nearly two hours before alarms were fully passed. From the next general rendezvous, the council ordered that the flagstaff lookouts cease to be used in this way. Instead, two or three new shore posts were to be established to the south, and a new procedure was set out which the council believed would alert the entire population within a quarter of an hour. The change shows that the council was capable of revising its own procedures in response to experience. [Film No. 416-417]
Personnel for these defences were a constant problem. Soldiers neared the end of their contracted terms and asked to return to England, and the council had to balance their requests against the threat of war and the slowness of replacement. The solution typically adopted was to require each departing soldier to provide a man as capable as himself in his place. William Luke and Isaac Miles were both permitted to leave on this condition in the summer of 1691, providing replacements from the Defence under Captain William Heath. The mechanism was useful but exposed how dependent the garrison had become on chance arrivals from passing ships. [Film No. 314-315]
The fabric of the fort itself attracted continuing attention. The chimneys in the town beneath Fort James were judged in April 1691 to have been built too low and to stand directly under the thatch of several houses, creating a serious fire risk. The thatch on the kitchen of one Bonner had already caught fire from a chimney spark. Orders were issued to extend the chimneys above the thatch level. The episode is a small reminder that defence in this period meant not only artillery and watchmen but also the ordinary problems of building and maintenance in a tropical climate. [Film No. 288]
Settlement, land and agriculture
The settlement of St Helena was based on tenancies granted by the East India Company under its Lords Proprietors. Land was held on lease, typically for terms of seven, eighteen months, or twenty-one years, with rent payable in money or, where money was scarce, by deduction from other accounts. The council recorded each lease individually and was strict about renewals, conditions and the maintenance of buildings during and at the end of the term. The system mirrored the leasehold practices of the proprietary colonies of the period and reflected the underlying assumption that all land on St Helena ultimately belonged to the Company. [Film No. 8, 37-38, 144, 169, 343-344, 355, 361-362, 364, 407, 428]
Fences were not a minor matter. Free-roaming cattle, hogs and goats were the main hazard to crops, and disputes between neighbours over fence quality and boundary marks fill page after page of the record. In July 1689 the council ordered that four inhabitants from each division of the island be appointed to determine in writing the proper height, breadth and depth of all fences, present and future. Their conclusions, recorded under their hands, set out specifications such as a double stone wall, and were made into a standing rule. The need to legislate so precisely is itself evidence of how much friction the question generated. [Film No. 109, 125]
The recurring quarrels over swine, hogs and dogs running between adjoining lands fed directly into the courts. When Andrew Willson and Thomas Garsty came before the council in September 1692, the dispute had escalated through several incidents involving Garsty's swine entering Willson's plantation, Willson's cattle leaping over into Garsty's, and an allegation that Garsty's children and a slave had taken twenty-eight rails from Willson's wooden fence. Witnesses contradicted each other and judgements turned on whether the fences were lawful under the standing specifications. The episode is typical of the way in which neighbourly grievance, livestock damage and council jurisprudence were intertwined. [Film No. 433-435]
Cattle, hogs, sheep and goats were the principal stock. Specific arrangements set out at the start of the period show how the system worked at the level of the individual tenant. Edward Bloxfoe, granted ground for a house and orchard in November 1688, was required to plant lemon, orange and lime trees and to maintain the dwelling for twenty-one years. As security he assigned his future pay as a soldier for two years, with his comrade James Morton joining in the same assignment, and entered into bonds with two further sureties. Two cows from the Company's stock were leased to him for two years at £2 a year, with their increase. The arrangement neatly bound together military service, agricultural improvement and Company property in livestock. [Film No. 37-38]
Yams formed the staple bulk food of the island, both for the Company's slaves at the great plantation and for the inhabitants themselves. The council bought yams from individual planters, sometimes by measured count of the larger tubers with smaller ones thrown in for free. Captain Borrier, with responsibility for the great plantation, repeatedly applied to the council for authorisation to purchase yams from Dennings, William Brice, John Sick, Richard Griffen and others, often with payment by deduction from the seller's existing debt to the Company rather than in cash. The picture that emerges is of a partly monetised economy in which commodities and book entries circulated as readily as coin. [Film No. 277, 279, 291, 308]
Land disputes within families could be especially intricate. The lease taken by John Draper in September 1684 for ten acres belonging to the orphans of Robert Orchard, on which he had been required to leave 1,000 yams growing at the end of the seven-year term, became the subject of careful inspection in October 1691 after Draper's death. Persons appointed for the orphans found 15,000 yams on the ground in addition to the 10,000 he had been required to leave, with other produce besides. The account shows the lease system functioning as a mechanism for transmitting capital across generations and protecting the interests of orphans as well as the Company. [Film No. 340-341]
Land could also be exchanged. Robert Exeter applied in October 1692 to swap his original allotment, which had fallen short of ten acres, for a fresh ten acres in Longwood Valley. His request was granted as reasonable, but the council expressly withheld formal deeds until the Company in London had decided on his title and on other disputed titles already sent home. The reservation suggests a continuing nervousness about the legal validity of titles that had evolved on the island in advance of metropolitan ratification. [Film No. 427]
Some leases failed and were resumed. The smallholder Blest, who had taken twenty acres and a house from the Company in November 1688 with a slave, fell into debt of around £28 and attempted to escape from the island. The council, judging him too poor to manage a plantation and seeing the land as well placed for Company use near the great plantation, resumed possession in early 1692 with the express aim of growing yams there for the workforce. The episode shows how readily settlement could be reorganised when an individual tenancy was judged to have failed. [Film No. 366-367]
Supply and provisioning
The supply of the island depended on a combination of local production and the cargoes of ships passing through the road. Bread, flour, brandy, wine, beef, pork, salt, sugar, tobacco and cloth all had to be sourced this way, and the Company's stores at Fort James acted as the central distribution point. Soldiers and inhabitants drew their rations and goods from these stores against accounts kept by the storekeeper, who was usually Richard Keeling for the period covered by these records. [Film No. 6, 13-14, 174, 295, 415, 441-443]
Where supply fell short, ships in the road were used as a reserve. In late October 1692 the council noted with concern that no vessel had arrived since the Rempstone under Thomas Rempstone, that the goods previously obtained from her had proved insufficient, and that the soldiers were short of clothing of all kinds. The Deane, commanded by Thomas Nunn, was then in the road, but having engaged in private trade did not have much spare cargo. After repeated persuasion, and despite anxiety about breaching his charter party, Captain Nunn agreed to leave three bales of brown bayes for the Company's account. The minute records his hope that this would not be held against him in London. [Film No. 441-442]
Goods recovered from a wreck supplemented the stores. When the Orange was lost in harbour at the Cape, several bales of melins were salvaged. Although damaged by salt water, they were judged to have residual value. William Price and others holding them were approached, and they readily agreed to provide two bales for use on the island. The flexibility of these arrangements, and the willingness of private parties to assist, illustrates the practical dependence of St Helena on the wider Indian Ocean and Atlantic shipping economy. [Film No. 443]
Liquor was carefully regulated as a strategic supply. Permission to retail strong liquor, rum, punch, wine, sugar and tobacco was granted only by licence at £4 per annum. Licensees were required to draw their stocks from the Company's stores when those stores held supplies. A standing proclamation, originally of 1688 and renewed in January 1692, set a penalty of £2 on anyone selling such items without a licence, with a portion of the fine going to informers. Wholesale thresholds of three gallons of strong liquor, twelve pounds of sugar and six pounds of tobacco were defined so that no one could plead ignorance. The prosecutions over the period show how seriously the council enforced this monopoly. [Film No. 100, 117-118, 127, 274, 364-365]
Provisioning unexpected guests was a delicate matter. Captain Persons, a French commander on the island in early 1690, requested an allowance from the stores. The council found no clear authority in their instructions to grant such allowances, but with the French Huguenots having recently been received and the political moment delicate, the Governor and Council allowed him a monthly issue of one and a half gallons of brandy, three pounds of sugar, twenty-eight pounds of bread and twenty-eight pounds of flour. Captain Persons formally bound himself, his heirs and assigns to repay the value if the Company disapproved. The episode shows how the council exercised local discretion and recorded it carefully in case of later challenge. [Film No. 174-175]
Judiciary
The court system was rebuilt at the start of the period covered by these records. In January 1688, in response to disorderly conduct among the inhabitants, the Governor and Council fixed the four quarterly sittings of the Court of Judicature, established a separate annual court for disputes after Christmas, and set procedural rules requiring all actions to be entered and pleaded within fourteen days of summons. Thomas Bealoune was appointed Clerk of the Council, Secretary of the place, and Register of all lands, concentrating administrative record-keeping in one office. [Film No. 8]
A complete schedule of fees followed. Fees were fixed for entering an action, drawing and filing a declaration, issuing a writ or warrant, supplying copies of declarations or orders, issuing executions, entering recognisances and withdrawing actions. A separate schedule covered the Marshal and bailiffs for serving summonses, securing prisoners and accompanying executions, and a third covered the crier of the court. Charges were even levied on entry to and release from prison, on placing irons on prisoners, on confinement in the stocks and on whippings. Attorneys acting as witnesses received the full witness fee. The schedule was both a means of funding the administration and a mechanism for discouraging frivolous litigation. [Film No. 9]
The volume of cases handled by the courts is striking. Sessions of the court of justice on individual days dealt with debt actions, defamation suits, complaints about fence damage, disputes over hogs, accusations of cattle theft, recognisances for good behaviour and licence offences, often in rapid succession. Where cases were too complex or the costs too high, the judge would refer them to arbitration by the Governor and Council, and the parties would openly promise to abide by the award. The court therefore combined formal common-law procedure with elements of conciliation. [Film No. 47-50, 78, 161-163, 218-220, 339, 376, 393-397]
A consistent attempt was made to bring the procedure of the courts into line with that of England. After the Court of Justice in March 1690 ran into difficulties because notice of complaints had been served only two days before sitting, the council ordered all parties to enter their accounts ten days before the opening of court so that writs and warrants could be issued in proper time. The Company's instructions on the Loyall Merchant in 1687 had also required that all trials at law be determined by jury, and this principle was reaffirmed at the spring sessions of 1690 and again in the jury sittings of late 1692 and early 1693. [Film No. 55, 191, 354, 450]
Juries were impanelled both for civil and criminal matters. The jury appointed in March 1693 to try Grace Cullison's defamation action against Richard Browne contained twelve men, all named, with John Luskin as foreman. The same jury system was used in the inquest on Governor Blackmore's death in December 1690 and in the inquest on John Smith's death in October 1692, where the foreman acted as coroner. The use of named juries gave St Helena trials at least the formal appearance of English county procedure, despite the smallness of the population. [Film No. 254, 354, 438-439, 450]
The council also functioned as a Court of Orphans, supervising the estates of children whose fathers had died and adjudicating disputes about inheritance, maintenance and apprenticeship. The hearing in May 1690 over the death of a black boy belonging to Thomas Howsdale at the hands of a young orphan named Groonroo, ruled an accident, was then continued at the Court of Orphans where the question of compensation from Groonroo's stock and estate was determined. The council's combined judicial and trustee functions were both routine and sometimes intricate. [Film No. 196-198]
Punishments were generally physical rather than custodial. Whipping at the flagstaff or at the whipping post, the wooden horse, the stocks, irons and banishment from the island all appear in the records. Imprisonment was used chiefly to secure offenders pending trial or while sureties were being found. Fines were widely imposed, often in dollars or in pounds sterling, and were paid either to the Company directly or, in licence offences, partly to the informer. The integrated structure of fines, court fees, custody costs and corporal punishments meant that justice on St Helena was both rough and bureaucratically meticulous. [Film No. 9, 134, 224, 235, 276, 305, 318, 379, 388]
Economy, currency and accounting
The early consultations of January 1688 record a deliberate effort to standardise the currency of the island. The Governor and Council, dealing with disputes that had arisen from outstanding debts and uneven contributions to an account established by Captain Harding and other officers, ordered that all bargains, sales, payments and debts between individuals were to be conducted in a single recognised form of money. Silver and gold coin, or Spanish rials, were to be used in place of barter. A proclamation was issued accordingly. [Film No. 7]
This was not a sudden innovation but a recognition of the disorder that informal valuation had caused. Throughout the records, transactions were measured in pounds, shillings and pence sterling, in Spanish dollars at six shillings each, and in pieces of eight at five shillings each. The council was at pains to record exchanges in standard units, even where the actual payment was made in goods. When William Price offered to discharge an £8 bond owed to the orphans of John Greentree by delivering cattle of equivalent value, the council accepted the offer because cattle would benefit the orphans through their increase, but had impartial appraisers value the animals first. The principle was consistent: even when barter was used, it was assessed against an explicit money standard. [Film No. 342]
Refusing recognised currency was itself an offence. In a dispute heard in the autumn of 1689, the punch-house keeper Colegrave was fined one dollar for refusing part of the recognised currency of the island, with a further half-dollar for refusing other permitted forms of payment. The fine was small, but the principle established by the council in 1688 was being enforced. [Film No. 119]
The council also tied debts on the island into the metropolitan credit system. From early 1688, debts were to be reduced into clear accounts capable of being remitted to England by bill of exchange, or otherwise settled between creditor and debtor. This brought local obligations into the same financial network as those of the Company itself, and made it easier for Lords Proprietors in London to follow what was happening on the island. The factor John Symes, on departure to England in 1691, was granted credits totalling £43 against bills of exchange supported by bond and letter of advice. The bill of exchange was therefore a routine instrument by the end of the period. [Film No. 8, 312-313]
Where coin was scarce, accounts at the stores were used to settle obligations directly. Yam purchases by the council from Richard Griffen in May 1692 were not paid in coin at all, but were credited against Griffen's existing revenue debts to the Company. The same approach was used for soldiers' wages, fines and rent payments. The result was that the storekeeper's books at Fort James operated as something close to a local clearing house, in which money, goods and obligations were continually offset against one another. [Film No. 168, 170, 308]
The need to bring straggling debts under control became a regular concern. In July 1691 the Governor and Council gave close attention to the state of revenues due to the East India Company and to profits owed by inhabitants. They summoned individuals to Fort James to settle accounts that had been left unresolved for years and authorised arrests where necessary. The ranks of inferior officers within the Company's own service were equally implicated. Many had contracted debts with inhabitants, sometimes evidenced by written bills, sometimes not, and the council in mid-1690 directed that all such claims be brought forward with their bills and accounts so that the bonds could be tested and the debts fairly allocated against future wages. [Film No. 210, 325, 327]
Finance and estates
Probate was a constant feature of council business. Wherever an inhabitant or visiting seaman died on the island, the Governor and Council intervened to secure the estate, take an inventory under oath, settle debts, and remit any surplus to relatives in England. The administration of the estate of Mr Thomas Davis, a passenger left sick from the Beaufort, who died at the house of Matthew in August 1688, illustrates the procedure. Charles Moore, who was about to return to England, and Goodwin Gurris Matson, a resident, were appointed joint administrators by letters of administration sealed under the Company's seal. They were required to prepare a full inventory under oath, sell sufficient goods at public auction to cover debts and funeral expenses, and post notices at the Sessions House, the market house in Chapel Valley and on the church door in the country to summon claimants. [Film No. 39-43]
The same procedure governed the estate of Marke Sandon, who died on the island in 1688, and that of Charles Page, surgeon of the Dorothea, who died at the house of Howsdale in March 1690. Each case generated its own clutch of accounts, claims, bills, sworn inventories and final receipts, all carefully entered into the consultation. Where, as in Page's case, the deceased had no will and several creditors with different claims, the council's role as adjudicator was crucial. [Film No. 79-80, 173, 179, 181, 183-184]
The largest probate exercise of the period was prompted by Governor Blackmore's own sudden death in late November 1690. Within days of the funeral the council together with Mr Symes the factor took an inventory, and Orlando Bagley and Edward Edmunds, both planters, were appointed appraisers. The lists that followed run for many film numbers and are rich enough to deserve treatment as a separate window onto the material life of a senior Company servant abroad in the late seventeenth century. They contain gold and silver coin, jewellery, plate, embroidered linen, silk gowns, religious and political books, sheep, goats and slaves. [Film No. 256-268]
The personal estate listed for the late Governor included items such as a portrait set in a gold frame, four cornelian rings, one diamond ring set with three stones, gold rings, silver tumblers, tankards, candle cups and porringers, a flowered mantua, a blue satin petticoat with gold and silver lace, a red coat with silver lace, India calico curtains and fifteen nightcaps. A library catalogue ran to two folio entries, listing among others Josephus's history of the Jews, the works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Calvin, Stow, Hooker, Suetonius, Aristotle's Politicks and Fuller's Holy War. The inventory shows a man of considerable means living, by the standards of his society, in some elegance on a remote island. [Film No. 256-261, 265-267]
Living people also presented their accounts for adjustment. When Ellen Beake, a widow whose estate had been seized by the Company in connection with her husband's unsettled accounts, petitioned in January 1688 for an audit of those accounts so that the Company's claims might be fairly determined, the council accepted that she was entitled to such an audit and ordered the relevant parties to be made ready for examination. The seizure had effectively been precautionary, and the audit was the procedural mechanism for resolving the underlying liabilities. [Film No. 7]
The careful retrospective settlement of accounts continued under Joshua Johnson. The discharge granted in October 1690 to the widow Ellon Booth, in respect of her late husband Captain Anthony Booth's account with the Company, was issued under the seal of the Honourable Company in accordance with the general letter brought on the Benjamin in 1689. The episode is a small example of how individual financial matters were handled by reference to the Company's metropolitan instructions and recorded with full formality. [Film No. 235-236]
Religion and education
The Church of England was the formal religion of the island, and its provision was a continuing concern of the council. Maintenance of the church and minister was funded by an annual collection of £40 levied on the inhabitants at the feasts of St Michael and Lady Day, with particular emphasis on those in debt to the Company. The link between religious finance and Company debt was explicit and unembarrassed: the established mechanisms of debt recovery were used to secure ecclesiastical obligations as well. [Film No. 8]
Churchwardens were elected annually by the inhabitants meeting at the church, and their accounts were audited by the council. Joseph Charlesworth and Richard Leach served two years; Thomas Swallow and Benjamin Scale served in 1691. Their reports cover collections from arrears of tithes, expenditure on the chapel at Fort James, the making of forms and benches, and inspections of the country church and the town chapel. The country church in 1691 was much decayed but not in immediate danger of falling, and its repair was deferred. The chapel at Fort James, however, was found that year to have defective walls and broken roof timbers, and was ordered to be repaired without delay. [Film No. 93, 195, 349-350, 357, 383-384]
Ministerial provision was much less reliable. By the autumn of 1691 there was no minister on the island, and Henry Manning, the surgeon, had been performing the public prayers for the garrison. With the Company's discharge of Manning from his medical office for repeated drunkenness, the council transferred his church duties to a fresh footing. Manning was paid two shillings a week to continue reading the prayers and the funeral service for those of the Company who died, until a minister should arrive or further orders be received. By the start of 1692 his renewed drunkenness had caused even this arrangement to be revoked. [Film No. 351-352, 368]
The keeping of registers was eventually delegated to William Clifton in mid-1692, with fixed fees for entries: two shillings sixpence for each christening, paid by the parent presenting the child, and five shillings for each marriage. A proclamation was issued so that all inhabitants would be informed. The arrangement is significant because it shows registry of vital events being run as a paid administrative function in the absence of a minister. [Film No. 405]
Education appears in the records only indirectly, through the involvement of orphans in households that were both family and informal training places, and through the apprenticeship of boys to particular trades. There is no reference in this period to a formal school. The minute on Jack, the son of black Oliver, apprenticed to the widow Mary Mathews, indicates how children of complex parentage might find themselves in households that combined service, instruction and care, and where matters could go badly wrong. [Film No. 164-165]
Trade and shipping
St Helena's significance to the East India Company lay above all in its position on the homeward route from India, the spice islands and the Cape. Ships called at the road for water, fresh provisions, news and assistance, and the records make clear that the council saw the rendering of such assistance as one of its central duties. When the Manna arrived from Bantam at the end of December 1688 with a cargo of pepper for the Company, having only seven working men aboard and being so leaky that constant pumping was needed, the council immediately ordered as many men as the master required to be sent on board, with Mr Doran responsible for overseeing the relief. [Film No. 70]
The same response was extended to the Little James, which reached the road in January 1688/9 having lost most of her crew at Bencoolen in Sumatra to sickness, leaving only seven men and boys. The master, Robert Gamon, and his officers asked formally for ten men capable of service to enable the ship to proceed to London. The Governor and Council recorded the request in full, granted the request for soldiers and others to be assigned, and noted the importance of the Company's cargo. The whole pattern of these maritime relief operations shows how the island functioned as a manning depot as well as a refreshment station. [Film No. 71-72]
Ships in distress could also leave passengers, sick crew and goods behind. Charles Page, surgeon of the Dorothea, was left sick at Howsdale's house in March 1690 and died there. Captain John Crofton's widow, Anna, and other widows of mariners appear in the records as petitioners and creditors. The council's continuing role as a probate authority for visiting seamen was a direct consequence of this traffic. [Film No. 39-43, 141, 173, 181, 183-184]
Ships also brought intelligence and instructions, sometimes in startling combinations. The Rochester under John Bromwell brought news of impending war in July 1689; the Benjamin under Leonard Browne brought, in early 1690, a list of French Huguenots set to land on St Helena, including Stephen Borogor and his three sons and five daughters, together with general instructions on the condemned rebels and on prices of provisions; the Defence under Captain William Heath authorised Richard Kelinge to collect a debt owed by Captain Worrall to Ann Preston, widow of Anthony Preston. The arrival of a single ship could therefore reset multiple priorities at once. [Film No. 110-111, 135-140, 336]
A range of named vessels touched at the road during the period: the Bengall Merchant, the Loyall Merchant, the Madona (also written Modena), the Rochester, the Benjamin, the Dorothea, the Williamson, the Bonaventure, the Cesar, the Royall James, the Royall Merch, the Royall James and Mary, the Prince Anne of Denmarke under John Morris, the Defence under William Heath, the Kempsthorne under John Kempsthorne, the Rempstone under Thomas Rempstone, the Deane under Thomas Nunn, the Charles of New York from Madagascar, the Beaufort, the Successe, the Nathan, the Charles the Second, the Bansford, the Carter and the Shrewsbury. The list is partial and reflects only those ships specifically named in the consultations, but it gives a sense of the rhythm of arrivals. [Film No. 70-72, 87-88, 110, 135, 145, 149, 207, 220, 280, 312-315, 381, 441-442]
Trade between visiting ships and inhabitants was tightly regulated. Licensed retailers were required to obtain liquor and sugar from the Company's stores, and prosecutions repeatedly arose when individuals were found to have bought sugar or arrack directly from passing ships. John Taylor was prosecuted for taking half a hundredweight of sugar from the Loyall Merchant in 1689, and Richard Gurling was prosecuted for taking 200 pounds of sugar from the same ship that year. Thomas Sherwin was charged with having punch retailed at his house. The pattern shows how the licence system protected the Company's monopoly against the obvious commercial incentives offered by visiting vessels. [Film No. 100-101, 117-118, 127, 151, 392]
The wreck of the Orange at the Cape was used opportunistically to alleviate the island's persistent shortages, with bales of melins recovered from her being made available to the council. The shipwreck and the salvage demonstrate the close interdependence of the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean stations: a loss in one place became a partial relief in another. [Film No. 443]
Slavery and coerced labour
Slavery was central to the working of St Helena across this period, and the council's records treat enslaved people simultaneously as property, as labour, as defendants in criminal proceedings and, on occasion, as witnesses. The Company itself owned a substantial body of enslaved Africans, Asians and people of mixed parentage, who lived at the great plantation under the supervision of one of the captains and were hired out to inhabitants on annual terms or sold outright. Inhabitants also held their own slaves, purchased from the Company, from passing ships or from one another. [Film No. 18, 49, 57, 85, 96-97, 115-116, 167-169, 198, 208, 278, 323-324, 347, 389-390, 405]
Public sales of Company slaves occurred at fixed starting prices. In May 1689, men were offered at £10 and women at £12, with payment in four quarterly instalments over a year, in cash, Company bills, or in beef or mutton supplied for the provisioning of ships. A second sale of similar slaves attracted no bidders. In June 1690, thirty-three slaves judged the strongest, most useful and best suited for labour were brought down to the fort by Captain Robinson and offered for sale. The minute names some of those sold, including Mon Barrio, aged eighteen, sold for £23 6s to William Price, and Stower, aged twenty-two, sold for £16. The matter-of-fact recording of names and prices is one of the most starkly informative features of the record. [Film No. 96-97, 208]
Children were similarly treated as commodities. Bochumbo, a boy hired by the gunner's mate Thomas Goodwin in August 1689, was sold to him outright shortly afterwards, and the records repeatedly show slave boys and girls being hired for one or two years and then offered for sale to the same hirer. John Smith bought a boy he had hired for several years for £16 in mid-1692, with one year allowed for payment. The expectation that hire would mature into purchase ran throughout the system. [Film No. 116, 278, 347, 390]
There are flashes of the lived experience of enslaved people behind these economic transactions, particularly when they were brought before the council for offences. The case of Job, a male slave belonging to Phillips Gunn, and Marea, a female slave of the same household, who in December 1689 were charged with running away, killing pigs, and conspiring with other slaves, including Dirick belonging to William Bowles, to poison Mr Gunn's wife and her sister, opens a remarkable window. Allegations of poison hidden in food, of a sack of poison set out for the household dog, and of a wider plot among slaves on the island, were taken with full seriousness. Job and Dirick were sentenced to death, with their execution fixed for 31 December 1689 and the inhabitants of the island ordered to attend, accompanied by their slaves, as a deterrent. [Film No. 129-132]
Phillip, the slave of Thomas Allison, and Robin Dew Jackson, a servant connected with the same plot, received a different sentence. Each was to receive thirty lashes on the naked body and be banished from the island at the next opportunity, but until then they were to remain in chains in prison and to receive thirty lashes every Saturday afternoon. The intensity of weekly corporal punishment over an indefinite waiting period for shipping illustrates the use of the body of the enslaved as a deterrent display. [Film No. 133-134]
Cattle theft prosecutions opened similar windows. The case of Joharah, a slave of Thomas Browning who had earlier broken a leg and lain concealed before being recaptured and brought before the court in May 1690, drew on the testimony of Robin, a young slave who described being employed by Joharah to drive and slaughter cattle in the common woods. Joharah was threatened with hanging if Robin spoke, but the boy spoke under examination. The proof was held insufficient for a felony conviction; instead, Joharah received twenty-five lashes at the flagstaff, was returned to his master under bond of £50, and was ordered to be sent off the island at the first opportunity, together with one head of cattle, on pain of forfeiture. [Film No. 201-205]
In the summer of 1692 a wider conspiracy was reported. Mary Gutting, wife of Richard Gutting, told the Governor that one of her slaves had revealed a plan by Andrew Rooker's slave, Hugh Bosby's slave, and others, fourteen or fifteen in total, to take the Company's boat by night and escape. The intended departure was timed for the night before a scheduled trial. Examinations followed, and the council ordered exemplary punishment. Bosby's slave was sentenced to forty-five lashes at the gallows, followed by three drops of burning sealing wax applied to his body before release; the others were to receive lashes proportionate to their guilt. The slave belonging to Gutting who had revealed the plot was protected. [Film No. 316-318]
Treatment short of execution but exceptionally harsh was reserved for some offences. When a Company slave was found in mid-1692 to have stolen and used a saw belonging to a Company officer, the council ruled that, although strictly liable to death, he should be castrated on 8 June 1692, with all male slaves on the island except young children ordered to attend the punishment as a warning. The reasoning explicitly included the consideration that he was not within the Church. The episode is exceptionally disturbing on its own terms and indicates the lengths to which the council would go in publicising deterrent punishments on enslaved people. [Film No. 386-388]
A different kind of trace appears in the case of John Adroall, a carpenter who arrived at the island in February 1690 on the Charles of New York from Madagascar, having earlier joined a privateering sloop from Jamaica and travelled into the South Seas. He was found, with Grace Bodwell, to have been carrying about 22.5 pounds of gold which they kept in a green sash at the lodging house of Mary Thomas, wife of Richard Gurling. After examination by the Governor with three visiting captains, both men were imprisoned in irons as pirates and robbers. The gold was opened, weighed and recorded in council. By order of late May 1689 they were placed on board the Bonaventure, commanded by Captain Philip Lea, for transport to England as prisoners and for delivery to the Company there. The case is a vivid illustration of how the Indian Ocean piracies of the period intersected with the Atlantic side of the Company's network. [Film No. 145-149]
The 1690 manumission law shows another facet of the system. A council order of 25 August 1680 had allowed white persons, Indians and the children of black slaves to obtain freedom on payment of a proportion of their assessed value, set by the Governor and Council. The order had not been confirmed by the Lords Proprietors, and in 1690 the council was still operating without explicit instructions on how to apply it. Manumission was therefore possible but contingent, and the Company retained ultimate control. [Film No. 232]
Crime and punishment
Beyond the offences of slaves, ordinary crime among the free population covered debts, defamation, drunkenness, neglect of duty, gambling, illicit retailing, the killing of cattle and assault. The standing orders against gambling beyond a day's pay illustrate the council's wider effort to set limits on disorder. When John Botno and Luke Fry were found to have played cards for 21 shillings at John Marsh's house in May 1689, both men were dealt with promptly under the 1680 covenant. [Film No. 94-95]
Defamation cases were a constant of the courts and almost always turned on words spoken in passion. Thomas Wilson and Richard Barrum's running quarrel in mid-1692 produced three separate actions before the same sitting, with sworn testimony as to insulting words said to seamen of the Kempsthorne, ending in arbitration and the payment of small sums in cash and goods. John Draper's reported remark to a Mr Wilson, that Scotchmen had sold their king for a groat, generated a defamation action by Mr Clanton in 1690 with three witnesses confirming the words. [Film No. 162-163, 393-395]
The case of George Ripe and Bridgett Cales in October 1688 turned on a contract of marriage. Ripe acknowledged that he had made a solemn promise of marriage but had then sought another match after believing himself slighted, and was now willing to take Bridgett. She confirmed the contract under oath. Judgement was given against Ripe, who was ordered to pay damages of £10 to Mary Soales without delay, or be imprisoned. The case shows the courts taking the enforceability of marriage promises seriously. [Film No. 48]
Sometimes the decision turned on competing reputations. The matter of John Knipes and Bridgett Cales, also late in 1688, descended into a series of swearing matches over kissing, alleged abuse and the casting of lots to determine who should set the wedding day. Mary Bowles testified that Bridgett had sat on the knee of a butcher and been kissed many times. The case was eventually referred to arbitration before the Governor and Council, both parties promising to abide by the award, after the action had become too difficult and too costly to continue in court. The pragmatic referral to arbitration is a recurrent feature of the records. [Film No. 74-78]
Spousal disputes also reached the court. Thomas Swallow and Elizabeth Swallow's separation by mutual consent, recorded in writing on 20 June 1690 and signed by both before the Governor, was followed by repeated proceedings about her wearing apparel, her conduct, and her relationship with William Clifton. After full proof in June 1690, Elizabeth Swallow was found guilty of incontinence with Clifton and committed to prison. Both were imprisoned, and complex orders followed concerning Clifton's release and the strict prohibition on his communicating with her. The episode is exceptional in the detail it offers on the marital and sexual lives of inhabitants. [Film No. 211-213, 226-229]
Sabbath offences and drunkenness on duty were treated as both moral and military matters. Robert Addis was committed to the marshalsea in May 1692 for being drunk on guard and swearing, and was released only after expressing remorse and promising reform. Sabbath retailing brought similar penalties. Richard Gutling, a licensed retailer, was prosecuted in October 1692 for selling punch on the Lord's Day, and the punch he had sold was traced to potato arrack he had drawn from the Company's stores. Richard Parrum was prosecuted in March 1693 for setting his slaves to clean a pond on five Sundays. The boundary between religious offence and disorderly conduct was deliberately blurred. [Film No. 307, 331-332, 454]
Murder cases were rare but consequential. In October 1692 John Smith brought an action of assault and battery against Isaac Leach for an attack on Smith's own land, in which Leach had reportedly struck him repeatedly with a walking stick until he was left for dead. Smith died on 9 October. A jury of inquest, with Orlando Baggsley as coroner, found his skull fractured in four places, with one fracture as broad as the palm of an ordinary hand, and identified these wounds as the original cause of death. Leach was committed to prison until the next sessions and a formal warrant for his detention was issued. The sequence of complaint, jury, inquest and committal illustrates the ability of the court system to handle a homicide through its established procedures. [Film No. 418-423, 437-440]
The records also contain bizarre cases of attempted concealment that drew exemplary punishment. Sam Black Jack's son, a slave of the Company, was sentenced in January 1691 to thirty lashes at the whipping post for concealing and withholding a piece of money. The minute is short, but the speed of the response and the immediate execution of the sentence indicate the routine character of corporal punishment for offences that today would be treated very differently. [Film No. 276]
Petty cases that today would be considered comic still required the time of the court. The dispute between Andrew Wilson and Richard Barrum in October 1688 over an alleged assault and the pulling of beard was decided on the testimony of witnesses who had not actually seen the blow, with each side bearing its own costs. The arbitration of the Cottgrave-Worrall and Marsh-Garroway disputes shows the same approach. The records demonstrate that small grievances on a small island could occupy substantial council time. [Film No. 50, 397]
Personalities
John Blackmore is the dominant figure of the first part of the period. Governor since the late 1670s, he is described in the council minute on his death as a great loss in personal regard and in the discharge of his office, which he had held for more than twelve years. The detailed inventory of his estate after death shows a man of substance, whose library, plate, jewellery and clothing reflected the dignity of an East India Company Governor abroad, as well as the cumulative private wealth of a long tenure. His sudden death on 30 November 1690 from a fall down the steep slope below Ladder Hill, witnessed in part by Joshua Johnson and Mr Symes, was investigated by an inquest jury who found that the violence of the fall and the steepness of the place had caused his death. He was buried the following afternoon in as solemn a manner as the shortness of time and the resources of the island permitted. [Film No. 249, 251-256, 265-267]
Joshua Johnson, who succeeded him, emerges from the records as more procedural and less commanding. His tenure was overshadowed by the war with France, by the dismissal of factors and surgeons for drunkenness, and by the prosecution of slave conspiracies and assaults. He nonetheless kept the council functioning through a difficult period, oversaw the strengthening of fortifications, the reform of the lookout system and the regularisation of the register of vital events. He is consistently named alongside Richard Kelinge and a captain of council in almost every consultation from December 1690 onwards. [Film No. 249, 296, 416, 444]
Richard Keeling, also written Kelinge or Helinge, is a recurring fixture across the entire period as Ensign, Storekeeper, Surveyor General, Attorney General and Deputy Governor. His handwriting and signature appear on numerous orders, and he is repeatedly authorised to issue warrants, supervise sales of slaves, audit accounts and prosecute offences as Attorney General. The continuity of his role provides much of the institutional memory of the council, particularly in the transition after Blackmore's death. [Film No. 8, 79, 100, 117, 235, 249, 354, 415]
Captain James Dovey appears as a destabilising figure in late 1688. As commander of a ship in the road, he attempted to draft and circulate a petition to the King setting out complaints of ill usage and oppression by the East India Company on the island, and recruited several inhabitants to support it. William Clifton, asked to write the petition, declined out of fear; Henry Ludlow refused multiple times to subscribe; James Long and James Wakeford both became entangled in the affair, with Long enthusiastic for prosecution and Wakeford accused of speaking scandalously of the King while drunk. The petition was a serious matter for the council because it threatened to take grievances against the Company directly to royal authority, bypassing the chain of corporate command, and George Haddon, already in prison for debt, was implicated in helping to manage the document. The episode is the most striking instance in the records of resistance to the Company's authority within the white population. [Film No. 60-69]
Grace Coulson, widow of John Coulson who had been executed for the rebellion of 1684, appears repeatedly through the period. She petitioned in April 1688 to retain the use of thirty acres in Rappot Valley and a house, after the forfeiture of her husband's estate. By 1691 she was refusing either to pay her debts to the Company or to enter into bonds for them, offering instead to pay in beans, which were rejected because an earlier delivery of forty bushels had decayed unsold in the storehouse. After protracted resistance, a composition was eventually reached in late 1692, with the additional fines and revenue to be paid. Her final appearance in the records is as plaintiff in a defamation action against Richard Browne in March 1693, in which she alleged that he had falsely claimed she had agreed to sexual intercourse with him twenty-one years earlier. The jury verdict closed her case on the same line that opened her widowhood: a contested interpretation of intimate conduct in a small society where memory was long. [Film No. 15-16, 326-327, 336, 450-453]
Henry Manning, the surgeon, traces the steady downward arc of a man who could not control his drinking. Successively a surgeon to the garrison, a reader of public prayers in the chapel, a paid keeper of the funeral service, and finally reduced to private sentinel and discharged from his church duties altogether, his record across films from late 1691 into early 1692 shows the council exhausting its patience over months and finally having to act. The case is also illustrative of the limited supply of skilled labour: even after his discharge, he was retained for a time at two shillings a week to read prayers because there was nobody else. [Film No. 351-352, 368]
John Symes and John Tims, both factors, follow similar trajectories, dismissed for repeated drunkenness and neglect of duty. Symes had been in the practice of being released after submission and renewed promises by the late Governor, but no improvement was sustained. Tims, after seven consecutive days of drunkenness in April 1691, missed the Orphans' Court on consecutive days and was ordered to surrender the Company's records he had been keeping. The cases emphasise how exposed the small administration was to the personal failings of its few literate officers. [Film No. 280-281, 296, 300]
Andrew Rooker, his mother-in-law Prudence Sherwin (also written Shorwin), and her family appear across many years and many cases. Prudence was repeatedly prosecuted for selling punch without a licence; her household was implicated in the cattle and goat thefts of 1692 through the slaves she brought to Fort James after their seizure by William Collins; she also figured in the slave conspiracy of mid-1692. The Sherwin household appears so often that it functions almost as a study in how a single planting family could become a focus of council attention and prosecution over a long period. [Film No. 117, 127, 151-153, 401-404]
John Adroall and Grace Bodwell are also given particular weight by the records. Their case is unusual not only for the amounts of gold involved but for the geographic span the records imply: travel from London via Jamaica, privateering, the South Seas, and arrival on the island via Madagascar on a vessel from New York. The fact that the council convened with three visiting ship captains to handle their case is itself a sign that the Governor and Council recognised the affair as exceeding routine local jurisdiction. The despatch of both men to England as prisoners on the Bonaventure shows the council acting deliberately as an outpost of the Company's broader system of control. [Film No. 145-149]
Among the slaves whose names enter the record, Job, Dirick, Phillip, Robin, Joharah, Marea, Bochumbo, Doll, Molle, Anthony and Mon Barrio are among those whose actions or fates emerge in detail enough to be more than mere property entries. The records do not give them voice on their own terms, but the act of recording their words under examination, even within an explicitly coercive setting, has preserved fragments of their lives that would otherwise have been lost. The historical value of these passages is significant precisely because the rest of the record is so silent about the inner lives of the Company's enslaved workforce. [Film No. 116, 129-134, 201-205, 208, 316-318]
Social order, marriages and households
The records illuminate the marriage and household economy of the small white population. Marriage promises, alleged abusive language, separations and the disposal of property between spouses appear throughout. The Anne Whitey case, in which the council in early 1692 admonished an orphan under twenty-one for agreeing to marry Robert Addis without obtaining consent first, but eventually approved the marriage and required Addis to provide security for half her estate as her marriage settlement, illustrates the council's dual role as patriarchal guardian and legal trustee for orphan property. [Film No. 369-370]
Widows are an especially prominent category in the records. Ellen Beake, Grace Coulson, Mary Mathews, Margaret Draper, Anna Crofton, Ellon Booth, Jane Smout, Isabel Seaford and others, all appear as petitioners on their own account, dealing with leases, debts, slaves and inheritance. The council generally treated these petitions seriously and on their merits, and the records contain many decisions that suggest a real, if conditional, recognition of widows' legal standing. [Film No. 7, 15, 95, 167, 199, 214-215, 235, 326-327, 447]
Children appear largely as orphans, apprentices, or as travellers under named guardianship. The arrangement for Lidia Harding, an orphan, to travel to Bombay on the Benjamin in 1690 paying her own passage, and for Thomas and Barbara Young, two of the youngest orphans, to travel on the same ship under arrangements made in council, illustrate the practical care that the records show for children whose parents were dead. The council's apprenticeship arrangements, including the difficult case of Jack apprenticed to Mary Mathews, show the same concern carried into questions of training, conduct and discipline. [Film No. 139-140, 164]
Households frequently became the focus of court proceedings because they were the natural site of the alleged offences. The small house of John Colgrave became the scene of the Marsh, Naomi Grace and Sutton Grace defamation case, with Margaret, Colgrave's wife, being thrown to the ground by Elizabeth Sutton during a quarrel. The arbitrators chosen on this occasion were Thomas Box and John Corler, both planters. The record shows how, even in domestic disputes, the council's reliance on community arbitrators ran in parallel with formal court process. [Film No. 218-219]
French refugees and other new arrivals
In January 1690 the Benjamin under Captain Leonard Browne brought a substantial group of French Huguenots to St Helena. The list, compiled on 6 January, names Captain Stephen Borogor, his three sons Stephen, Gabriel and Alexander, and his daughters Mary, Lucy, Elizabeth, Anne and Magdalen, together with Jean Morin, James Dovin, Michael Cobais, Sam Dofontaine, John le Fleurs, Andre Jure, Phillip de Barancour, Jacque Charles, Vinsonour and others. The settlement of these refugees, displaced after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, was a deliberate policy of the East India Company to populate its territories with Protestant skilled labour, and the council on St Helena had to integrate them into the local pay system, the garrison, and the church. [Film No. 135]
The handling of Captain Persons, the French commander on the island, with his monthly allowance of brandy, sugar, bread and flour secured under his bond against the Company's later approval, illustrates the small-scale practicalities of accommodating the Huguenot officers within an English Company station. The disorderly conduct of one French soldier on guard later in 1691 also belongs to this story; he was punished as the others were, on the wooden horse with culverin shot at his heels, and his behaviour was treated as a discipline matter rather than as a national matter. [Film No. 174-175, 348-349]
Movements of condemned rebels in the other direction were also significant. The instructions brought on the Benjamin in early 1690 made provision for those who had been condemned for the rebellion of 1684 and remained on the island to relocate, with their families, to Bombay if they wished, with their land and plantations to be valued and paid for. Matthew Courney, with his wife and three children; Sexton, with his wife and family; and Fox were among those who took up the offer, and they were transported on the Benjamin. The minute records the valuations, the purchase of houses by the Company at agreed prices, and the formal deeds of conveyance. The transfer is a small example of the Company's ability to redistribute population across its widely separated stations. [Film No. 136-139, 143]
Speculation, ambiguity and the edges of the record
The records frequently include sections marked Interpretations and Speculations, in which the implications of a particular set of facts are drawn out in more general terms. These are not always reliable guides to what the council actually thought, and they sometimes read more as later glosses on the surviving entries than as contemporary reasoning. Where they consider, for example, that the option for Smout and Sherrin to travel to England aboard the Bengall Merchant suggested that the case might depend on arguments best presented in person before the Company, this is plausible inference rather than recorded fact. Read with due caution, the speculations remain useful as prompts for the historian, but they should not be mistaken for the council's own voice. [Film No. 87]
Where the records are inconsistent, the inconsistencies themselves are informative. The repeated cases of livestock theft in which witnesses contradict each other on whether a particular cow was black, spotted, or had a calf, and on which side of a fence it had been driven, show how oral evidence in a small community could become entangled with personal antagonisms. Fence height disputes between Mudge and Coles, between Smith and Leach, and between Willson and Garsty, all turned on whether the witnesses' standards matched the council's standing specifications, and on whether the alleged trespassing animal was the plaintiff's at all. The council was alert to malice in such testimony and sometimes reduced damages explicitly because of it, as in the case of Henry Coles and the wild goat in October 1692. [Film No. 333-334, 376, 433-435]
There are limits to what the surviving record can tell. Many entries are partially illegible in their transcribed form, with sections lost. Names of jurors, witnesses and parties are sometimes incomplete, and dates are occasionally given only by month or by reference to a feast day. The records also reflect the priorities of the recorders themselves: they note in great detail what the council ordered, judged or sold, but say comparatively little about the daily life of the planters' yams, the labour of children at home, or the religious practices of slaves. Reading these records with attention to what is absent is as important as reading what is present. [Film No. 6, 17, 49, 158, 177, 196, 237, 305]
Above all, the records preserve the official version of events on St Helena across this period. The voice of the Company, of its Governor and Council, and of the judicial process, is privileged throughout. Resistance, where it appears, appears largely because it was prosecuted: James Dovey's seditious petition, Grace Coulson's continued refusal to settle accounts, the slave conspiracy of 1692, the rebellious planter speech of William Price about Joshua Johnson's authority, and the long-running prosecutions of Henry Coles, Isaac Leach and the Sherwin household. What is invisible from these consultations is whatever the planters, soldiers and slaves said about all this when the Governor and Council were not in the room. The historical value of the records lies precisely in their unguarded blend of routine and crisis, but the historian must remember that they were never intended as a balanced account of the island's life. [Film No. 60-69, 326-327, 316-318, 321-322]
Closing reflections
Across the films covered in this volume, St Helena emerges as a small, intensely managed plantation society set in a strategic ocean lane. The East India Company's governance was simultaneously paternal, commercial, judicial and military, and in each of these capacities it operated through a small group of named men whose individual reliability was often the limiting factor on what could be achieved. The wars in Europe, the long-distance shipping economy, the supply of provisions, the discipline of soldiers, the management of slaves, the regulation of liquor and tobacco, and the pursuit of debts all converged at the daily consultations recorded here. [Film No. 6-455]
The period closes in March and April 1693 with the cluster of cases around Grace Coulson, Richard Parrum, Thomas Goodwin and John Archer, in which old debts, old defamations and old habits of working on the Sabbath were brought once more before the court. The continuity of small grievances and small crimes, played out under the same procedures and before the same officers, is a fitting end to a record that has carried us from the rebellion settlement of 1688 through war, governorship transition, slave conspiracies and shifting fortifications. The texture of the island's life, year on year, has been preserved in these pages with a degree of administrative thoroughness that historians of small early-modern colonies rarely encounter. [Film No. 450-455]
No | Page No. | OCR Transcription | Modern Summary with Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date St. Helena Records 1687-1693 Additional comments: None | |||
Book cover | |||
Blank page | |||
Blank page | |||
1 | ST. HELENA RECORDS. Rate of 6d. per head for the Church and Minister, p. 3. Fees for registering Baptisms and Marriages, 420. Flag- staff, at Mount has had no flagstaff for some years (369), 430. Inquest, deceased’s head to be opened, 452. | ||
2 | Ind. St Helena At a Consul[t]a[t]ion held on Thursday the 5 of Jan Jo: Blackmore Gov[r] Mr Geo[r]ge being dismissed from the Rt Hon[...] Comp[...] service It is Ordered A B[...]ins | A consultation was held at Fort James on 5 January 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Harden, Captain William Harding, Captain John A[...]ng, [...]n George C[...]ig, and others. Mr George, having been dismissed from the service of the Honourable Company and not having been granted permission to return home at Benguela, declared his intention to travel there with Captain Harding. It was denied by him that any goods had been sent to him from the Honourable Company for a period of one year and three quarters, although it was stated that such provision might have been made in accordance with their orders. An allegation was made that Mr George had repeatedly employed the Company’s slaves, at times hiring out their labour for his own profit and private advantage. On this basis, it was considered appropriate that his payment should be suspended for the time being. The reasons for this suspension were to be reported to the Honourable Company, and the final decision was left to their discretion. However, no obstruction was to be placed upon Mr George’s intended voyage to Benguela. An order was made that Mr George should receive the sum of £52 0s 0d from the Company’s store, to be issued in goods as required. This allowance was made on account of the loss of his stock of cattle and other beasts, which had been seized by the Company’s men for a period of seven years past. For that reason, his final payment remained suspended. Interpretations The suspension of payment functioned as a disciplinary and investigative measure, allowing the local council to withhold wages while referring the matter upward to the Company’s central authority. This preserved local control over immediate enforcement while acknowledging that ultimate authority over employment and remuneration rested with the Company. The use of Company slaves by a private individual, especially for hired labour, indicated a breach of Company property rights. Such labour represented an economic asset under Company control, and its unauthorised use for personal profit amounted to a form of misappropriation, prompting administrative sanction. The grant of £52 0s 0d in goods rather than cash reflected the Company’s store system, in which compensation and provisioning were often issued in kind. This system tied individuals to the Company’s supply network and allowed tighter control over distribution and valuation of resources. The seizure of cattle and beasts by Company personnel suggested an assertion of institutional priority over private property, perhaps in response to shortages or operational needs. Compensation in this case implied recognition of loss, but the prolonged period of seven years indicated that restitution was delayed and mediated through Company authority. | |
3 | At a Consulta[t]ion held on Satturday the 6 of Jo: Blackmore Go[u]r Ellen Beake widdow presented a Petition wherein she setteth Upon serious debate hereof it is judged very reasonable that It is Ordered There having bin of late large Differences in the Island of St Helena Hereupon It is Ordered | A consultation was held at Fort James on 6 January 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain William Harding, [...] Rich [...]ing, and others. A petition was presented by Ellen Beake, widow, in which it was stated that the Honourable Company had seized her estate and that she requested relief. Her husband’s accounts had not yet been fully settled, but considerable effort and expense had been undertaken by her to have them prepared. A sum of [...] was referenced, and it was requested that her accounts should be audited so that the Company’s claims against her might be properly determined. After serious consideration, it was judged reasonable that her accounts should be audited without delay and brought to a proper conclusion in due course. An order was therefore made that notice should be given to her to have the relevant parties ready for examination before the Governor and Council. It was further noted that significant disputes had recently arisen on the island of St Helena between the inhabitants and the Honourable Company. These disputes had resulted from debts that remained outstanding and were continued under existing instructions. An account had been established by Captain Harding and other officers within the island, yet no proportionate contributions or payments had been made either by the officers themselves or by others. As a result, payments and receipts had not been properly regulated, leading to disagreements among the inhabitants in their trading with one another. It was considered both proper and necessary that all bargains, sales, payments, and debts between individuals should be conducted in a standardised form of money, rather than through barter or informal valuation. Accordingly, it was ordered that a proclamation should be issued immediately to the inhabitants, declaring that all payments and dealings were to be conducted in recognised monetary forms. Silver and gold coin, or Spanish rials, were to be used in place of barter for all debts and transactions. Interpretations The auditing of Ellen Beake’s accounts functioned as a formal mechanism to determine liability following the seizure of property. Until accounts were settled, the Company’s claim over her estate remained unresolved, and the audit process served to establish whether any balance was owed either to or by her. The seizure of her estate before the completion of account settlement indicated that the Company exercised pre-emptive control over property where financial obligations were uncertain. This reflected a system in which private assets could be held under Company authority pending financial clarification. The order requiring parties to appear for examination before the Governor and Council demonstrated the council’s role as both an administrative and adjudicative body, responsible for verifying accounts and enforcing financial accountability. The introduction of a requirement that transactions be conducted in coin rather than barter represented an attempt to standardise economic activity. By mandating the use of silver, gold, or Spanish rials, the council sought to stabilise valuation, reduce disputes over equivalence, and ensure that debts were measurable and enforceable within a consistent monetary framework. The reference to an account established by officers, without proportional contributions, suggested a failure in collective financial administration. The new regulation aimed to correct this by imposing a uniform system of payment that would allow clearer tracking of obligations and receipts. The proclamation served as a formal instrument of governance, extending the council’s directive to the entire population. Through this mechanism, compliance with the new monetary system was made compulsory, reinforcing the Company’s authority over economic practice on the island. | |
4 | [...] in what it shall be said, & submitted by every such Debts & Lords That whereas the Rt Hon[ble] Comp[an]y Lords Dept have been pleased to It is Ordered Upon Consideration of the disorderly proceedings in several of the That the Govern[or] & Councell do meet and keep a Court of That a Court for settling of Differences betwixt Parties & That all persons having any debts depending shall enter their That Mr Tho Bealoune be hereby appointed Clerk of the Ordered | Further provision was recorded that, in all matters submitted concerning debts and obligations, a clear account should be established so that balances might be properly determined. Such accounts were to be prepared with a view either to their being remitted to England by bill of exchange or otherwise to be settled between creditor and debtor within the island. It was noted that the Honourable Company had directed that, for the maintenance of the church and minister, a yearly collection should be made at the feasts of St Michael and Lady Day. An order was therefore made that the sum of £40 0s 0d should be raised and levied upon the inhabitants at those times, particularly from those indebted to the Company, and collected accordingly. Consideration was given to the disorderly conduct of several inhabitants in matters of justice. It was judged necessary that provision should be made to regulate such behaviour and to impose penalties where required. An order was made that the Governor and Council should sit as a court of judicature four times each year, namely on the first Monday in April, the first Monday in July, the first Monday in October, and the first Monday in January. It was further ordered that a court for the settlement of disputes between parties should be held annually on the Monday following 25 December. All persons with outstanding debts were required to enter their actions and file their declarations at the appointed office at Fort James within fourteen days after summons or notice had been given to the defendant. A copy of the action or declaration was to be provided to the defendant, who was then required to plead before the Council or at the next court, being allowed time to prepare a defence. Mr Thomas Bealoune was appointed Clerk of the Council, Secretary of the place, and Register of all lands on the island, together with responsibility for recording the revenue and profits arising from them, in accordance with the directions given by the Lords Proprietors. Interpretations The requirement to reduce debts into clear accounts suitable for remittance by bill of exchange linked local financial obligations to metropolitan credit systems. This enabled balances on the island to be transferred into negotiable instruments payable in England, integrating colonial transactions into wider Company finance. The levy of £40 0s 0d at St Michael and Lady Day functioned as a structured fiscal obligation tied to the ecclesiastical calendar. By directing that it be raised especially from those indebted to the Company, religious maintenance was effectively financed through mechanisms of debt recovery. The establishment of fixed quarterly courts of judicature formalised the administration of justice. By setting predetermined sitting dates, judicial authority was regularised and brought under the direct control of the Governor and Council, reinforcing their combined executive and judicial role. The requirement to file actions and declarations within fourteen days of summons introduced procedural discipline into debt litigation. This created a defined timetable for initiating suits and ensured that defendants were formally notified and given opportunity to respond, thereby structuring dispute resolution through documented process. The appointment of a single individual as Clerk, Secretary, and Register of lands concentrated administrative record-keeping within one office. This arrangement ensured that legal, financial, and property records were centralised, enabling more consistent enforcement of land tenure and revenue collection under Company authority. Speculations The insistence that debts be reduced into accounts capable of remittance by bill of exchange probably reflected a need to convert scattered local obligations into forms usable within the Company’s wider financial network. This suggests that unresolved or informally recorded debts on the island had hindered the efficient transfer of value to England, prompting the imposition of stricter accounting practices. The decision to fund church maintenance through a levy collected alongside Company debts perhaps indicates that direct taxation capacity was limited. By attaching the charge to existing obligations, collection could be enforced through the same mechanisms used to recover debts, reducing the risk of non-payment. The creation of fixed court dates and formal filing requirements appears to respond to earlier disorder noted among inhabitants. The structured timetable and procedural rules probably aimed to limit informal or delayed dispute resolution, ensuring that conflicts were brought promptly under official oversight and reducing opportunities for evasion or escalation. | |
5 | [...] & order in respect to the affaires of the Councill & Court of For the Entry of every action to the Book of the Court at Marshall & Bayliffs Fees vizt For serving summons or writt on whom served And entring into Recognizance for his appearance Serving a summons or warrant for Arrest - - 0 : 02 : 00 Every Attorney shall have for each action he Whereas John Gale, [...] Mason & Richard Taylor | Further regulation was established concerning the affairs of the Council and the Court of Justice, setting fixed fees for legal and administrative procedures. For the entry of every action into the court book at the office, a fee of £0 1s 0d was to be charged. For drawing and filing each declaration, the fee was £0 2s 0d. For issuing a writ or warrant, the fee was £0 1s 0d. A copy of a declaration, if requested, was to cost £0 1s 0d. A copy of an order of court following a trial, or any order if requested, was also set at £0 1s 0d. For issuing an execution from the court, the fee was £0 2s 0d. For entering into a recognisance for the peace or for good behaviour, the charge was £0 3s 0d. For withdrawing an action from the file, the fee was £0 2s 0d. Fees were also set for the Marshal and bailiffs. For serving a summons or writ upon each person, a fee of £0 1s 0d was required. For entering into recognisance to secure a person’s appearance to answer the matter, or otherwise remaining in custody until trial, the fee was £0 1s 0d. For serving a summons or warrant for arrest, the fee was £0 2s 0d. The crier of the court was to receive £0 0s 6d for every action. Upon entry into prison, a fee of £0 2s 6d was to be charged, and for release from prison, £0 1s 6d. The placing of irons upon a prisoner was set at £0 1s 0d, confinement in the stocks at £0 0s 6d, and whipping at £0 0s 6d. It was ordered that every attorney acting as a witness in court should receive the full fee of £0 2s 0d for each action. It was further recorded that John Gale, [...] Mason, and Richard Taylor had been sent to Bencoolen in the good ship Loyall Merchant Jane, which had departed from that place for this island. Interpretations The schedule of fees established a structured system of court charges, ensuring that each stage of legal process generated revenue and imposed cost upon participants. This functioned both as a means of funding administration and as a mechanism to regulate access to legal remedies. The requirement to pay for recognisance, or alternatively remain imprisoned until trial, demonstrated how financial capacity directly affected personal liberty. The system allowed release on security but imposed immediate confinement where such payment could not be made. The inclusion of charges for corporal punishment and restraint, such as irons, stocks, and whipping, indicated that punitive measures were integrated into the court’s fee structure. This suggests that enforcement of discipline carried both a coercive and a financial dimension. The role of the Marshal, bailiffs, and crier reflected a layered enforcement system, in which different officers carried out service of process, custody, and court procedure. The assignment of fixed fees to each action formalised their duties and compensation. The provision granting attorneys a full fee when acting as witnesses implied that legal practitioners could hold multiple roles within proceedings. This arrangement reinforced their participation in the judicial process while ensuring compensation regardless of whether they acted as representatives or witnesses. Speculations The detailed enumeration of fees for imprisonment and punishment probably served to offset the costs of maintaining order on the island, suggesting that the judicial system was expected to be at least partly self-financing through those subjected to it. The option of entering into recognisance or remaining imprisoned indicates that immediate detention was used as leverage to secure compliance with court procedures. This structure implies that the authorities prioritised ensuring attendance at trial, even where it required coercive confinement. The extension of fees to nearly every procedural step, including copies and withdrawals, suggests an effort to discourage unnecessary or excessive litigation. By attaching costs to each action, the system probably aimed to limit frivolous claims while maintaining a controlled and documented legal process. | |
6 | [...] St Helena. At a Consultation Held on Monday the [...] Blackmore Govr Marks [...] Mariner having bin lost sick on Whereupon It is Ordered And accordingly they were both deposed that the After serious deliberation of the whole matter That two persons be appointed Administrators to the | A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 July 1688. Those present included [...] Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Captain [...] L[...]go, Engineer, and others. A mariner named Marks [...] was recorded as having fallen sick on the island, having been brought there by Captain John [...]on of the good ship [...]. He had first been lodged at the house of Margrett Foxton, where he remained until [...] day of that month, and was then removed to the house of a fellow seaman at [...]ton. He died there on the Thursday night immediately preceding the consultation. The deceased seaman had possessed a chest kept in the custody of Margrett Foxton, containing various goods and chattels. Additional goods, chattels, and apparel were held at the house of his fellow seaman. An inventory of the contents of the chest at Foxton’s house had been taken in the presence of Foxton, John [...], and the fellow seaman. A further inventory of the goods held at the fellow seaman’s house had been taken by that seaman, together with [...] and Robert [...]ton, and had been subscribed by them all. These inventories were presented to the Governor and Council and examined. An order was made that Margrett Foxton and the fellow seaman should swear to the accuracy of the inventories. They were accordingly examined on oath and affirmed that the inventories were true, and that no other goods belonging to the deceased were in their custody or, to their knowledge, in any other hands. After full consideration, it was ordered that two persons should be appointed as administrators of the deceased seaman’s estate on the island, consisting of his goods and chattels. Letters of administration were to be granted to them, thereby empowering them to take possession of all such property and to dispose of it for as much as [...] Interpretations The taking and verification of inventories served to establish a formal record of the deceased’s movable property, ensuring that all goods were accounted for before administration. This process limited disputes and protected against concealment or misappropriation. The requirement that custodians swear to the truth of the inventories placed them under legal obligation, transforming a simple listing into sworn evidence. This strengthened the enforceability of the record and exposed them to penalty if false statements were later discovered. The grant of letters of administration conferred legal authority upon appointed individuals to manage and dispose of the estate of a person who died without immediate settlement of affairs. This mechanism ensured that property could be collected, valued, and applied according to recognised procedures. The distinction between goods held in different locations, including a private house and that of a fellow seaman, reflected the dispersed nature of personal property in a maritime setting. The council’s intervention brought these scattered assets under a single administrative process. Speculations The insistence on sworn inventories from multiple custodians probably reflected concern that goods might be concealed or disputed after the seaman’s death, particularly given that his property was divided between separate households. This suggests that the council sought to secure an agreed and verifiable account before any distribution or sale. The appointment of administrators indicates that no immediate claimant or executor was present on the island. The structured grant of authority therefore appears to have been used to ensure that the estate could be managed locally, rather than remaining unclaimed or falling into informal possession. | |
7 | [...] needfull to pay and satisfy all the said seaman That And Phillip Gunn and Mr Charles Moon Whereas Information is given that sundry souldiers Therefore It is Ordered And that all persons may take notice hereof | Provision was made that the goods and chattels of the deceased seaman should be applied first to the payment of all his debts on the island, to cover the costs of his funeral and associated expenses, and to meet all incidental and necessary charges arising from the administration of his estate. Any remaining surplus was to be remitted to England for the seaman’s use, either in kind or according to its assessed value. Andrew Gunn and Mr Charles Moon, both described as fishers on the island and associated with the Beaufort, were nominated and appointed as administrators of the estate, with authority as previously ordered. Information was then received that several soldiers in the service of the Honourable Company on the island, together with some seamen, had recently engaged in gaming with dice, cards, and other games. Considerable sums of money had been won and lost, and written bills had been exchanged for payment out of future wages as they became due. This practice had continued for some time, and debts had grown to such an extent that those involved were unable to pay for their quarters or to obtain necessary clothing required for the performance of their duties. An order was therefore made, and strictly enforced, that from that date no officer or soldier should engage in gaming among themselves or with seamen for any sum of money or other thing exceeding the value of one day’s pay, according to their respective salaries, within any single day. Any person who contravened this order, whether winner or loser, was to be imprisoned in irons for such time as the Governor should determine and to suffer any further punishment deemed appropriate. The winner was also to forfeit any amount gained in a single day above the value of the loser’s daily pay. It was further ordered that this regulation should be made known to all persons by public proclamation, to be announced on Wednesday 5 August 1688 by the beating of a drum, and to be posted at both the storehouse and the public court at the fort. Interpretations The direction that debts, funeral costs, and administrative expenses be paid from the estate before any surplus was remitted established a clear hierarchy of claims. Local obligations were prioritised, ensuring that creditors and service providers on the island were satisfied before any value was transferred to England. The remittance of any surplus to England, whether in goods or value, connected local estate administration to metropolitan financial systems. This ensured that any remaining property could be converted or transferred in a form usable within the Company’s wider commercial network. The appointment of administrators from among island residents, specifically fishers associated with a named vessel, reflected the practice of selecting individuals familiar with maritime and local conditions. This enabled effective gathering and disposal of movable property within a dispersed and transient community. The restriction on gaming imposed a formal limit tied to daily wages, linking permissible risk directly to regulated income. This transformed gambling from an unrestricted activity into one governed by institutional definitions of acceptable financial exposure. The prohibition on issuing bills against future pay addressed a form of informal credit that bypassed Company control. By preventing the assignment of future wages, the order reasserted the Company’s authority over the timing and use of pay. The prescribed method of proclamation, by drum and public posting, functioned as an official means of communication. This ensured that the order was publicly known and enforceable, removing any claim of ignorance among those subject to it. Speculations The detailed control of the deceased seaman’s estate, including the requirement to remit any surplus to England, probably reflects concern that movable wealth might otherwise be absorbed informally within the island community. The structured process ensured that value remained traceable and recoverable within the Company’s system. The prohibition on gaming above the level of a day’s pay appears to have been designed to prevent the accumulation of unmanageable debt among soldiers and seamen. The specific link to daily wages suggests an attempt to align personal financial risk with the predictable limits of income, thereby maintaining discipline and operational readiness. The ban on issuing bills against future wages likely responded to a growing system of informal credit that undermined the Company’s control over labour and subsistence. By eliminating this practice, the authorities probably sought to prevent workers from becoming financially incapacitated before their wages were paid, which would have affected their ability to serve and maintain themselves. | |
8 | [...] Lawrance his men & Garrison, occasion of Mr West Mr Cooe having he hath employed Mr Lawrance to fetch a cask Upon Consideration that the Comp[an]y ought not That the said Lawrance ought to have no pay for the same Mr Draper complains of Mr Rich having refused to pay But whereas Mr Beeston insisteth not sent the Copy for That the Mr Draper hath not power sufficient to demand the said | A complaint was brought concerning Mr Lawrance and the men of the garrison, arising from a dispute with Mr West. It was reported to the Council that Mr Lawrance had received wages from the Honourable Company for work performed at the plantation, which was said to be due under the arrangements previously recorded. Mr Cooe stated that he had employed Mr Lawrance to fetch a cask on the Company’s wages, as referenced in the inventories, owing to the distance between the fort, where the Company’s garrison resided, and the plantation. It was explained that some of the men required urgent attention, and that the absence of a cargason, or transport labour, had caused difficulty. It was further stated that one Richard Barksdale had broken his arm at the garrison and was unable to perform his duties, which contributed to the need for assistance. Although a Company labourer had already been authorised to fetch the cask, the seaman carried out the task and demanded payment, which Mr Cooe considered excessive. Upon consideration, it was determined that the Company should not be charged for the work of a seaman in place of a cargason when the task could have been performed by another for a lesser amount of time or cost. It was therefore ordered that Mr Lawrance should receive no payment for this service, as it was judged improper for him to undertake such work in place of designated labour. A further complaint was made by Mr Draper against Mr Rich, who had refused to pay Mrs Beeston the sum of £10 0s 0d. Mrs Beeston had presented her late husband’s letters and, following his death, had acted as administrator of his estate. She had granted a letter of attorney to Mr Draper to receive the sum on her behalf, yet payment had been refused. It was noted, however, that a copy of the administration had not been formally submitted, and Mrs Beeston had not appeared in court to confirm her claim. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Mr Draper did not possess sufficient authority to demand the payment in the absence of proper legal proof. Interpretations The refusal to allow payment for the seaman’s work in place of a cargason reflected a distinction between categories of labour within the Company’s system. Specific tasks were assigned to designated roles, and substitution by higher-paid personnel was not permitted where it increased cost without justification. The reference to cargason indicated a form of transport or labour provision associated with moving goods between locations. The council’s decision reinforced the expectation that such duties should be carried out by appropriate labourers rather than by seamen employed for other purposes. The requirement for formal proof of administration before recognising a claim to payment demonstrated the importance of documented legal authority in estate matters. Without verified credentials, even a letter of attorney was insufficient to enforce a debt. The council’s insistence on personal appearance or proper certification before allowing recovery of funds showed that claims were subject to procedural validation, ensuring that payments were made only to those legally entitled. Speculations The denial of payment to Mr Lawrance suggests that the council sought to prevent the inflation of labour costs through the use of higher-status or higher-paid workers for routine tasks. This indicates an effort to maintain strict control over expenditure in a setting where resources and labour were limited. The refusal to accept Mr Draper’s claim without formal proof of administration probably reflects concern over fraudulent or premature claims upon estates. By requiring proper documentation and court recognition, the council aimed to safeguard the orderly transfer of property and prevent disputes over entitlement. | |
9 | [...] Complaint of Rich[...] Pearman Merchant having But Mr [...] not having sent the Copy of his Letters of Administra- It is Agreed & Ordered Roger Beeston Tanner petitioned he might tan & [...] the It is Agreed & Ordered [...] agreed with John Deacon but & Given him 50 s if they Upon Consideration of regulating the prices of Measures of Punch It is Ordered | A complaint was made against Rich[...] Pearman, merchant, concerning a debt owed by him to one [...] in the sum of £7 [...] 0d. London Taylor, who described himself as administrator, had granted a letter of attorney to Mr Deacon to recover this debt. Payment had been refused by Pearman. It was noted that a copy of Taylor’s letters of administration had not been produced, and that sufficient proof of his authority had not been established through Mr Deacon. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Mr Deacon did not have adequate authority to demand payment of the debt. A petition was presented by Roger Beeston, tanner, requesting permission to tan and prepare leather belonging to the Honourable Company. He proposed that the Company would benefit by obtaining the leather at a rate one shilling lower per hide than the usual price. It was agreed and ordered that he should tan 50 hides at the rate of £0 3s 6d per hide. The Company was to bear the cost of carriage and to pay £1 0s 0d to slaves for fetching oak bark, together with further payment for eight days’ labour if required for that purpose. Additional carriage costs were to be paid according to distance where exceptional. An allowance of one quarter of a hide was to be made for waste and shortage in the leather, and the agreement was to be formally signed. An agreement was also made with John Deacon, under which he was to receive £2 10s 0d if he undertook the working of the Company’s leather into shoes. For each pair of men’s shoes produced, an allowance of £0 2s 0d was to be made, and £0 1s 0d for each pair supplied for seamen to be kept in stock. A formal article of agreement was to be prepared, drawn up, and signed accordingly. Consideration was then given to the regulation of the price and measure of punch. It was ordered that each bottle of punch should contain a fixed quantity of strong distilled liquor, or arrack, together with other ingredients in proper measure. No retailer was to charge more than £0 5s 0d for a bottle so prepared. Interpretations The refusal to recognise Mr Deacon’s authority without production of letters of administration reinforced the requirement that legal claims to recover debts be supported by formally verified authority. This prevented the enforcement of obligations on the basis of unproven representation. The contract for tanning hides established a fixed production rate and placed responsibility for supply inputs, such as bark and transport, upon the Company. This arrangement structured labour and resource provision while controlling cost through agreed pricing and allowances for waste. The payment to slaves for fetching oak bark reflected their use as organised labour under Company direction, with specific tasks assigned and compensated within the production process. The agreement with John Deacon to manufacture shoes introduced a piece-rate system, linking payment directly to output. This ensured that production for both general supply and seamen’s stock could be scaled according to need while maintaining predictable costs. The regulation of punch pricing and composition imposed standard measures upon retail trade, ensuring uniformity in both quantity and price. This limited excessive charging and brought commercial exchange under direct administrative control. Speculations The structured tanning contract, including allowances for waste and Company responsibility for inputs, probably reflects an effort to stabilise production in a setting where materials and labour were unevenly available. By fixing terms in advance, the Company ensured continuity of supply for essential goods. The introduction of piece-rate payment for shoemaking suggests a need to encourage consistent production without maintaining a large permanent workforce. This arrangement likely allowed the Company to meet fluctuating demand while controlling expenditure. The regulation of punch pricing and composition appears to respond to concerns over inconsistent quality or overcharging by retailers. By fixing both measure and maximum price, the council probably aimed to prevent disputes and ensure fairness in everyday transactions. | |
10 | It was also Agreed & Ordered Mr Beeston petitioned also he might have Leave to remain Which Petition upon serious thought & mature consideration Whereas it may be thought some Gentlemen of the Hon[ble] Court Therefore It is Ordered A Blac[...]n | It was agreed and ordered that, where men’s full proportion of liquor was issued in very small quantities and subsequently disposed of, it should be accounted for in proportion to the amount actually received and distributed. A further petition was presented by Mr Beeston requesting permission to remain on the island for a longer period, on the grounds that several advantages would arise from his continued presence. After careful consideration, it was ordered that his request should be granted in accordance with his wishes. It was then considered that certain persons, described as gentlemen of the Honourable Court, should be maintained in order to present a visible authority to the inhabitants of the colony, in accordance with a recent proclamation, so that minor disputes might be more readily addressed. An order was made that any dispute not exceeding the value of £0 10s 0d should be decided by the Governor alone. His judgement in such matters was to be final, and no appeal was to be permitted. Interpretations The requirement to account for liquor in proportion to the quantity issued addressed the risk of misreporting where allowances were distributed in small amounts. This ensured that partial distributions remained subject to accurate record-keeping and prevented loss or misuse within supply systems. The granting of permission for Mr Beeston to remain on the island indicates that residence could be controlled by official approval, and that continued presence was subject to perceived benefit to the Company’s interests. The provision for minor disputes to be decided solely by the Governor created a summary jurisdiction for low-value cases. This reduced the burden on formal court proceedings and enabled quicker resolution of small claims. The removal of any right of appeal in disputes under £0 10s 0d reinforced the authority of the Governor in such matters and limited prolonged litigation over minor sums, thereby conserving administrative resources. Speculations The proportional accounting of liquor probably reflects concern over leakage or informal exchange within ration systems, particularly where small quantities were harder to track. This measure suggests an effort to tighten control over consumable supplies. The establishment of final judgement by the Governor in low-value disputes appears designed to prevent minor disagreements from escalating into prolonged legal processes. This likely aimed to maintain order and efficiency in a small and closely regulated community. | |
11 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the 12 of Jn Blackmore Govr In pursuance of the Rt Hon[ble] the Lords Prop[rieto]rs order That she have the said 30 Acres of land for the terme Mary Jewell the widow of Job Bunto & another of It is Ordered Martha the widow of Tho Coulson who was | A consultation was held at Fort James on 12 April 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, [...] W[...]ling, Engineer, and others. In accordance with the order of the Right Honourable Lords Proprietors concerning those persons recently executed for robbery on the island, it was recorded that they had been summoned to surrender their estates, consisting of houses and land, for forfeiture. This surrender had been duly made. Grace, widow of John Coulson, one of those executed, petitioned to retain the use of 30 acres of land and a house in Rappot Valley, which had been in her husband’s tenure. It was agreed and ordered that she should hold the 30 acres for a term of six months from 25 March 1688, paying an annual rent of £6 0s 0d, equivalent to £0 18s 0d for that period according to the terms set by the Lords Proprietors. She was also required to enclose the land surrounding her dwelling with a wall fence and to plant it with pomegranates, oranges, lemons, limes, and other suitable fruit trees. She was further granted the house in Rappot Valley for the same term, for which she was to pay £2 0s 0d per annum. She agreed and consented to these conditions. Mary Jewell, widow of Job Bunto, another of those executed, requested to rent a house and 20 acres out of her former 30 acres of land for six months from 25 March 1688, together with the house in Rappot Valley that had belonged to her husband. She offered to pay £1 5s 0d for the six-month term of the land and £1 0s 0d for the house. It was ordered that she should have 20 acres of the land for six months, paying £2 0s 0d per annum to the Lords Proprietors, and also the house in the valley for which she was to pay £1 0s 0d. Martha, widow of Thomas Coulson, who had also been executed for the same robbery, requested to rent the house and 30 acres of land formerly associated with her husband for a similar term, but [...] Interpretations The surrender of estates following execution for robbery reflected the operation of forfeiture, by which property held by convicted persons was transferred to the Lords Proprietors. This reinforced both punishment and the reallocation of land under proprietary authority. The granting of short-term leases to the widows demonstrated that forfeited land could be reissued under controlled conditions. This allowed continuity of occupation while ensuring that tenure was subject to rent and compliance with imposed terms. The requirement to enclose land and plant specified fruit trees indicates that tenants were obliged to improve and cultivate property. Such conditions tied landholding to productive use, aligning private occupation with the economic interests of the proprietors. The calculation of rent for a six-month term from an annual rate shows that landholding was structured within a standardised rental system, enabling flexible but controlled allocation of property. The differentiation in acreage granted to Mary Jewell, compared with her request, suggests that the council exercised discretion in determining the extent of land use permitted, rather than simply accepting petitioners’ proposals. Speculations The decision to allow widows to retain temporary possession of forfeited land probably reflects a balance between enforcing punishment and maintaining stability within the settlement. By permitting continued occupation under rent, disruption to agricultural production and habitation was minimised. The imposition of enclosure and planting requirements suggests an intention to convert previously held land into more intensively managed and productive estates. This indicates that forfeiture was used not only as a penalty but also as an opportunity to reshape land use in accordance with proprietary goals. | |
12 | [...] the house in Rappott Valley late her husband for six Also Wm Martha applies to give an acco[...] of Edward It is Ordered But the said Martha representing that he hath been It is Ordered A Blackmore | Martha, widow of Thomas Coulson, further requested to rent the house in Rappot Valley that had belonged to her husband for six months from 25 March 1688. She offered £1 10s 0d for the land and £1 0s 0d for the house. This request was granted on condition that she complied with the established terms of rent, to which she agreed and consented. William Martha then presented an account concerning the estate of Edward Garratt, another person executed for robbery. It was stated by Martha and others connected with her husband that Garratt had owed all his debts to her prior to his execution, and that his estate, including his house and plantation, together with a black boy and cattle, remained at his property. It was further shown that Martha had suffered considerable loss due to the decay and neglect of the plantation, which had fallen into ruin through Garratt’s failure to maintain it. It was ordered that Martha should immediately surrender to the Honourable Company the black boy belonging to Garratt, in place of a proportion of the plantation fences. It was also determined that some reparation should be made, and that she should have the use of the house and the land for a term of six months. Martha represented that she had incurred significant expense in maintaining the black boy, including his upkeep and that of his wife, and that damage had been caused to her property which she had been required to repair. It was therefore ordered that Martha should have the labour of two of the Honourable Company’s slaves for the space of one month, at such time as she should require it. Interpretations The continued granting of short-term leases to widows of executed persons demonstrates the controlled redistribution of forfeited property. Occupation was permitted only under defined rental conditions, ensuring that land remained under the authority of the proprietors while still being used productively. The surrender of the black boy in place of plantation fencing indicates that human labour was treated as an asset equivalent to physical improvements. This reflects a system in which both labour and infrastructure were interchangeable forms of value within estate management. The recognition of Martha’s losses due to the neglect of Garratt’s plantation shows that deterioration of land could affect subsequent claims and arrangements. The council took this into account when determining compensation and temporary use of property. The provision of Company slaves for a fixed period as compensation represents a form of labour allocation in lieu of direct financial payment. This allowed the Company to address claims without immediate expenditure of money while maintaining control over labour resources. Speculations The exchange of the black boy for responsibility over plantation fencing suggests that the council aimed to recover value from Garratt’s estate in a form that could be immediately reassigned within the Company’s labour system. This indicates a preference for consolidating labour resources rather than leaving them under private control. The grant of temporary labour from Company slaves to Martha likely reflects an attempt to offset her claimed expenses without restoring full ownership or control over the estate. This arrangement allowed limited compensation while maintaining the broader forfeiture of property under Company authority. | |
13 | [...] St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the Jn Blackmore Govr The Govr informed that this being now day John Smith the Rt Hon Englis[h] East India He disposed a Negro man to Thomas Howe for the space of a | A consultation was held at Fort James on 26 April 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, and Richard Keeling. The Governor reported that this day had been appointed for the hearing of matters to be alleged against Mr Cox by two men, to be presented face to face. Mr Cox had been informed and requested to attend, but he refused to appear unless formally summoned by warrant. He stated that the Governor and Council might instead take affidavits from any persons and transmit them to the Honourable Company in England, where he would make his defence. He declared that he would not answer any accusations locally. A declaration and deposition was then made by John Smith, a servant of the Honourable English East India Company on the island. He stated that in November 1688, Mr Cox, acting as supervisor of the Company’s plantations, had employed the labour of Company slaves and disposed of that labour for various purposes. He testified that a slave had been assigned to Thomas Howe for one month. To Captain [...] slaves had been provided to carry 60 burdens of bushes over a distance of about one mile, together with the labour of two slaves for four days. To Mr Carnady, slaves had been supplied to carry 60 burdens of bushes to his house in West Town, approximately seven miles distant, along with the labour of four slaves for one week. To Gabriel Greese, the labour of 24 slaves for one day had been given to carry timber from the bay, about two miles away. To Mr G[...]s, slaves had been assigned to transport 40 burdens of bushes to the top of Fort Hill, about four miles distant. To Mr Thorburne, the labour of ten slaves for one day had been used to carry timber from the bay, also about two miles distant. To his brother Edmond, slaves had been provided to carry 20 burdens of bushes to his house in the country. To Richard Archer, slaves had been used to carry 20 burdens of bushes over a distance of about three miles. To Mr Wilson, described as a Scotsman, slaves had been assigned to [...] Interpretations The refusal of Mr Cox to appear without formal warrant demonstrated the procedural expectation that authority should be exercised through recognised legal instruments. His insistence on affidavits being sent to England reflects the hierarchical structure of accountability, whereby final judgement rested with the Company’s central authority rather than the local council. The use of sworn deposition by John Smith indicates the formal gathering of evidence in the absence of the accused. This allowed proceedings to continue while preserving a record that could be transmitted and reviewed at a higher level. The detailed listing of labour assignments shows that Company slaves were treated as deployable resources under supervisory control. Their labour could be allocated to private individuals, suggesting a system in which Company-owned labour was used beyond strictly institutional tasks. The measurement of work in burdens, distances, and days reflects an organised system for quantifying labour. This enabled the value and extent of services provided to be assessed and compared across different assignments. The role of a plantation supervisor included authority over labour distribution, but the scale and variety of these allocations suggest that such authority was subject to scrutiny when used for private benefit or outside established norms. | |
14 | [...] him 30 burthens of When he went from the plantation to his father | Further deposition was given by John Smith, continuing his account of the actions of Mr Cox as supervisor of the Honourable Company’s plantation. He stated that slaves had been assigned to carry 30 burdens of [...] over a distance of about three miles for one individual, and to another to carry 40 burdens over a similar distance. To Thomas [...], slaves had been employed to carry 80 burdens over three miles. To Samuel Thorne, slaves had carried 20 burdens to his house at Fort James, about five miles distant, and a further 20 burdens to his house in the country, about three miles away, in addition to 18 days of slave labour. To [...] Morris, slaves had carried 60 burdens over three miles. To Thomas Fordale, slaves had carried 30 burdens over three miles. To Robert Tomps, slaves had brought 30 burdens over three miles. To Samuel Gates, slaves had carried 20 burdens over three miles, together with an additional 20 days of labour. To John Nichol, a slave had been hired out to work to the value of £5 0s 0d. He further stated that Mr Cox had taken from the plantation two turkeys, and had given to Captain Johnson one turkey hen and seven chickens. When Mr Cox travelled from the plantation to the residence of his father, Edmond, he had taken five young sows, 22 young shoats, 12 young turkeys, three turkey hens, three hens, six chickens, and one tub of dung hill fowls. Of these, two turkey hens had been given to Gabriel Pow, and [...] cotton and guinea hens had been given to his brother Allanson. It was also declared that Edmond Cox had received several tame turkeys from the plantation, estimated at between eight and ten, and that the greater part of the plantation stock, amounting to about 50 or 60, had come into his possession from the Company’s resources. It was further stated that Thomas Fordale had received two turkey hens from Mr Cox, and that Mr Draper had been given two turkeys in exchange for one guinea hen. Samuel Thorne had repaired Mr Cox’s boat and had been compensated with slave labour valued at approximately £30 0s 0d. It was additionally stated that Mr Cox had engaged in trade with ships, whereby potatoes were taken from the Company’s plantation to his long house at Fort James and used in exchange with visiting vessels, amounting in total to a considerable quantity. Further reference was made to his hiring of [...] Interpretations The extensive allocation of slave labour to numerous individuals, measured in burdens, distances, and days, demonstrates a structured system for quantifying and distributing labour. This level of detail suggests that such use of Company resources was expected to be accountable and open to scrutiny. The hiring out of a slave to the value of £5 0s 0d indicates that labour could be monetised and treated as a transferable asset. This reflects an economic system in which Company-controlled labour could be converted into financial value through private arrangements. The removal and redistribution of livestock and poultry from the plantation shows that agricultural resources were also treated as assets subject to allocation. Their transfer to family members and associates suggests a blending of personal and institutional control over property. The use of slave labour as payment, as in the case of boat repair valued at £30 0s 0d, demonstrates that labour functioned as a medium of exchange in lieu of money. This reinforced the central role of controlled labour within the island’s economy. The transport of potatoes from the plantation for trade with ships indicates that Company produce could be diverted into external exchange. This activity connected the island’s resources with maritime trade but also raised questions about the authorised use of Company goods. Speculations The scale and variety of labour and goods distributed by Mr Cox suggest that supervisory authority over the plantation may have been used to establish a network of reciprocal obligations with inhabitants and associates. This could have strengthened his personal influence while drawing upon Company resources. The repeated use of slave labour and produce in exchanges, including with ships, indicates that informal or semi-authorised trading practices may have developed alongside official systems. This suggests that the plantation’s output was not strictly confined to Company use but was partly redirected into private or local exchange networks. The accumulation of livestock and produce by Mr Cox’s father, Edmond, implies that resources were being concentrated within a familial network. This may reflect an attempt to secure long-term benefit from Company assets beyond the immediate control of the plantation. | |
15 | [...] & drawing w[i]th ships and for | Further deposition was given that Mr Cox had engaged in trading and exchange with ships, and had arranged for the private conveyance of goods from the plantation. These goods were transported by means of a back path, sometimes by moonlight when no one was present, or early in the morning before others were awake, or late in the evening. The goods included barley, Indian corn, turkeys, hogs, cotton, and other forms of green provision in considerable quantities, including peas, potatoes, yams, carrots, cabbages, bananas, lemons, and salt fish. It was further stated that such removal extended even to the reduction of supplies intended for the Company’s table. One of the Company’s flocks was kept for use when ships were in the road, and fowls were regularly shot and taken to be presented to commanders of ships and passengers. When no ships were present, fowls were killed together with goats and disposed of at Mr Cox’s discretion, with no portion being delivered to the Company’s store for official use. It was also declared that a white boar, which had been sold by his father Edmond to the Company for dispatch to Bencoolen, had later been taken from the plantation by Mr Cox after it had become Company property. He was further said to have bartered and traded the plantation’s goods with ships in exchange for fine calicoes, silks, serges, broadcloth, and other goods. A considerable quantity of such items was reportedly accumulated during periods of scarcity on the island. An encounter was described in which the master of a ship from Madagascar met Mr Cox and brought goods to the plantation. It was supposed that these were sold to him, as he later returned with a quantity of goods obtained from the vessel. It was further alleged that he disposed of large quantities of slaves’ labour and plantation produce for his own benefit, frequently taking advantage of opportunities to do so. It was also stated that Mr Cox had privately sold one of the Company’s boats and used the proceeds to pay his debts. This matter was later reported to the Governor, and at a subsequent time he was required to account for it and to make payment. It was further reported that he had declared on several occasions that he would not refrain from benefiting himself through his position, and that he would make his office serve his own advantage. Interpretations The clandestine removal of goods from the plantation, including their transport by indirect routes and at concealed times, indicates deliberate avoidance of oversight. This suggests that control mechanisms over Company property relied heavily on observation and routine, which could be bypassed through timing and location. The diversion of provisions intended for the Company’s table and store demonstrates that institutional supply systems were vulnerable to appropriation at the point of management. The absence of any return to the store shows a breakdown in the expected flow of goods from production to official distribution. The use of plantation produce and livestock in trade with ships reveals that Company resources were converted into external commercial goods, integrating local production into informal maritime exchange networks beyond official channels. The appropriation and resale of a Company boat highlights that not only consumable goods but also capital assets could be misused. The subsequent requirement for repayment shows that such actions, once discovered, were subject to financial restitution rather than solely punitive measures. The repeated reference to slave labour being redirected for private benefit underscores its central role as an economic resource. Control over labour allocation effectively determined access to value within the plantation system. Speculations The repeated concealment of goods removal, including transport by night and use of indirect routes, suggests that Mr Cox operated in a context where supervision was limited but predictable. This implies that enforcement depended on routine inspection rather than continuous oversight, allowing systematic evasion. The exchange of plantation goods for imported textiles and luxury items indicates that Mr Cox may have been converting perishable or locally abundant resources into durable and high-value commodities. This suggests a deliberate strategy to accumulate portable wealth that could be retained or transferred beyond the island. The private sale of a Company boat to settle personal debts suggests that Mr Cox may have faced financial obligations that exceeded his available means. The use of Company property to address these debts indicates that his position provided access to assets that could be liquidated when required. | |
16 | April ye 26th being about writeing was The said John Smith further adds that John Smith Thomas Howe being sworn saith that he Tho Howe Katherine Jessy being sworn saith that she Kath Jessy Anne the wife of John Carnady being | On 26 April 1688, the deposition was read to John Smith by the Governor and Council, and the Governor together with Mr Redhorne administered the oath upon it. John Smith affirmed the contents, except that he could not state with certainty whether the boar taken from the plantation was the same as that sold by Edmond Cox to the Honourable Company for dispatch to Bencoolen at Fort William, although he believed it to be so. He subscribed his name upon oath on that date. John Smith further declared that Mr Cox owed various quantities of slave labour to several individuals. To Mr Rich, the labour of 40 slaves for one day was owed. To Mr Bonney, 40 turns of bushes carried about three miles were owed, together with two additional days of labour by one slave. To Rich Hacoy, 40 turns of bushes over three miles were owed. To Mr Shurlow, 20 turns of bushes over three miles were owed. To Edward Seaford, several days of labour by one slave were owed. To Daniel Smith, the labour of five slaves for one day was owed. To Thomas Birch, several days of slave labour were owed. To Mr Downey, ten burdens of bushes were owed. To Mr Bagly, 20 turns of bushes over three miles were owed. To Josiah Harlworth, 12 turns of bushes over three miles were owed. Thomas Howe, having been sworn, stated that he had received the labour of one of the Honourable Company’s slaves for a period of three weeks or up to one month, for which he had paid Mr Cox in wheat and salt. Katherine Jessy, having been sworn, stated that she had received the labour of 20 Company slaves for one day, together with approximately two additional days of labour by one slave. These slaves had carried 20 burdens of bushes over a distance of about two miles. She stated that she had paid Mr Cox in yams. Anne, the wife of John Carnady, having been sworn, stated that Company slaves had carried 20 burdens of bushes from the horse pasture to Lemon Valley, and a further 16 burdens cut at the pasture. Some of these had been delivered to her house at Fort James. She stated that payment had been made to Mr Cox in lime and money. Interpretations The reaffirmation of deposition under oath, including the qualification regarding uncertainty over the boar, demonstrates that testimony was expected to distinguish between direct knowledge and belief. This reinforced the evidential weight of sworn statements while allowing for limited uncertainty. The listing of labour owed in quantified units, such as numbers of slaves, days, and burdens carried over specified distances, shows that labour obligations were treated as measurable debts. This enabled the comparison and accumulation of liabilities in a structured form. The pattern of payments made in kind, including wheat, salt, yams, lime, and money, indicates a mixed economy in which transactions were not confined to coin. Goods and produce functioned as recognised means of settlement for labour received. The repeated references to labour being owed rather than paid suggests that Mr Cox operated on a system of deferred settlement. This created a network of outstanding obligations that could be called upon or disputed. The use of sworn testimony from multiple individuals established corroboration through separate accounts, strengthening the case against Mr Cox by demonstrating consistency in the reported use and distribution of Company labour. Speculations The accumulation of numerous small labour debts to different individuals suggests that Mr Cox may have extended access to Company slaves on credit, expecting later repayment in goods. This implies a system of informal exchange that allowed him to distribute labour widely while delaying settlement. The variety of payment forms offered by different individuals indicates that Mr Cox probably accepted whatever goods were available locally, suggesting flexibility aimed at maximising return rather than adhering to a fixed valuation system. The detailed recording of distances and quantities in the deposition suggests that these measures were important in establishing the scale of labour diverted. This implies that the inquiry sought not only to prove misuse but also to quantify the extent of loss to the Company. | |
30 | Further hee saith yt some Compa Negroo Further he saith that two hoggs by ye Gabriel Powell saith that he had ye worke Prudence Shrimpton being sworn saith yt John Nichols being sworn saith he had ye [...] | Further testimony was given that certain Company slaves had been seen carrying goods along the back of the house. Suspicion having arisen, Gabriel Powell was asked to observe what they were transporting. He reported that he saw seven or eight Company slaves carrying various loads. Some bore hogs, fowls, and bananas, while the remainder carried bags filled with provisions. It was further stated that two hogs marked with the Company’s ear mark had been brought by slaves into the house of Edward Edmonds. As no opportunity arose to dispose of them to ships then in the road, they were privately conveyed into the country. The same hogs were later seen there, being kept under the care of a Company slave. Gabriel Powell, being sworn, stated that he had received the labour of 24 Company slaves for two days to carry timber out of Sandy Bay. He confirmed that he had made payment in cloth and fowls. He further stated that he had obtained two turkey hens from Mr Cox, for which he had given geese intended to raise a brood. He also confirmed the accuracy of what Mr Grundy had previously declared. Prudence Shrimpton, being sworn, stated that she had received the labour of 40 Company slaves for one day to carry timber, and that she had paid in yams, butter, and one bottle of liquor. John Nichols, being sworn, stated that he had received the labour of Company slaves as they came to him or were found working for him, sometimes eight or ten in a day, and that he had made partial payment in yams. Interpretations The observation of slaves transporting goods in concealed or indirect routes indicates that movement of Company property was monitored informally by individuals within the settlement. Such surveillance formed part of the evidential process in identifying unauthorised use. The identification of hogs by ear marks shows that livestock was formally marked to denote Company ownership. This enabled recognition of misappropriated property even after it had been moved or concealed. The repeated use of slave labour in exchange for goods such as cloth, fowls, yams, butter, and liquor demonstrates a system in which labour was routinely commodified and exchanged outside formal monetary structures. The reference to slaves being found already working for individuals suggests that labour could be redirected without formal assignment, indicating weak immediate control over their deployment once removed from central oversight. The corroboration of earlier testimony by multiple witnesses under oath strengthened the evidential basis of the case, showing consistency across independent accounts of labour use and exchange. Speculations The movement of goods by indirect routes and at concealed times suggests that those involved were aware of the need to avoid detection, indicating that such practices were not openly accepted but required deliberate concealment. The relocation of marked livestock into the country when ships were unavailable implies that goods were being held until a suitable opportunity for disposal arose. This suggests a planned approach to timing the conversion of Company property into private benefit. The acceptance of varied goods in exchange for labour, including perishable items, indicates that transactions were driven by immediate availability rather than standard valuation. This suggests a flexible but loosely regulated system of exchange that facilitated widespread participation. | |
31 | Island St Helena. Att a Consultation holden Twesday the 9th [...] Blackmore Govr Thomas Bosc and John Draper Church It is Ordered That the sume of seven shillings six pence Isaak Charlesworth Rich Leach Andrew It is Ordered That Isaak Charlesworth and Rich Leach be Also that they demand of Tho Warborn an Acco | A consultation was held at Fort James on 9 May 1688. Those present were [...] Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Richard Holding, Ensign, and others. Thomas Bosc and John Draper, who had served as churchwardens for the previous year, submitted their accounts of receipts and disbursements relating to the church and chapel at the fort. These accounts were examined and approved. It was found that the sum of £0 7s 6d was due to the churchwardens, and that £10 9s 9d was due to the Honourable Company for timber. The balance recorded amounted to £1 14s 3d. It was ordered that the sum of £0 7s 6d should be paid or allowed to Thomas Bosc and John Draper out of the money provided by the Honourable Company, to be collected at Michaelmas for the repair of the church. It was further ordered that the sum of £1 9s 9d should be paid to the Honourable Company out of the same fund once it had been collected. Isaak Charlesworth, Richard Leach, Andrew Gibson, and John Coate had been nominated by the inhabitants for the position of churchwardens for the present year 1688. It was ordered that Isaak Charlesworth and Richard Leach should be appointed to that office. They were instructed to receive the goods and stock belonging to the church and chapel from the former churchwardens and to ensure that these were not embezzled or damaged, but remained ready for use when required. They were also directed to demand an account from Thomas Warborn concerning linen that he or his wife had received some years earlier for the making of surplices. If any surplices had been made, they were to be collected and presented to the Governor and Council so that proper satisfaction could be made for their production. Interpretations The submission and approval of the churchwardens’ accounts demonstrates a formal system of financial oversight, in which local officers were required to account for funds and materials used in maintaining religious buildings. The allocation of funds from a designated collection at Michaelmas shows that church repairs were supported through a structured levy, linking religious maintenance to periodic financial contributions under Company authority. The appointment of new churchwardens from among nominees put forward by inhabitants reflects a participatory element within a controlled framework. Final authority over appointment remained with the Governor and Council, ensuring oversight of local representation. The instruction to safeguard church goods against embezzlement indicates concern over the security of communal property. Churchwardens were made responsible for maintaining and producing these items when required, reinforcing accountability. The demand for an account of linen issued for surplices illustrates the expectation that materials supplied for specific purposes should be traceable through to their intended use. The requirement to present completed items to the Governor and Council ensured verification before acceptance and settlement of any related costs. | |
32 | [...] they are forthwith to view the Church Thomas Fowndale, Richard Carion Thomas It is Ordered That Thomas Fowndale and Richard Carion In pursuance of the Rt Hon ble Compy Order It is Ordered That the sd Mr Smoutts Estate be forthwith Which four persons now appearing they did You Richard Gurling Wm Brice Joshua | The newly appointed churchwardens were directed to inspect the church in the country without delay, to determine what repairs were most urgently required for its preservation. They were to report their findings to the Governor and Council, providing a full account so that damage might be prevented. Thomas Fowndale, Richard Carion, Thomas Allison, and Thomas Burnham had been nominated by the inhabitants for the office of surveyors of the highways for the year 1688. It was ordered that Thomas Fowndale and Richard Carion should be appointed to that role. They were instructed, if possible, to complete the new road in Chapel Valley leading up the hill known as Fort Hill, and to take particular care to repair or improve any other highways that were most necessary. In accordance with the order of the Honourable Company for the recovery of debts owed by Mr Thomas Smoutt, amounting to £394 18s 9d, it was ordered that his estate should be immediately attached and appraised. Richard Gurling and William Brice were appointed to act on behalf of the Company, and Joshua Johnson and Henry Cale on behalf of Mr Smoutt. These four individuals appeared and each took an oath that they would faithfully and impartially appraise the estate to be seized for the satisfaction of the debt. They swore that they would perform this duty to the best of their knowledge, without accepting any bribe or gratuity from either the Company or Mr Smoutt, and that they would determine the true value of the estate for sale in order to raise the necessary funds. Interpretations The instruction to survey and report on the condition of the country church shows that maintenance of religious buildings extended beyond the fort and required active oversight. Churchwardens functioned as inspectors as well as custodians, linking local observation to central decision-making. The appointment of surveyors of highways indicates a formal system for maintaining infrastructure. Responsibility for roads was assigned to specific individuals, reflecting the importance of transport routes for movement between the fort, plantations, and other settlements. The attachment of Mr Smoutt’s estate demonstrates the enforcement of debt through seizure of property. This process enabled the Company to convert assets into funds to satisfy outstanding obligations. The use of appointed appraisers from both the Company’s side and that of the debtor reflects an attempt to ensure fairness and credibility in valuation. By including representatives of both interests, the process reduced the risk of dispute over the assessed value. The oath taken by the appraisers emphasised impartiality and the prohibition of bribery, reinforcing the integrity of the process. This formal declaration sought to ensure that the valuation would be accepted as legitimate and binding. | |
33 | Which Oath being taken It was Ordered the The perticulers of the said Smoutts Estate A double house and some enclosed Ground Twenty Acres of land in Jamesons Wood wth a house All the fruit trees standing on any or on all those All his Quick stock of neate Cattle if he have any Two female Black[s] There being some Intended hides of the Rt It is Ordered and Agreed That Benjamin Seale Tanner have the said [...] | After the oath had been taken, it was ordered that the appraisal of Mr Thomas Smoutt’s estate should proceed immediately and be completed between that day and Saturday 2 June 1688. The particulars of the estate to be appraised were set out as follows. A double house with enclosed ground situated in or near the town or Chapel Valley. A large house or outbuildings with 20 acres of land near the Cook. A further 20 acres of land in Jameson’s Wood with a house. Ten acres of land under Capon near the Cook with a house. Ten acres of land between Hardingsworth and C[h][o][m][e][r]y with a house. All fruit trees standing on any of these lands that had been planted within the previous two or three months. All his live stock of cattle, if any remained, and all his swine. Two female slaves were also included. It was further noted that certain hides belonging to the Honourable Company, kept at a place called the Slaughter, had suffered damage from rats and other causes. It was therefore ordered and agreed that Benjamin Seale, tanner, should receive these hides, amounting in total to about a dozen usable hides, and that he should tan them into good and serviceable leather. For this work he was to be allowed the sum of £2 0s 0d in his account with the Honourable Company. Interpretations The detailed listing of Mr Smoutt’s estate reflects a comprehensive approach to asset seizure, encompassing land, buildings, livestock, and recently planted improvements. This ensured that all sources of value were identified for conversion into funds to satisfy the debt. The inclusion of fruit trees planted within the previous months indicates that even recent agricultural investment was treated as part of the estate. This demonstrates that improvements to land were recognised as recoverable assets rather than excluded as personal labour. The reference to “quick stock” of cattle shows the distinction between living livestock and other forms of property. Such stock represented movable and immediately realisable value within the appraisal process. The inclusion of two female slaves within the estate confirms that enslaved persons were treated as property subject to seizure and valuation in debt enforcement. The order to have damaged hides tanned into usable leather illustrates the practice of recovering value from deteriorating goods. By converting damaged raw materials into finished products, the Company preserved economic worth that might otherwise have been lost. Speculations The requirement to complete the appraisal within a fixed and relatively short period suggests urgency in securing and liquidating the estate. This may indicate concern that assets could be concealed, deteriorate further, or be otherwise diminished if not promptly assessed. The decision to process damaged hides into leather rather than discard them implies a practical approach to resource management, where even partially spoiled materials were utilised to maintain supply and reduce waste within the Company’s operations. | |
34 | St Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday the John Blackmore Cap* John Nicholon Comander of the Good Ship Whereupon It is Ordered That two [s][l][a][v][e][s] of the sd Honble Compy Black from Accordingly ten men Black more the [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 18 June 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Richard Keeling, Ensign, and Captain John Nicholson, commander of the good ship Beaufort, which had arrived the previous day, 17 June 1688. Captain Nicholson declared that many of his ship’s company were in a sick and weakened condition, such that he was unable to command the vessel effectively or to take on water. He requested immediate assistance from the Honourable Company in the form of slaves, while his sick men were brought ashore for refreshment and recovery. He stated that he would provide reasonable payment for such assistance. It was ordered that slaves belonging to the Honourable Company should be sent at once from the plantation to the ship and remain there as long as required by the commander. Accordingly, ten slaves were sent on board the following day, together with two strong young boys. It was agreed that the captain should pay £0 0s 12d per day for each man and £0 0s 6d per day for each boy for the duration of their service on board the ship. Interpretations The provision of Company slaves to assist a ship in distress demonstrates the use of controlled labour as a flexible resource to support maritime operations. Labour could be temporarily reassigned from plantation work to meet urgent logistical needs. The requirement that payment be made on a daily rate established a formal valuation of labour, distinguishing between adult men and younger boys. This reflects a structured system in which labour was commodified and priced according to perceived capacity. The arrangement by which sick crew were brought ashore while replacement labour was supplied indicates coordination between maritime and island systems. The island functioned as a point of recovery and resupply, supported by Company resources. The immediate compliance with the request shows that the Governor and Council exercised authority to deploy labour without delay, reinforcing their control over both land-based and maritime support functions. Speculations The willingness to supply labour in exchange for payment suggests that the Company sought to derive revenue from visiting ships while also maintaining their operational capacity. This indicates a dual function of assistance and profit. The differentiation in pay between men and boys implies an established hierarchy of labour value, which may have influenced how individuals were assigned to tasks. This suggests that labour allocation was not only based on availability but also on cost considerations. | |
35 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday the 25 of John Blackmore Govr Cap* John Nicholon now declared that he had a Therefore he did earnestly desire that he might Likewise he desired a supply of 12 barrells of powd[er] Those desires and requests were seriously Therefore it is Ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith issued But in Case their Number should be few That then [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 25 June 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, Richard Keeling, Ensign, and Captain John Nicholson, commander of the good ship Beaufort. Captain Nicholson declared that he carried a valuable cargo belonging to the Honourable Company aboard his ship. He reported that more than 40 men had been lost during the voyage from Madras to the island, and that most of the remaining English crew were sick and weakened. The majority of those still fit for duty were Dutch sailors, whom he considered capable but not fully reliable in the event of an emergency. He therefore requested that he might be supplied with as many English recruits as could be spared from the island, stating that this would contribute to the safety and preservation of both the ship and its cargo. This request was made both verbally and in writing under his hand. He also requested a supply of 12 barrels of powder and two barrels of cider for the defence of his ship, explaining that three barrels of powder had been lost during a violent storm on the far side of the Cape of Good Hope. These requests were carefully considered in light of the ship’s condition and the risks to its cargo should any emergency arise. It was ordered that a proclamation should be issued immediately to invite any planters willing to travel to England in the Beaufort, granting them licence to do so. It was further ordered that, if insufficient volunteers were obtained from among the planters, then members of the garrison who were willing to embark might also be permitted to do so. This was subject to the condition that the Company should receive compensation for the time those soldiers were contractually bound to serve but would instead spend aboard the ship. Interpretations The request for English recruits reflects a concern over trust and command cohesion aboard the ship. Preference was given to subjects of the Crown, indicating that nationality was considered relevant to discipline and reliability in critical situations. The loss of over 40 men and the weakened state of the crew demonstrate the vulnerability of long-distance voyages. The island functioned as a point of reinforcement, capable of supplying both labour and personnel to sustain maritime operations. The issuance of a proclamation to recruit volunteers shows that manpower could be drawn from the civilian population. This extended the pool of potential seamen beyond formal Company employees. The conditional release of soldiers from the garrison indicates that military personnel were bound by contractual service. Their temporary reassignment required compensation to the Company, showing that labour obligations were treated as quantifiable assets. The request for powder and cider highlights the importance of maintaining defensive capability at sea. Loss of essential supplies during the voyage necessitated resupply at intermediate points such as the island. Speculations The willingness to permit both planters and soldiers to join the ship suggests that the council prioritised the protection of the Company’s cargo over maintaining full strength on the island. This indicates that safeguarding valuable goods in transit was considered of higher immediate importance. The requirement that compensation be made for the time lost by soldiers implies that their service had a defined monetary value. This suggests that the Company viewed military labour not only as a duty but also as an asset that could be temporarily transferred under negotiated terms. | |
36 | [...] [...] which the sd Cap* Nicholon Engaged to perform And upon the desire of Richd Hornywood John Williams Souldr who came hither in It is Ordered That the said Williams be dismist and permitted It is likewise further Ordered That for the defence and security of the An Acct of all wt transactions with the said Cap* [...] | Further proceedings recorded that Captain Nicholson undertook to fulfil the agreed conditions for receiving assistance. Upon request, Hanson Philip [...] and Thomas Birks, being planters, were granted licences to embark for England on the Beaufort. Additional licences were granted to Richard Hornywood, Joseph Bayly, Thomas Thatcher, Thomas Cale, John Talbot, Hopton Law, William Chappell, John Carnady, Matthew Ludlowe, James Ward, and James Hall. Agreements were made with each of these individuals concerning their respective wages. John Williams, a soldier who had arrived on the island aboard the ship Loyall Merchant, petitioned for permission to return to England, stating that he suffered from severe and frequent fits of the falling sickness, which rendered him incapable of performing his duties. It was ordered that he should be discharged and permitted to return to England on the Beaufort for the purpose of seeking recovery. The Company agreed to provide him with food and passage without charge. It was further ordered that, for the defence and security of the Beaufort and the Company’s interests therein, 12 barrels of cannon powder and two barrels of cider should be delivered to Captain Nicholson. He was required to account for these supplies and to satisfy the Honourable Company for their value. It was also directed that a full account of all transactions with Captain Nicholson should be prepared and sent to the Honourable Company. Interpretations The granting of licences to planters and others to embark, combined with agreed wages, indicates that recruitment for maritime service was formalised through contractual arrangements. This ensured that labour was both voluntary and regulated in terms of compensation. The discharge of John Williams on medical grounds demonstrates that service obligations could be set aside where incapacity was established. The provision of food and passage reflects a duty of care exercised by the Company towards its servants. The supply of powder and cider under obligation of repayment shows that military and logistical resources were extended to ships under controlled conditions. Such provision remained subject to accounting and reimbursement, maintaining the Company’s financial oversight. The requirement to send a full account of dealings with Captain Nicholson to the Company illustrates the reporting structure linking local decisions to central authority. This ensured that significant allocations of labour and supplies were subject to review. Speculations The coordinated granting of licences and setting of wages for multiple individuals suggests that the council sought to stabilise the Beaufort’s situation quickly by assembling a sufficient crew through organised recruitment rather than ad hoc arrangements. The decision to supply powder for defence indicates that the risks faced by the ship were considered substantial. This suggests that the council anticipated potential threats during the voyage, making the reinforcement of armament a necessary precaution. | |
37 | [...] Island St Helena [...] Court of Justice held on Monday the 9th John Blackmore Govr Thomas Burnham being bound by recognizance The Attorney Genl exhibited his complaint Barrum denies the accusation & says that he James Norton souldr testifys upon oath that the sd [...] Hatton souldr saith that he bought 3 Gallons Jn° Downing Carpenter sworne saith that he was Upon the weighing of the whole matter it was [...] [...] | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House on 9 July 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, and Robert Holden, Deputy Governor. Thomas Burnham, who had previously been bound by recognisance for his good behaviour at a council held on 2 April 1688, appeared in person. As no further complaint was found against him, he was discharged by proclamation from his recognisance. The Attorney General brought a complaint against Richard Barrum, planter, for selling strong liquor, including punch and arrack, without licence. Barrum denied the charge, stating that he had not sold in quantities less than three gallons, which he claimed was considered wholesale. James Norton, a soldier, testified on oath that Barrum had taken a bill from him for three dollars on the pretence of supplying three gallons of arrack. However, he stated that he had instead received two dollar bowls of punch and one gallon of arrack mixed with sugar in exchange for the three dollars. [...] Hatton, a soldier, testified that he had also purchased three gallons of arrack from Barrum in a similar manner, but had not been supplied with the arrack despite requesting it. He was instead compelled to accept punch in place of the agreed quantity. John Downing, carpenter, testified on oath that when he requested punch from Barrum, it was refused. Barrum stated that if he paid one dollar for a lesson in music, he would receive two dollar bowls of punch as part of the arrangement. Downing agreed and spent four dollars in total on music and punch. Upon consideration of the matter, it was recognised that permitting such evasions or indirect methods of retailing liquor would be prejudicial, particularly in relation to the regulation of the sale of punch and other strong drink. | |
38 | [...] It is Ordered & Agreed That the said Barrum be fined to the Lord Propr [...] Likewise Thomas [...] was summoned Whereas when the Ship Success was here Whereupon severall of them was warned Anne Wakeford Planter exhibited his Complaint Sam Taylor Rich Barrum Planter & Daniell Mr Davis averreth that James Wakeford did in some | It was ordered and agreed that Richard Barrum should be fined the sum of £0 4s 0d to the Lords Proprietors for selling punch and retailing liquor without licence, thereby acting in contempt of their authority in that matter. Thomas [...] was also summoned to answer a similar complaint brought by the Attorney General for retailing liquor. As no sufficient proof was produced against him, he was dismissed with an admonition. It was further noted that, when the ship Success had been at the island, several inhabitants had been suspected or found to have sold liquor to members of the Company’s crew contrary to a prior proclamation forbidding such conduct. These individuals were summoned to appear, but as adequate evidence could not be obtained to secure conviction, they were dismissed with a strict warning not to offend again in that manner. Anne Wakeford, planter, brought a complaint against Thomas Davis, planter, alleging that he had been abused by being called a rogue and a thief, and that Davis had declared he would prove him to be a thief. Samuel Taylor, Richard Barrum, and Daniel Hayles testified that they had been present with Thomas Davis, James Wakeford, and a boatswain’s mate from the Beaufort at the house of Samuel Taylor, where they had been drinking. A discussion arose concerning the quality of land, with James Wakeford asserting one view and Davis maintaining another. The disagreement escalated into an exchange of insults. Davis first accused Wakeford of lying, after which Wakeford called him a rogue and used other abusive expressions. Davis responded in similar terms, calling Wakeford a thief and stating that he would prove the accusation. Davis further asserted that James Wakeford had, at some earlier time approximately 12 years before, stolen a boat belonging to the Honourable Company, for which he had [...] Interpretations The imposition of a fine for unlicensed retailing of liquor demonstrates enforcement of regulatory control over trade in strong drink. Licensing functioned as a means of limiting and supervising such commerce, and breaches were treated as offences against proprietary authority. The dismissal of cases for lack of evidence, combined with formal admonition, indicates that proof was required for conviction, but that the court used warning as an intermediate measure to deter future misconduct where suspicion remained. The repeated concern over the sale of liquor to ship crews shows that such transactions were subject to restriction, likely to maintain order and discipline among both inhabitants and visiting seamen. The handling of verbal disputes through formal complaint reflects the court’s role in regulating conduct and reputation. Accusations such as calling another person a thief carried legal significance, particularly when linked to claims of past offences. The reference to an alleged theft committed many years earlier suggests that past actions could be invoked in present disputes. This indicates that reputation and prior conduct remained relevant within the community and could be brought into judicial consideration. Speculations The enforcement of fines for unlicensed liquor sales, alongside repeated admonitions, suggests that such activity was widespread and difficult to control. This implies that demand from both inhabitants and visiting crews encouraged continued breaches despite regulation. The escalation of a discussion about land into accusations of theft indicates that underlying tensions may have existed between individuals, with disputes over property or status contributing to personal conflict. The revival of an alleged past offence by Davis suggests that accusations could be used strategically in disputes to damage credibility. This implies that legal proceedings also functioned as a means of negotiating reputation within the community. | |
39 | [...] As the Record will make appear Upon weighing the whole matter it was thought Therefore It is Ordered The Court of Justice Adjourned till tomorrow [...] St Helena At a Councill held the same Day being July Cap* Holden sheweth that he produced an acco [...] | Upon consideration of the dispute between Thomas Davis and James Wakeford, the matter was judged to be of serious consequence. It was determined that Davis was chiefly at fault for first accusing Wakeford of lying and for reviving an allegation of theft said to have occurred many years earlier, for which punishment had already been received. It was therefore ordered that Thomas Davis should pay to James Wakeford the sum of £0 0s 1d, together with the costs of the suit. The Court of Justice was then adjourned until the following day. On the same day, 9 July 1688, a council was held at Fort James. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Captain Holden reported that he had produced an account in which a significant error appeared in the invoices brought by the good ship Loyall Merchant, particularly concerning a quantity of pitch. This mistake had not been identified before an advance of four per cent had been applied to the account in accordance with the orders of the Honourable Company. An account of this discrepancy was then set out as follows [...] Interpretations The imposition of a monetary penalty for verbal abuse, combined with the award of costs, demonstrates that reputational harm was treated as actionable within the court. Financial compensation served both as punishment and as redress for injury to standing. The finding that prior punishment for an alleged offence limited its further use in accusation indicates that the court recognised a principle against repeated penalisation for the same matter. This reinforced the finality of earlier judgements. The adjournment of the court reflects the structured scheduling of judicial proceedings, allowing matters to be continued and managed within an organised timetable. The identification of an error in invoicing after the application of a fixed percentage increase shows that commercial transactions followed prescribed procedures. Adjustments such as the four per cent advance were applied systematically, and errors discovered afterwards required formal review. The reference to invoices brought by a ship indicates that goods received from overseas were accounted for through detailed documentation, forming the basis for pricing, charges, and subsequent financial decisions. Speculations The decision to penalise Davis rather than both parties suggests that the court sought to discourage the escalation of disputes through the revival of past offences. This implies an intention to limit ongoing conflict by restricting the grounds upon which accusations could be made. The late discovery of the invoicing error after the application of the four per cent advance suggests that verification procedures may have been secondary to the routine application of Company pricing rules. This implies that standardised adjustments were applied promptly, even where underlying figures had not yet been fully confirmed. | |
40 | [...] [...] Barrells of Pitch deliverd is 2 [...] sent to Bencoolen 22 Barrells left at St Helena Amt to 40 p Cent Advance on the said The Totall Charged to the 22 Barrells of Pitch left at St Helena invoiced 178 : 19 : [...] Therefore It is Ordered Whereas the Roofs of the Market house lately built It is therefore Ordered & Agreed Whereas many persons are reported to have several It is therefore Ordered | An account was presented concerning the delivery and valuation of barrels of pitch. It was recorded that the total value of the pitch delivered amounted to £92 10s 9d. Of this quantity, a portion valued at £7 11s [...] had been sent to Bencoolen. Twenty-two barrels remained at St Helena, amounting to £84 19s [...]. A 40 per cent advance had been applied, adding £34 0s 0d, bringing the total charged to the Honourable Company for the pitch to £118 19s [...]. The 22 barrels left at St Helena had been invoiced at £25 per unit, which had been assumed to represent £25 per barrel. At that rate, the amount was calculated as £27 10s 0d, with a further 40 per cent advance of £11 0s 0d applied. An error in the account was identified, amounting to £80 9s 0d [...], producing a total of £178 19s [...]. It was therefore ordered that Captain Holden should be issued with a warrant authorising him to deduct the identified error of £80 9s 0d [...] from the credit previously given to the Honourable Company for the pitch. It was further reported that the roofs of the market house recently constructed at Fort James, at the Company’s expense, had suffered damage from strong winds and required urgent repair. It was ordered and agreed that John Downing, carpenter, should immediately undertake the repair and proper restoration of the roofs. For this work he was to receive £30 12s [...] in goods, together with three months’ provisions from the Company’s stores. He was to commence the work on Monday 23 July 1688 and continue without interruption until it was completed. It was also reported that many persons maintained multiple and differing marks for their cattle, which, if not corrected, might lead to confusion and harm to neighbours, as ownership could not be clearly determined. It was therefore ordered that a proclamation should be issued requiring all persons in possession of cattle of any kind to [...] Interpretations The correction of the pitch account demonstrates the process of financial adjustment where errors were discovered after standard pricing procedures had been applied. The issuance of a warrant to deduct the overcharge reflects a formal mechanism for rectifying discrepancies within Company accounts. The application of a 40 per cent advance shows that goods were routinely subject to a fixed markup, indicating a structured pricing policy imposed by the Company. This system standardised valuation but could amplify the impact of underlying errors if calculations were incorrect. The payment of John Downing in goods and provisions rather than money reflects the continued use of in-kind compensation within the island’s economy. This tied labour directly to the Company’s supply system and reduced the need for cash transactions. The instruction that repair work should proceed without interruption indicates that certain public structures, such as the market house, were considered essential infrastructure requiring prompt maintenance. The concern over multiple cattle marks highlights the importance of identifiable ownership in managing livestock. Marking systems functioned as a means of asserting property rights and preventing disputes within the community. Speculations The significant error in the pitch account suggests that the combination of manual calculation and standard percentage increases may have created opportunities for substantial misvaluation. This implies that oversight mechanisms depended on later review rather than immediate verification. The urgency attached to repairing the market house roof indicates that the building played a central role in the island’s economic or social activity. This suggests that delays in repair could have disrupted trade or provisioning, prompting immediate action. The move to regulate cattle marks implies that disputes over livestock ownership may already have arisen or were anticipated. This suggests that inconsistent marking practices had begun to undermine trust and clarity in property identification within the settlement. | |
41 | [...] [...] that they do forthwith Register the Ear mark Whereas [...] Thomas Smoult Estate hath It is hereupon Agreed with the said That the said Mr Smoult have the house at the Also the house at the fort with the inclosed Likewise one Black man and one Black and Also the milk and encrease of six The whole [...] Amounts to 20 : 00 : 00 Which yeare is to begin the 1st of August | It was ordered that all persons in possession of cattle should immediately register the ear marks by which their animals were identified, so that ownership might be clearly known. It was further ordered that no person should alter a registered mark without obtaining licence to do so. It was recorded that the estate of Thomas Smoutt, having been sequestered for the use of the Honourable Company in accordance with their order, had been offered to the inhabitants for rent, but no person had agreed to take it except one individual. This person requested to rent the house situated at the back, together with 30 acres of adjoining land, and also a house in Fort Town, for a term of one year. The request was made on condition that he should receive two slaves and six cows from the Company’s stock, to assist him in cultivating the land, maintaining his livelihood, and enabling him to pay the rent and contribute towards the remaining balance of his debt to the Company. It was agreed and ordered that Thomas Smoutt should hold the house at the back and 30 acres of land for one year at a rent of £7 0s 0d. He was also to have the house at the fort, with the enclosed garden plot, at a rent of £5 0s 0d. In addition, he was to have the use of one male slave and one female slave for the same period, for wages amounting to £8 0s 0d, together with the milk and increase of six cows during that time. The total amount of these arrangements was £20 0s 0d. The term was to commence on 1 August 1688, with payment to be made in quarterly instalments. Interpretations The requirement to register cattle marks established a formal record of ownership, reducing ambiguity and providing a reference point for resolving disputes. The prohibition on altering marks without licence ensured that identification remained consistent and enforceable. The leasing of sequestered land back to the debtor reflects a system in which confiscated property could be reallocated under controlled terms. This allowed the Company to maintain productive use of the land while securing revenue through rent. The provision of slaves and cattle as part of the rental agreement demonstrates that access to labour and livestock was considered essential for cultivation. These resources were integrated into the lease as productive assets enabling the tenant to generate income. The structuring of rent and associated charges into a single total payable in quarterly instalments indicates a managed system of debt recovery. Payments were scheduled to align with the tenant’s capacity to produce and generate returns from the land. The inclusion of the “increase” of cattle, meaning their offspring, shows that natural growth of stock was treated as an economic benefit transferred temporarily to the tenant, enhancing the value of the lease. Speculations The willingness to lease the estate back to Thomas Smoutt, despite his debt, suggests that the Company prioritised the continued productivity of the land over immediate disposal. This implies that active cultivation was considered more valuable than leaving the estate idle or awaiting a new tenant. The inclusion of labour and livestock within the lease terms indicates that the Company recognised that the tenant would be unable to meet rental obligations without such support. This suggests a calculated arrangement in which initial assistance was expected to enable future repayment. The requirement for quarterly payments implies that the Company sought to maintain regular oversight of Smoutt’s ability to meet his obligations. This suggests that the arrangement was designed to monitor performance closely and reduce the risk of further default. | |
42 | [...] [...] the sd Smoult is to keep the sd houses and [...] in repair and to leave them [...] which agreement is to be drawne into writing and mutually signed by you & Councell Whereas Richᵈ Hornywood [...] others lately shipped himselfe by Lycence in the good ship Beaufort as a supply of men to Capᵗ Nicholson since which a [...] place has bin voyd It is Ordered That John ffrith Compa be forthwith in the Roome of the sd Hornywood and that Samuel Ashbury sold the place in the Roome of of the sd John ffrith whose time of paying [...] and Entred in to Comonence from Thursday next ensueing this 12 of this July [...] | It was further ordered that Thomas Smoutt should maintain the houses and land in good repair during his term and should leave them in proper condition at its conclusion. The agreement was to be drawn into writing and signed by both parties before the Governor and Council. It was noted that Richard Hornywood, together with others, had recently embarked by licence on the good ship Beaufort as part of the reinforcement provided to Captain Nicholson. As a result, a position had become vacant. It was ordered that John Frith should immediately be placed in the position formerly held by Hornywood. It was further ordered that Samuel Ashbury should be appointed to the position vacated by John Frith. The term of service and payment for this appointment was to commence on Thursday 12 July 1688. Interpretations The requirement that Smoutt maintain and return the property in good repair imposed an obligation to preserve the value of leased assets. This ensured that the Company’s property did not deteriorate during the term of occupation. The instruction to formalise the agreement in writing and to secure signatures before the Governor and Council reflects the use of documented contracts to bind parties to their obligations. This provided a record enforceable under the authority of the administration. The replacement of individuals who had embarked on a ship demonstrates that labour and office-holding were organised within a structured system of roles. Vacancies created by reassignment were promptly filled to maintain continuity of service. The commencement of service from a specified date indicates that employment terms were formally defined, including the timing of duties and associated remuneration. | |
43 | [...] Gurling Blanton desyering a lyc[en]ce That he the said Gurling shall have the said black [...] | Richard Gurling Blanton requested a licence for the use of a slave girl named Doll, then in the possession of Smoutt, for a term of one year. It was ordered and agreed that Gurling should have the said slave girl, described as being about 12 years of age, for one year commencing on Monday 30 July 1688. The charge for this arrangement was set at £1 6s 0d for the year, with Gurling being responsible for providing sufficient food and clothing for her during that period. Interpretations The granting of a licence for the use of a slave indicates that enslaved persons could be temporarily assigned or hired out under regulated terms. This reflects a system in which labour was treated as a transferable asset under Company oversight. The specification of age suggests that the valuation of labour took into account the perceived capacity of the individual. Younger persons were assigned lower rates, indicating a graded assessment of labour value. The requirement that the hirer provide food and clothing transferred the cost of maintenance from the owner to the user for the duration of the agreement. This ensured that the Company or original holder did not bear the expense while still deriving income from the arrangement. The fixed annual payment demonstrates that such labour arrangements were formalised through agreed rates, enabling predictable returns and clear obligations between the parties involved. | |
44 | [...] [...] Consultation held on Monday the 13ᵗʰ Present John Blackmore Govʳ Thomas Goodwin humbly maketh peticon that It is Agreed to and with the said That he the sd Goodwin shall have the said house The House in the Country and about Upon which ten Acres of ground the said Further It is Agreed and Ordered That he the said Goodwin shall have two Cows | A consultation was held at Fort James on 13 August 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Hodson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keling, Ensign. Thomas Goodwin submitted a petition stating that he had taken a lease of a decayed house formerly belonging to Bolton in the country, together with ten acres of adjoining land, and also a house in Fort Town in Chapel Valley, for a term of seven years. He expressed his expectation that he might be granted two cows from the Honourable Company’s stock and the labour of a slave youth for one year. It was agreed and ordered that Goodwin should hold the house in the country and the ten acres of land, together with the house in Chapel Valley, for seven years commencing at the feast of St Michael the Archangel next ensuing. The annual rent was set at £2 0s 0d for the house and land in the country, and £2 10s 0d for the house in Chapel Valley. Goodwin was required to plant at least one acre of the land and to establish an orchard upon it. He was also required to keep the houses and land properly fenced and maintained in good repair, and to surrender them in good condition at the end of the term. For the repair of the decayed house in the country, it was ordered that 40 boards of bay wood should be delivered to the site by the Company’s slaves. It was further agreed and ordered that Goodwin should have two cows from the Company’s stock, together with their increase, for a term of one year commencing at the same feast of St Michael the Archangel, at a rent of £2 0s 0d. Interpretations The grant of a seven-year lease for damaged property shows that extended tenure was used to secure improvement of land and buildings. The tenant was required to invest labour and resources in restoring the property in return for stability of occupation. The obligation to plant an orchard demonstrates that landholding was conditional upon productive enhancement. This requirement tied private use of land to long-term agricultural development under Company oversight. The provision of building materials by the Company indicates that it retained responsibility for enabling initial repairs while transferring ongoing maintenance obligations to the tenant. The inclusion of cattle and their increase within the agreement reflects the role of livestock as productive assets. Their temporary allocation supported cultivation while remaining subject to rental terms. The requirement to maintain fences and structures and to return them in good condition ensured preservation of Company property and prevented deterioration during the lease period. Speculations The combination of long-term tenure, required planting, and provision of materials suggests that the Company aimed to rehabilitate underused or decayed property through incentivised occupation. This indicates a deliberate effort to increase productivity without direct management. The limited one-year term for the cattle, compared with the longer land lease, implies that livestock were treated as a more tightly controlled resource. This suggests that the Company sought to balance support for cultivation with retention of flexibility over valuable breeding stock. | |
45 | [...] Mary Bowleson Widdow Petitioned that she might It is Agreed wᵗʰ the Widdow Gowson That the said Widdow Gowson shall have the said Edward Bloxfoe also requested that he might have a Whereupon It is Agreed to grant the That the sd Bloxfoe shall have hold Occupy & enjoy the That he the sd Bloxfoe shall immediately have the sd land [...] And It is further Agreed & Ordered That a dwelling house be forthwith built on the sd twenty | Mary Bowleson, widow, submitted a petition requesting to rent the house and 20 acres of land formerly belonging to her husband, Job Gowson, together with a house in Fort Town, for one year from the feast of St Michael the Archangel next ensuing. It was agreed and ordered that she should have the said house and land, and the house in Fort Town, for that term at a rent of £6 0s 0d per annum, to be paid quarterly. Edward Bloxfoe requested a lease of a house and 20 acres of land belonging to the Honourable Company for a term of 21 years, and also requested the use of two cows from the Company’s stock, together with their increase, for two years. It was agreed and ordered that Bloxfoe should hold and occupy 20 acres of land, consisting of ten acres formerly belonging to Thomas Smoutt and ten acres belonging to the Company, situated between the holdings of Joseph Hartworth, planter, and Elizabeth Lotborne, for 21 years from the feast of St Michael the Archangel. The annual rent was set at £4 0s 0d, to be paid quarterly. It was further ordered that Bloxfoe should take possession of the land, which was already enclosed and planted with fruit trees. The value of the timber on the land was assessed at £30 0s 0d, calculated at £30 per thousand. It was also agreed and ordered that a dwelling house should be built on the said 20 acres at the expense of the Honourable Company. The house was to measure 30 feet in length and 12 feet in breadth, and was to include a chimney, door, and windows, together with boards for roofing. The cost of constructing the house was to be accounted for according to the amount expended [...] Interpretations The granting of a one-year lease to Mary Bowleson shows that widows of former tenants could retain temporary use of property under rental terms. This allowed continuity of occupation while maintaining Company control over land tenure. The longer lease of 21 years granted to Edward Bloxfoe indicates a different category of tenure intended to encourage sustained settlement and development. Extended terms provided security sufficient to justify investment in land and improvements. The inclusion of previously held and Company-owned land within a single lease demonstrates consolidation of property for more efficient use. This suggests that land was reallocated strategically following earlier sequestration. The valuation of timber on the land reflects its treatment as a measurable economic asset. By assigning a monetary value, it could be accounted for within the broader assessment of the property. The decision to construct a house at Company expense shows direct investment in settlement infrastructure. By providing initial buildings, the Company facilitated occupation while retaining ownership of the improvement. The requirement for quarterly payment of rent indicates a structured system for revenue collection, ensuring regular oversight and reducing the risk of arrears. Speculations The contrast between the short lease granted to the widow and the long lease granted to Bloxfoe suggests a deliberate differentiation between temporary occupation and long-term development. This implies that the Company distinguished between maintaining continuity for existing occupants and promoting new investment. The decision to build a house for Bloxfoe at Company expense indicates that the land may not have been immediately habitable or sufficiently developed. This suggests an effort to attract tenants by reducing initial barriers to settlement. The inclusion of fruit trees and enclosed land within the lease suggests that the Company aimed to preserve and extend existing agricultural improvements. This implies that maintaining productive capacity was a priority in reallocating land. | |
48 | [...] It is Agreed That he the sd Bloft do enclose and fence in wᵗʰ And likewise that he ye sd Bloft doe keep up & For the performance of wᶜʰ Articles & Agreement Whereupon It is Agreed & Ordered That he ye sd Bloft and ye sd Morton doe forthwᵗʰ And that he the sd Bloft with the sd It is also Agreed [...] | It was agreed that Edward Bloxfoe should enclose and fence one and a half acres of the land adjoining the house to be built, forming an orchard. Within this area he was required to plant lemon, orange, and lime trees, together with any other fruit trees suitable to the ground. He was further required to maintain the dwelling house in good and sufficient repair and to leave it, together with all other buildings and improvements made upon the land, in proper condition at the end of the term of 21 years. As security for the performance of these conditions, Bloxfoe proposed to assign in writing his pay and salary as a soldier in the service of the Honourable Company for the next two years. James Morton, another soldier and his associate, was called and gave his consent to do the same. Bloxfoe also nominated Richard Stacey and James Wakefield to enter into bond with him as security for the payment of rent for the land and house. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Bloxfoe and Morton should immediately assign and set over in writing, under their hands and seals, their respective future pay as soldiers, commencing from 29 November 1688, for a term of two full years. It was also ordered that Bloxfoe, together with Stacey and Wakefield, should enter into bond for payment to the Honourable Company of the rent for the land and for the advances made in constructing the dwelling house. Interpretations The requirement to enclose land and establish an orchard imposed a clear obligation of agricultural improvement. This ensured that leased land was actively developed and contributed to the island’s productive capacity. The obligation to maintain and return all buildings and improvements in good condition reinforced the principle that tenants were responsible for preserving and enhancing Company property over the duration of their tenure. The assignment of future wages as security demonstrates that anticipated income could be legally transferred to guarantee performance of contractual obligations. This linked military service directly to financial liability. The use of bonds with additional guarantors shows that obligations were reinforced through personal sureties. These individuals became jointly responsible for ensuring that rent and other payments were made, extending accountability beyond the principal tenant. The requirement to formalise these commitments in writing and under seal indicates that such agreements were treated as legally binding instruments, enforceable within the Company’s administrative and judicial framework. Speculations The requirement that Bloxfoe assign his future wages suggests that the Company anticipated a risk of non-payment over such a long lease. This implies that the arrangement relied on securing income streams in advance to mitigate potential default. The involvement of multiple guarantors indicates that trust in individual tenants alone may not have been sufficient. This suggests that collective responsibility was used as a means of strengthening compliance with contractual terms. The emphasis on orchard planting and enclosure suggests that the Company aimed to promote long-term agricultural stability. This indicates that investment in perennial crops was seen as a way to secure sustained productivity beyond the immediate term of occupation. | |
49 | [...] is also Agreed and Ordered That the said Bloft have two Cows out of the [...] | It was further agreed and ordered that Edward Bloxfoe should have two cows from the Honourable Company’s stock, together with their increase, for a term of two years commencing at the feast of St Michael the Archangel. For this he was to pay a rent of £2 0s 0d per annum, to be paid quarterly. Interpretations The allocation of cattle for a fixed term, together with their increase, demonstrates that livestock was treated as a productive asset capable of generating ongoing value. Temporary possession allowed the tenant to benefit from milk and breeding while the underlying ownership remained with the Company. The requirement for quarterly payment of rent for the cattle mirrors that applied to land, indicating that livestock was integrated into the same structured system of revenue collection and oversight. The extension of the term to two years, longer than in some comparable arrangements, suggests that livestock was expected to contribute to medium-term agricultural productivity, particularly through breeding and sustained use rather than immediate return. Speculations The granting of cattle for two years alongside a long-term land lease suggests that the Company intended to support the initial establishment and stabilisation of Bloxfoe’s holding. This implies that livestock provision was calibrated to enable early productivity while longer-term obligations were secured through rent and contractual guarantees. | |
50 | [...] Helena Att a Consultation held on Munday the 22 of August 1687 at Fort James Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ Robᵗ Holden Depᵗ Govʳ Rich Keeling Ensigne Information being given that mʳ Tho Davi[s] who was left sick not quite good ship Beaufort) deceased at Matthew [...] house, upon Enquiry it came on contayne how & in what manner he had left his Estate It was thought requisite to Examine such persons as were about ye sd mʳ Davis in ye tyme of his sickness & at his Death; whereupon ye Councell & mʳ Charles Moore who also was left on ye sd Island out of ye sd ship Beaufort & was often wᵗʰ ye sd mʳ Davis in the tyme of his sickness appeared, who did both declare that ye sd mʳ Davis De= ceased made noe will either in writing or other way but a little before his Death did desire them ye sd mʳ Moore & Moorey after his decease (as they sd) to take care of his Concernes on this place, to see his Debts discharged and the residue of his goods & Chattels to be remitted to his relations in England (particularly to his sister the Lady Underhill &c) but there being noe Evidence of this or any other declaration of ye sd mʳ Davis (but only what themselves said wᶜʰ would amount to a Nuncupative will, it being spoken by way of discourse to those two persons (as they say) and but one of those named could speak to ye knowledge of it, without Examining what he sayd very imperfectly [...] while it was seriously considered and concluded That two persons should be appointed to be Administrators of the sd mʳ Davis Estate on the sd Island, And yt they do take speciall care to take a full & exact Inventory of ye sd Estate, delivering in ye same under their hands upon their Oathes, that all wᶜʰ the sd mʳ Davis was possesst of at his death may be knowne and none of it imbezled should come to their knowledge It is Ordered That the sd mʳ Charles Moore who intends shortly to goe for England and also Goodwin Gurris Matson on ye sd Island be hereby nominated and appointed joint [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 22 August 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Information was received that Mr Thomas Davis, who had been left on the island in a sick condition from the good ship Beaufort, had died at the house of Matthew [...]. Inquiry was made into the circumstances of his death and the disposition of his estate. It was considered necessary to examine those who had attended him during his illness and at the time of his death. Mr Charles Moore, who had also been left on the island from the same ship and had frequently attended Mr Davis during his illness, appeared before the Council. He, together with another witness, declared that Mr Davis had made no will, either written or otherwise. It was stated that shortly before his death he had expressed a desire that, after his death, his affairs on the island should be managed by them, that his debts should be discharged, and that the remainder of his goods and chattels should be sent to his relations in England, particularly to his sister, Lady Underhill. However, no formal evidence of this declaration existed beyond their account, and it was considered insufficient, amounting only to an informal or spoken statement. After careful consideration, it was determined that two persons should be appointed as administrators of Mr Davis’s estate on the island. They were to take particular care to prepare a full and exact inventory of all his goods and possessions, to be delivered under their hands and sworn upon oath, so that the entirety of his estate might be known and none of it concealed or misappropriated. It was ordered that Mr Charles Moore, who intended shortly to return to England, and Goodwin Gurris Matson, residing on the island, should be appointed joint administrators of the estate [...] Interpretations The rejection of the reported spoken wishes of Mr Davis as insufficient evidence demonstrates the limited legal standing of informal or nuncupative statements. Without proper attestation, such declarations did not constitute a valid will within the administrative framework. The appointment of administrators in the absence of a valid will reflects the procedure for managing intestate estates. Authority was transferred to designated individuals to ensure orderly settlement of debts and distribution of remaining assets. The requirement to produce a sworn inventory imposed accountability upon the administrators. This ensured that all property was formally recorded and reduced the risk of concealment or misappropriation. The inclusion of a person intending to travel to England among the administrators indicates that estate management extended beyond the island. This facilitated the transmission of any remaining property to relatives abroad, linking local administration with metropolitan interests. Speculations The dismissal of the reported final wishes suggests that the council prioritised verifiable procedure over informal testimony, likely to prevent disputes or competing claims. This implies that reliance on oral declarations alone was considered too uncertain in matters of property. The appointment of one administrator who intended to return to England indicates that the estate was expected to be transferred beyond the island. This suggests that coordination between local settlement and overseas beneficiaries was a regular concern in such cases. | |
51 | [...] Administrators of the sd mʳ Davi[s] Estate [...] [...] Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the 13ᵗʰ Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ Imparting Moore & Thomas Goodwin Administrators And because ye sd mʳ Davi[s] hath contracted severall debts It is Ordered [...] | It was ordered that Charles Moore and Goodwin Gurris Matson should act as administrators of the estate of Mr Davis on the island, and that letters of administration should be issued to them without delay. These were to be sealed with the seal of the Honourable Company and signed by the Governor and Council, thereby granting them authority to take into their custody all goods and chattels belonging to the deceased on the island. They were required to prepare a full and detailed inventory of the estate and to deliver it to the Governor and Council under oath when required. A further consultation was held at Fort James on 13 September 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Charles Moore and Thomas Goodwin, acting as administrators of the estate of Mr Davis, appeared and submitted, under oath, an inventory of the estate on the island. This inventory was read and formally recorded. It was noted that Mr Davis had incurred several debts after coming ashore during his illness, and that expenses had also arisen in connection with his funeral. It was therefore ordered that [...] Interpretations The issuing of letters of administration under the Company’s seal and authority formalised the legal power of the administrators. This instrument enabled them to act on behalf of the deceased in collecting, managing, and disposing of property. The requirement that the inventory be delivered under oath reinforced the obligation of accuracy and completeness. By swearing to its truth, the administrators became legally accountable for any omission or misrepresentation. The recording of the inventory by the Governor and Council ensured that an official copy was preserved. This created a reference point for subsequent settlement of debts and distribution of assets. The recognition of debts incurred during illness and of funeral expenses establishes a priority of claims upon the estate. Such obligations were to be satisfied before any remainder could be transferred to heirs or beneficiaries. Speculations The prompt issuance of letters of administration suggests that the council sought to secure control over the estate quickly, likely to prevent any unauthorised removal or concealment of goods following the death. The formal recording of the inventory implies that disputes over property or debts were anticipated. This suggests that the council aimed to create a clear and authoritative record to support orderly settlement and avoid later contention. | |
52 | [...] That the sd Administrato[r] Mr Moo[re]s and Tho And that it may be truly knowne what is [...] That the sd Administrato[r] Mr Moo[re]s & Thomas J. Blackmore | It was ordered that the administrators, Mr Moore and Thomas Goodwin, should immediately expose to open and public sale such portion of Mr Davis’s goods and chattels as would be sufficient to satisfy all debts and expenses. These debts and expenses were to be stated and settled by the Governor and Council, and a warrant was to be issued authorising the sale. The administrators were required to obtain receipts from every person to whom payment was made and to produce these receipts when presenting their account of administration. It was further directed that, in order to determine accurately what claims existed against the estate and by whom they were made, the administrators should give public notice. This notice was to be posted at the Sessions House and the market house in Fort Town in Chapel Valley, and also on the church door in the country. All persons claiming any debt from Mr Davis’s estate were required to submit the particulars of their claims in writing, with their names subscribed, and to deliver them to the administrators. These claims were then to be presented to the Governor and Council so that each account might be examined and settled before payment. Interpretations The requirement to sell goods at public auction established a transparent method for converting estate assets into money. This ensured that value was realised openly and reduced the risk of private appropriation. The need for a warrant from the Governor and Council before proceeding with the sale demonstrates that administrators acted under delegated authority. Their actions were subject to formal approval rather than independent discretion. The obligation to collect and later produce receipts imposed a system of financial accountability. This allowed the administrators’ actions to be verified and ensured that payments corresponded to recognised claims. The directive for creditors to submit written claims created a formal process for establishing liabilities. This shifted debt recognition from informal assertion to documented proof, enabling orderly adjudication. The posting of notices in multiple public locations reflects an organised method of communication within the settlement. This ensured that all potential claimants were informed and given opportunity to present their demands. Speculations The insistence on public sale and documented claims suggests that the council anticipated competing or uncertain demands upon the estate. This implies that the deceased’s affairs were sufficiently complex to require structured oversight to prevent dispute. The requirement for written claims indicates that reliance on memory or verbal assertion was considered inadequate. This suggests that the council aimed to reduce ambiguity and ensure that only substantiated debts were satisfied from the estate. | |
53 | [...] of St Helena Att a Consultation held on Thursday the Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ Mr Tho Davi[s] Administrators presented severall Whereupon the respective Bills of Accts were distinct- It is Ordered That the Totall summe of each persons claime & demand Rachell Francis 39:04:00 22:18:00 for Clothing for ye two black boys 01:11:00 47:11:00 | A consultation was held at Fort James on [...] September 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. The administrators of Mr Davis’s estate presented several accounts submitted by various persons, each claiming sums due from the estate. Most of those claimants attended in person to support and confirm their accounts. Each claim was separately examined, and after detailed discussion and questioning of the parties involved, it was ordered that both the total amount claimed by each person and the amount allowed should be formally recorded, so that the difference between the two might be clearly shown. The claims and allowances were recorded as follows: Rachell Francis claimed £39 4s 0d and was allowed £22 18s 0d. The total amount allowed came to £47 11s 0d. Interpretations The comparison between sums claimed and sums allowed shows that the council exercised judicial discretion in reviewing debts. Claims were not accepted automatically but were scrutinised and reduced where considered excessive or unproven. The requirement that claimants appear in person to support their accounts indicates that testimony and questioning formed part of the verification process. This allowed the council to assess credibility and examine the basis of each demand. The recording of both claimed and allowed sums created a transparent account of adjudication. This ensured that reductions were documented and could be justified if questioned. The inclusion of a specific allowance for clothing for two slave boys demonstrates that expenses relating to enslaved persons were recognised as legitimate charges upon the estate. This reflects the treatment of such individuals as part of the estate’s financial responsibilities. The involvement of the Deputy Governor as a claimant shows that Company officials could participate as creditors, but their claims were still subject to the same formal process of review and allowance. Speculations The consistent reduction of several claims suggests that the council may have applied an informal standard of reasonableness or necessity when determining allowable debts. This implies an effort to preserve as much of the estate as possible after meeting essential obligations. The requirement for personal appearance and detailed examination indicates that disputes or inflated claims were anticipated. This suggests that estate settlement was a contested process requiring active arbitration rather than simple accounting. | |
54 | That the sd Administrato[r] Mr Moo[re]s, and Tho Mr Charles Moore and Andw Phillips Gunn having Upon the whole It is Ordered That the sumes of each pson demand & claime [...] [...] [...] — 12 : 09 : 00 — 05 : 10 : 00 | It was ordered that the administrators, Mr Moore and Thomas Goodwin, should immediately receive a warrant under the hands of the Governor and Council authorising payment to the several persons named, according to the sums allowed to them. These payments were to be made in full satisfaction of all debts and demands upon the estate of Mr Thomas Davis, and receipts were to be taken from each person accordingly. It was further recorded that Mr Charles Moore and Andrew Phillips Gunn, having been appointed on 23 July 1688 as administrators of the estate of Marke Sandon, deceased on the island, had already submitted an inventory of that estate on 15 August 1688 and had exposed most of its goods and chattels to open and public sale. They now presented several written accounts submitted by various persons claiming debts from the estate, and those claimants were examined in support of their demands. After detailed consideration of these accounts, it was ordered that the total amount claimed by each person and the sum allowed should be recorded, so that it might be clearly seen what was granted and what was reduced. The administrators were then to pay each person the amount allowed out of the estate. The claims and allowances were recorded as follows: [...] claimed £12 9s 0d and was allowed £5 10s 0d. Interpretations The issuing of a warrant for payment confirms that administrators could not disburse estate funds independently but required formal authorisation. This ensured that payments were made only after approval by the Governor and Council. The requirement to obtain receipts from each creditor created a verifiable record of settlement. This allowed the administrators’ final account to be checked against documented evidence of payment. The repetition of the same procedure for the estate of Marke Sandon shows that a standardised process governed estate administration. This included inventory, public sale, submission of claims, examination of creditors, and authorised payment. The comparison between claimed and allowed sums demonstrates that the council actively moderated debts, reducing claims where necessary. This protected the estate from excessive or unproven demands. The examination of claimants before allowance indicates that personal testimony formed part of the evidential process, reinforcing the need for substantiation of financial claims. Speculations The consistent reduction of claims in both estates suggests that creditors may have presented inflated demands in expectation of negotiation. This implies that the council’s role included imposing a practical settlement rather than simply confirming stated debts. The structured and repeated process across multiple estates indicates that the administration anticipated frequent cases of intestacy among transient populations. This suggests that formal procedures had evolved to manage estates efficiently in a community with high mobility and mortality. | |
55 | It is Ordered That the sd Administrato[rs] Mᵣ Charle[s] Moor[e] and And[re]w Philli[p] haue forthwith a Warr[an]t vnder the Gouerno[r] and Councell hands for paymᵗ of the ₤ som[e] aboue Nam[e]d the Respectiue sumes allow[e]d to them, in full satisfaction of all their debts Due, and Demands from the said Marke Sandors Estate: and that they take Recᵗ accordingly which they are to produce when they giue vp an Accompt of their Administrations. Jno Peake | It was ordered that the administrators, Mr Charles Moore and Andrew Phillip Gunn, should immediately receive a warrant under the hands of the Governor and Council authorising payment of the several sums allowed to the persons named. These payments were to be made in full satisfaction of all debts and demands upon the estate of Marke Sandon. The administrators were required to take receipts from each person accordingly and to produce those receipts when they rendered their account of administration. Interpretations The issuance of a warrant under the authority of the Governor and Council confirms that administrators acted only with formal approval when disbursing estate funds. This ensured that all payments were controlled and sanctioned within the governing structure. The requirement that payments be made in full satisfaction of debts established a final settlement, preventing further claims once the allowed sums had been paid. The obligation to collect and later produce receipts created a documented audit trail. This allowed verification that each creditor had been paid the authorised amount and ensured accountability in the administrators’ final account. The repetition of this process across estates demonstrates a standardised administrative system for managing debts of deceased persons, ensuring consistency in enforcement and record-keeping. | |
56 | Island of St Helena At a Councill held at a Court of Judicature on Richᵈ Keling Attᵒᵣney Genᵃˡ Exhibited a Declaration Item: Cales debt was upon a bond for two Negroes brought Beni Soale debt was upon Articles of Agreement for a James Riddor debt was the sum of two pounds for an [...] | A council sitting as a Court of Judicature was held on 1 October 1688. Those present were [...] Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keling, Attorney General. The Attorney General presented a declaration setting out complaints against several individuals, including [...] Cales, Beni Soale, James Riddor, Draper Thomas Harper, Thomas [...] Hovsdale, Joseph Wick, James Washford, William [...], and [...] Dickson. These persons were stated to be indebted to the Honourable East India Company in various sums of money due upon obligations, the time for payment having long since passed, as appeared from the bonds produced. The debt of [...] Cales arose from a bond for two slaves purchased from the Company for the sum of £4 5s 0d. He declared that he had no ready money but offered to pay in goods according to the Company’s established rates when required. In consideration of his poverty and the general lack of money among the inhabitants, this offer was accepted and ordered to be received. The debt of Beni Soale arose from articles of agreement for a slave purchased from the Company, for which £5 0s 0d remained due. He pleaded inability to pay in money but stated that he had hides ready to deliver for the Company, for which he was to receive £2 0s 0d for tanning. It was ordered that this amount should be accepted in part payment of his debt. As he had no money, it was further agreed that goods and other provisions to be supplied upon the next shipping should be set against the remaining balance when delivered. James Riddor owed £2 0s 0d for an [...] obtained from the Company. He stated that he had no money due to lack of trade that year, there having been no shipping, but offered to pay in goods upon demand. This proposal was accepted and ordered accordingly. Interpretations The enforcement of debts through the Court of Judicature demonstrates the use of formal legal proceedings to recover sums owed to the Company. Obligations recorded in bonds or agreements were treated as enforceable instruments. The acceptance of payment in goods rather than money reflects the scarcity of currency on the island. The Company adapted its recovery methods to local conditions by allowing debts to be settled through produce or labour. The use of Company rates for valuing goods ensured that non-monetary payments were standardised. This maintained control over the valuation process and prevented arbitrary settlement terms. The partial discharge of debt through labour, such as tanning hides, shows that services rendered to the Company could be credited against financial obligations. This integrated labour into the system of debt repayment. The arrangement to offset future deliveries of goods against existing debt indicates that obligations could be extended over time. This created a system of deferred settlement tied to anticipated production or trade. Speculations The repeated acceptance of goods and labour in place of money suggests that the economy of the island operated with limited coin circulation. This implies that the Company prioritised practical recovery of value over strict monetary payment. The willingness to accept future goods against debt indicates that the Company relied on the continued productivity of debtors. This suggests that maintaining their capacity to produce was considered more beneficial than enforcing immediate payment, which might not have been possible. | |
57 | [...] Draper Doct was the sum of 02 : 05 : 00 for a [...] Tho Harper Doct was for the sum of 02 : 05 : 00 wᶜʰ The Hovsdale Doct was for the sum of 20 : 05 : 00 for Joseph Wicke Doct was likewise for the sum of 06 : 12 : 04 Eliz Cothorne Doct was for the sum of 12 : 05 : 00 This matter was seriously debated and it being formerly Then the Court Adjourned till Jno Peake | Draper [...] stood indebted in the sum of £2 5s 0d for an [...] purchased from the Honourable East India Company. He stated that, when he had drawn up his account for payment relating to his servants, the total exceeded the amount required, and that additional goods, including cotton, had already been delivered in accordance with his subscription at the time the account was made. It was agreed that the surplus should be applied towards payment of this debt. After balancing his entire account, there remained £11 11s 6d due, which he undertook to pay in money. This sum was paid the following day, and he was discharged. Thomas Harper stood indebted in the sum of £2 5s 0d for an [...] purchased from the Company. Being described as a poor man with many children, he requested that payment might be made in beef when occasion should permit. This proposal was accepted, and it was ordered that payment should be made in kind upon demand. [...] Hovsdale stood indebted in the sum of £20 5s 0d for slaves purchased from the Company. He undertook to pay the amount by 19 October 1688 or, failing that, to return the slaves in accordance with the original agreement. This was accepted and ordered. Joseph Wicke owed £6 12s 4d for a slave purchased from the Company. He similarly undertook to procure payment by 19 October 1688 or to return the slave and be credited for the time of service already rendered. This arrangement was accepted and ordered. Elizabeth Cothorne stood indebted in the sum of £12 5s 0d for a slave and £2 0s 0d for an [...]. She pleaded extreme poverty, stating that she had lost three slaves through death and had none remaining. She promised to make every effort to repay her debt as soon as possible. The matter was seriously debated, and it was noted that she had previously been reported to have caused the death of her slaves through ill usage and excessive punishment. As she had no property upon which attachment could be made for the debt, the matter was deferred for further consideration. The court was then adjourned until two o’clock in the afternoon. Interpretations The balancing of Draper’s account, including the application of surplus goods, demonstrates that debts could be settled through complex account reconciliation. This allowed multiple transactions to be offset against each other within a single financial relationship. The acceptance of payment in beef in Thomas Harper’s case reflects continued reliance on in-kind settlement where monetary resources were limited. The court exercised discretion in allowing alternative forms of payment based on circumstances. The conditional agreements requiring either payment by a fixed date or return of purchased slaves show that sales could include enforceable recovery provisions. This ensured that the Company retained a form of security over high-value assets. The option to return a slave with allowance for time served indicates that value was attributed to labour already performed. This suggests that partial benefit could be credited even where a transaction was reversed. The inability to attach property in Elizabeth Cothorne’s case highlights the limits of enforcement where a debtor lacked assets. In such cases, recovery depended on future capacity rather than immediate seizure. The reference to alleged mistreatment of slaves being considered in deliberation shows that conduct affecting Company property could influence judicial handling of debt. This links personal behaviour to financial accountability. Speculations The willingness to accept goods, labour, or deferred payment suggests that strict monetary enforcement was impractical in the island economy. This implies that the court prioritised recoverable value over rigid adherence to contractual terms. The inclusion of a return option for slaves indicates that the Company sought to mitigate risk in credit sales. This suggests that such transactions were structured to allow recovery of assets if payment failed. The deferral of Elizabeth Cothorne’s case, despite allegations of misconduct, suggests that enforcement depended heavily on available assets. This implies that, without property to seize, the court’s immediate options were limited, leading to postponement rather than resolution. | |
58 | At a Supream Court of Judicature held the Present John Blackmore Govᵣ Gᵒ Skirne complained against Tho Morwin in two Actions Gᵒ Ripe complained of Bridgett Cales for that she Bridgett Cales alleadgeth that Gᵒ Ripe and her selfe Gᵒ Soales his Declaration affirmes at his [...] Cales about Mary Barker Widdow and Tho Cales, rightemen testify | A Supreme Court of Judicature was held on the afternoon of 1 October 1688 at the Sessions House. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keling, Ensign. George Skirne brought two actions against Thomas Morwin. Both parties appeared, and Morwin pleaded that he had not received timely notice of the actions, as the declarations had been filed only two days before the sitting of the court, contrary to the established constitution of the government. He therefore requested a nonsuit and costs in both actions. This request was granted. George Ripe brought a complaint against Bridgett Cales, alleging that she had twice forbidden the publication of the banns of matrimony between him and Mary Soales. Bridgett Cales asserted in response that she and Ripe had previously entered into a contract of marriage through several solemn promises made between them. This was not denied by Ripe. She further stated that Ripe himself had also forbidden the banns of marriage between him and Mary Soales, and she declared that she had several witnesses ready to support her claim. George Soales declared that about 12 months earlier, at the house of Cales, Ripe had engaged in conversation with Bridgett Cales, during which he asked whether she would accept him. She replied that if he returned the following day she would give him her answer, and Ripe swore to her that he would have her and no other. Mary Barker, widow, and Thomas Cales testified that they had witnessed several instances of mutual promises between Ripe and Bridgett Cales to the same effect. It was also stated that, upon learning that Ripe intended to have the banns of marriage published with Mary Soales, Bridgett Cales sent for him and informed him that she would forbid the banns. Ripe agreed to this and stated that he would not oppose her in doing so. Interpretations The granting of a nonsuit due to late filing of declarations demonstrates adherence to procedural rules governing the timing of legal actions. Compliance with established process was necessary for a case to proceed. The requirement that declarations be filed within a specified period before the court sitting reflects a structured legal framework, ensuring that defendants had adequate notice and opportunity to prepare a defence. The dispute over the forbidding of banns of matrimony shows that marriage was subject to formal regulation. Public announcement of intended marriages could be challenged, and such objections were recognised within judicial proceedings. The assertion that mutual promises constituted a prior contract of marriage indicates that informal agreements could carry legal weight. Such promises could be invoked to prevent a subsequent marriage. The use of witness testimony to confirm verbal agreements demonstrates that spoken commitments were evaluated through corroboration, forming part of the evidential process in matrimonial disputes. Speculations The reliance on procedural grounds to dismiss Skirne’s actions suggests that legal technicalities could be used strategically to avoid immediate litigation. This implies that knowledge of court rules provided an advantage in defending against claims. The dispute between Ripe and Bridgett Cales indicates that prior personal agreements could create legal obstacles to new relationships. This suggests that informal engagements were taken seriously enough to interfere with subsequent matrimonial arrangements. The willingness of Ripe to allow the banns to be forbidden suggests uncertainty or conflict in his intentions. This implies that the case may have involved competing obligations or pressures influencing his conduct. | |
59 | Gᵒ Ripe confesseth that he did solemnly promise Then upon this Ordered Francis Stankey mariner on behalfe of his Wor[...] Gᵒ Stankey Christopher Quiry and Richᵈ Leach planters Thomas Burnham saith that he did agree wᶜʰ the said | George Ripe acknowledged that he had made a solemn promise of marriage to Bridgett Cales. He stated that he had afterwards believed himself to have been slighted by her, which led him to seek a match elsewhere. However, he declared that he was now willing to take Bridgett Cales as his wife. When questioned in open court, Bridgett Cales confirmed that she had indeed contracted herself in marriage to him. It was therefore ordered that judgement should be given against George Ripe, and that he should pay damages of £10 [...] to Mary Soales without delay, or else be detained in prison. This judgement was made on account of his having entered into a marriage contract with Mary Soales while already engaged to Bridgett Cales. Francis Stankey, mariner, acting on behalf of his master, who had been left sick from the ship Beaufort and remained unwell at the house of Mr [...], brought a complaint against Thomas Burnham, planter. It was alleged that Burnham had failed to fulfil his agreement to provide maintenance, including food and lodging, and that the master had been compelled to purchase provisions elsewhere. It was requested that the cost of these provisions should be deducted from the sum already paid to Burnham for maintenance. George Stankey, Christopher Quiry, and Richard Leach, planters, testified that the master had purchased various provisions from them, including figs, peas, fowl, and butter. Francis Stankey further stated that Burnham had indicated that he should compensate the master for these provisions. Thomas Burnham responded that he had agreed to provide food and lodging for the master at a rate of 14 shillings per week, but not to maintain him during sickness beyond what he could reasonably afford. It appeared from the accounts that the money spent by the master on provisions was nearly equal to the amount paid to Burnham for maintenance. Burnham stated that he did not hold the master’s money and therefore intended to produce a full account of the disbursements on the following day. Interpretations The judgement against George Ripe demonstrates that prior contractual promises of marriage were treated as binding obligations. Entering into a subsequent agreement while already engaged constituted a breach subject to financial penalty or imprisonment. The awarding of damages to Mary Soales indicates that injury arising from a broken or conflicted marriage arrangement could be compensated monetarily. This reflects recognition of reputational or personal loss within the legal framework. The requirement of imprisonment in default of payment shows that enforcement of such judgements could involve coercive measures where financial penalties were not met. The dispute between Stankey and Burnham illustrates the use of contractual agreements governing maintenance. Payment for lodging and food created defined obligations, which could be contested where performance was disputed. The reliance on witness testimony to confirm provision of goods demonstrates the evidential role of third parties in verifying transactions. This supported claims for reimbursement or adjustment of accounts. The distinction made by Burnham between ordinary maintenance and care during sickness indicates that contractual terms could be interpreted narrowly. Obligations were limited to what had been explicitly agreed, rather than extended to unforeseen circumstances. Speculations The imposition of damages on Ripe suggests that the court aimed to deter conflicting marriage engagements by attaching financial consequences. This implies an intention to enforce stability in matrimonial arrangements. The near equivalence between the cost of provisions purchased independently and the agreed maintenance fee suggests that disputes over service quality or adequacy were common. This implies that such agreements were closely scrutinised when expectations were not met. The requirement for Burnham to produce an account indicates that financial disputes were often resolved through detailed reconciliation rather than immediate judgement. This suggests a procedural approach aimed at establishing exact balances before enforcement. | |
60 | Richᵈ Leach deposeth upon Oath that Wor[...] It is Ordered Richᵈ Barrum planter complaining of Andᵒ Wilson Andᵒ Wilson acknowledgeth yᵉ debt of yᵉ sd Tho: Smorell who was at yᵉ bargaine making Eliz: Hearn [...] likewise sworn saith yᵗ Richᵈ Griffin sworn saith he heard Barrum It is Ordered | Richard Leach deposed upon oath that the [...] had left Burnham’s house and that, upon reckoning, they differed only by four shillings, which the [...] stated was all that remained due from Burnham. After consideration of the matter, it was ordered that Burnham should pay the sum of one dollar in full satisfaction of all demands. Richard Barrum, planter, brought an action of debt against Andrew Wilson concerning a slave sold to him some time previously. Wilson acknowledged the debt, stating that the agreed price was £14 10s 0d, to be paid half in goods and half in money. He declared that the portion in goods had already been satisfied and that he would pay the remaining sum in money as soon as he was able to procure it. Barrum asserted that the time agreed for payment of the money had been three months after the bargain, and that this period had already passed. Thomas Smorell, who had been present at the making of the agreement, testified upon oath that the terms were for half payment in goods and half in money, but that he had not heard any time fixed for payment. Elizabeth Hearn, also sworn, stated that shortly after the agreement she had heard Barrum declare, in Wilson’s presence, that the payment was to be made half in goods and half in pieces of eight, with the money to be paid within three months, which Wilson at that time confirmed. Richard Griffin testified that he had heard Barrum demand payment from Wilson, who acknowledged the debt but stated that he could not pay the money. It was therefore ordered that Andrew Wilson should immediately pay the debt to Barrum, and that, in case of refusal, Barrum should be granted execution to levy the sum as required. Interpretations The settlement of the dispute between Burnham and the mariner through a fixed payment shows the court’s role in reducing contested accounts to a final sum. This avoided prolonged disagreement by imposing a definitive resolution. The use of “execution” in the order against Wilson refers to a legal process by which property or goods could be seized to satisfy a debt. This represents a formal enforcement mechanism within the court’s authority. The division of payment into goods and money reflects a mixed system of exchange, combining barter and currency. This arrangement accommodated the limited availability of cash while maintaining agreed values. The reliance on multiple sworn witnesses to establish the terms of the agreement demonstrates the evidential importance of corroboration. Where written contracts were absent or unclear, testimony was used to determine obligations. The acknowledgement of debt by the defendant, combined with failure to pay, strengthened the basis for enforcement. Admission reduced the need for further proof and allowed the court to proceed to judgement. Speculations The imposition of immediate payment with the threat of execution suggests that the court sought to enforce compliance more strictly where a debtor had acknowledged the obligation but delayed payment. This implies that tolerance for delay was limited once the terms were clearly established. The discrepancy in witness accounts regarding the timing of payment suggests that agreements were not always formally recorded. This implies that reliance on memory and oral agreement could lead to disputes requiring judicial clarification. | |
61 | Andᵒ Wilson complaining of Richᵈ Barrum in an Richᵈ Barrum denyeth yᵉ whole & saith yᵗ yᵉ sd Wilson Tho Smorell being sworne saith that he was there Jnᵒ Draper being sworne saith there was in Compᵗ Sam Taylor sworne saith to yᵉ same purpose as Draper Whereupon It is Ordered The sd Jnᵒ Wilson complaining of Richᵈ Griffin Richᵈ Griffin denyeth yᵉ whole allegation desiring Wilson Jnᵒ Powell & Margarett his wife being sworne at Jnᵒ Hactor and Richᵈ Ollin soldiers being sworne saith | Andrew Wilson brought a complaint against Richard Barrum in an action of assault and battery, alleging that Barrum had laid violent hands upon him and pulled his beard. Barrum denied the accusation and stated that Wilson had abused and struck him. Thomas Smorell, being sworn, testified that he was present when the dispute occurred between Barrum and Wilson, but that he had not seen Barrum strike Wilson or pull his beard. He stated that, after the disturbance, Wilson was found bound and lying on a table, and that he had carried him into the next room where Barrum was present. John Draper, sworn, stated that the parties had been together at the house of Samuel Taylor, where a disagreement arose between Smorell and Barrum’s wife. Barrum had risen to quiet the matter, at which point Wilson had violently laid hands upon him. A struggle followed, but Draper did not see Barrum strike Wilson. He stated that Wilson struck Barrum in the face and that he knew nothing of any injury to Wilson’s beard until some time after the altercation, and that Wilson himself had not complained of it at the time. Samuel Taylor, sworn, gave evidence to the same effect as Draper and added that Wilson had caused damage to his table during the disturbance. It was therefore ordered that Wilson’s action should be dismissed, and that he should pay one dollar in damages to Barrum. He was also fined £0 10s 0d, being two dollars, to the Company for breach of the peace. John Wilson then brought a complaint against Richard Griffin in an action on the case, alleging that Griffin had driven his cattle from the Company’s waste land and had threatened to do so again. Griffin denied the allegation and requested that Wilson be required to prove it. John Powell and Margaret his wife, being sworn at Wilson’s request, stated that they had no knowledge of Griffin having driven off Wilson’s cattle or making any such threat. John Hactor and Richard Ollin, soldiers, being sworn, stated that there had been some disagreement between Wilson and [...] Interpretations The dismissal of Wilson’s claim and the imposition of damages and a fine demonstrate that false or unsupported accusations could result in penalty. The court enforced responsibility for initiating unsuccessful actions. The fine for breach of the peace indicates that public disorder, particularly involving physical conflict, was treated as an offence against the community and the authority of the Company. The reliance on witness testimony, especially where multiple individuals corroborated the same account, shows the central role of collective evidence in determining the outcome of disputes. The distinction between personal injury and general disturbance is reflected in the separate award of damages to Barrum and the fine payable to the Company. This shows that private harm and public order were addressed through different remedies. The action concerning cattle on Company waste land highlights that use of common or shared land was subject to regulation. Disputes over access and use could be brought before the court for resolution. Speculations The imposition of both damages and a fine on Wilson suggests that the court intended to discourage both disorderly conduct and unfounded litigation. This implies an effort to maintain both social order and procedural discipline. The inability of Wilson’s witnesses to support his claim against Griffin suggests that disputes over land use may have been frequent but difficult to prove. This implies that such conflicts relied heavily on direct observation, which was not always available. The escalation of a social gathering into physical conflict indicates that informal settings could give rise to disputes requiring formal adjudication. This suggests that the court functioned as a mechanism for restoring order after breakdowns in everyday interactions. | |
62 | and yᵉ sd Griffin & being willing to reconcile them Griffin alledgeth that when he drove yᵉ sd Upon the whole It is Ordered The Councill or Court of Justice Continued Robᵗ Rector made his Complaint of Wᵐ Dufton in Wᵐ Dufton denyeth the whole and saith that the Jnᵒ Grollott declare that he did heare the sd The sd Robᵗ Rector did produce a writing in Court But yᵉ sd Dufton discontented wᵗʰ Rector yᵉ sum thirty shillings It is Ordered | It was reported that Richard Griffin and [...] had sought to reconcile differences between Griffin and John Wilson as neighbours. They invited Wilson to Griffin’s house, where several bowls of punch were shared and discussion took place in an effort to reach a better understanding. Before any matters were debated, it was agreed between them that nothing said during the meeting should prejudice either party. During the conversation, Wilson questioned Griffin as to whether he had driven away his cattle, to which Griffin admitted that he had done so. Griffin stated that he had only driven the cattle away from the fence of his plantation. Upon consideration of the matter, it was ordered that both parties should be admonished to live more peaceably. Griffin was instructed to refrain from driving Wilson’s cattle, and he was required to pay the costs of the suit. The Court of Justice continued on 2 October 1688 at Johnson’s house. Robert Rector brought a complaint against William Dufton in an action of debt for the sum of £8 0s 0d. Dufton denied the claim and asserted that Rector was instead indebted to him. John Grollott declared that he had heard Dufton acknowledge that there was an account between them. Rector then produced a written document in court, signed by Dufton, showing that Dufton owed him £6 0s 0d. It was stated that, in payment of this sum, Dufton had agreed to sell Rector ten acres of land. However, Dufton had not yet conveyed proper title to the land, which was contrary to the established rules of the government. It was determined that, if Dufton could establish valid title and lawful authority to transfer the land, Rector might be formally vested in it and the £6 0s 0d considered satisfied. Otherwise, the debt would remain due. It was further found that Dufton had already paid Rector £1 15s 6d, leaving a balance of £0 4s 6d. It was therefore ordered that Dufton should pay Rector the sum of £0 4s 6d together with the costs of the suit, while the remaining £6 0s 0d was to remain unsettled pending resolution of the land title. Interpretations The agreement between Griffin and Wilson that discussions would not prejudice either party reflects an informal attempt at dispute resolution outside formal proceedings. However, the court still asserted authority by issuing an order and assigning costs, showing that private reconciliation did not replace judicial control. The instruction to refrain from driving cattle highlights the regulation of interactions between neighbouring landholders. Even where land boundaries were contested, unilateral action affecting another’s property was subject to restraint. The requirement that Griffin pay the costs of the suit indicates that responsibility for initiating or sustaining the dispute could result in financial liability, even where no major damages were awarded. The dispute between Rector and Dufton demonstrates the use of land as a means of settling debt. However, such arrangements depended upon the debtor having valid title and authority to transfer property, which was subject to legal verification. The decision to leave part of the debt in suspense shows that unresolved issues of title could delay final settlement. The court distinguished between immediate monetary obligations and contingent arrangements tied to property transfer. The production of a written document under the debtor’s hand provided strong evidence of obligation. Written agreements carried significant weight in determining liability. Speculations The attempt at reconciliation over drink suggests that informal negotiation was common before or alongside formal legal action. This implies that community relationships influenced how disputes were managed, even when brought before the court. The court’s willingness to leave part of the debt unresolved indicates that property transactions were not always straightforward. This suggests that uncertainties in land ownership or authority to convey title were a recurring issue requiring judicial oversight. The division of the debt into an immediate payment and a suspended portion implies a pragmatic approach to enforcement. This suggests that the court aimed to secure partial resolution while allowing time for more complex matters, such as title verification, to be settled. | |
63 | Wᵐ Du[fto]n Complaining of yᵉ sd Robᵗ Rector for yᵉ Robᵗ Rector confesseth yt he was at yᵉ sd Duftons Ordered The sd Dufton Complaining of yᵉ sd Robᵗ Rector Rector saith that he did buy of yᵉ sd Dufton After some tyme hearing the severall allegations Ordered Richᵈ Swan sd Complaining of Wᵐ Marsh planter William Marsh Denys not the Contract and agreemᵗ | William Dufton brought a complaint against Robert Rector for a sum due for food and lodging over several months. Rector acknowledged that he had stayed at Dufton’s house for that period, except when absent for work, during which time he had often been away. He also stated that he had on several occasions sent provisions. After hearing both parties, it was ordered that Rector should pay Dufton the sum of £1 0s 0d in full satisfaction for his food and lodging. Dufton then brought a further complaint against Rector for non-payment of £3 0s 0d arising from a bargain concerning the use of a house. Rector stated that he had purchased timber belonging to the house and was to have use of it for two years before removing the timber. However, Dufton had continued to live in the house and had made alterations, so that Rector had not enjoyed the benefit of the agreement. After hearing both parties, it was considered most appropriate to declare the agreement void, as neither party had fulfilled its terms. It was therefore ordered that Rector should not be charged for any use of the house, and that Dufton should return the written agreement relating to the bargain and the sum of £3 0s 0d. This was carried out in court. Richard Swan brought a complaint against William Marsh, planter, stating that before the publication of the proclamation prohibiting excessive gaming, they had played at cards and Marsh had won £0 6s 0d. It had been agreed that the winner should provide Swan with a bowl of punch valued at one dollar for every two dollars won, or else forfeit the winnings. Swan alleged that Marsh had failed to provide the agreed punch and had retained the money. William Marsh did not deny the agreement or the winning of the money but stated that he had been unable to obtain the punch. Interpretations The reduction of Dufton’s claim for maintenance to a fixed sum reflects the court’s role in moderating disputed accounts. Even where a service was acknowledged, the amount payable was determined by judicial assessment rather than strict adherence to claimed value. The cancellation of the house agreement demonstrates that contracts could be set aside where performance had not been fulfilled by either party. This indicates that mutual non-compliance could nullify obligations and restore parties to their prior positions. The requirement to return both the written agreement and the payment shows that contractual instruments and associated sums were treated as linked. Invalidating the agreement required reversal of both documentation and financial exchange. The dispute over gaming winnings highlights the regulation of private agreements arising from gambling. Even informal arrangements, such as payment in drink, were subject to enforcement if proven. The reference to a proclamation against excessive gaming indicates that such activities were subject to formal restriction. Transactions arising before such regulation were still considered, but within a framework increasingly concerned with controlling behaviour. Speculations The court’s decision to void the house agreement suggests that property arrangements without clear execution were prone to dispute. This implies that informal or partially fulfilled bargains created uncertainty requiring judicial intervention. The enforcement of a gaming agreement, despite the later prohibition, suggests that the court recognised obligations formed before regulation. This implies an effort to maintain fairness in existing agreements while discouraging future conduct of the same kind. The inability of Marsh to procure punch suggests that the terms of such agreements depended on available goods. This implies that supply constraints could directly affect the fulfilment of informal contracts within the island economy. | |
64 | Tho Dixon upon Oath saith yt he was present Samᵘᵉl Tayle Planter sworne saith that he Isaac Mills sd saith that when Marsh had won Upon the whole It is Ordered Elizabeth Bethorne Complaines of Eliz: Seward Elizabeth Seward saith yt the negroe was in good It is Ordered Jno: Willins | Thomas Dixon, upon oath, stated that he had been present at the making of the agreement and during the game. He declared that Richard Swan had first won four dollars from William Marsh, after which Marsh demanded that the agreement should be performed or that the money should be returned. Swan then obtained the agreed punch. Upon further play, Marsh won ten dollars from Swan, for which he provided only one half-crown bowl of punch. Dixon further stated that Marsh had engaged in unlawful play by cheating Swan through the use of false cards. Samuel Taylor, planter, being sworn, stated that he had seen Marsh cheat Swan at cards by falsely turning up a card. Isaac Mills also testified that, after winning from Swan, Marsh had sent him for only a half-dollar bowl of punch instead of a full dollar bowl, and that greater sums had been won. Upon consideration of the matter, it was ordered that Marsh should return to Swan the money he had won, as he had failed to perform his agreement, and should also pay one dollar in damages. It was further ordered that Marsh should be bound to Robert Rector in the sum of two dollars for his unlawful gaming and cheating of Swan. Elizabeth Bethorne brought a complaint against Elizabeth Seward, alleging that Seward had exchanged a slave and had warranted that the person was sound, but that the slave had since proved otherwise and had died of the cough. Seward stated that the slave had been in good health when she had received him, but that, if he had not been so, she had given no warranty of soundness at the bargain and sale. A writing under their hands and seals was produced and read in court, from which it appeared that they had sold their slaves to one another without any warranty as to disease. It was therefore ordered that Elizabeth Bethorne should bear her loss. The court was then adjourned until a new summons. The record was subscribed by John Willins, Robert Wilson, and Richard Keing. | |
65 | [...] St Helena At a Councell held the same Day being Present John Blackmore Govʳ Whereas the Affront underprop mentioned was by Therefore It is Ordered Whereas in the Councell held on monday the 12 of | A council was held at Fort James on 2 October 1688 in the afternoon. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keig, Ensign. It was recalled that, by instruction dated 1 August 1683 and brought by the good ship Charles the Second, it had been ordained that a yearly payment should be made for every man or woman, white or black, above the age of 16 years on the island, the payment to fall due at the feast of St Michael the Archangel. It was further observed that, through neglect in collecting and settling accounts among the inhabitants, arrears of this revenue had accumulated and remained unpaid after successive feasts of St Michael. It was therefore ordered that Daniel Harford and Richard Cook, churchwardens for the year 1688, should receive a warrant authorising them to proceed immediately to demand, collect, and receive the outstanding revenues. They were required to pay the sums collected to Captain Robert Holden, chief of the Honourable East India Company on the island. In cases where any person refused payment, the churchwardens were empowered to distrain upon that person’s goods and chattels, to sell them at public outcry, and, after deducting reasonable charges, to return any surplus to the owner. They were required to render a full and accurate account of these actions between that date and 1 December 1688, or at any other time when required. It was further noted that, at a council held on 12 March 1688, an order had been made requiring all persons with complaints to enter their accounts and file their declarations five days before the sitting of the court. This arrangement had since been found inconvenient, as the plaintiff’s account was not entered until the said [...] Interpretations The annual levy imposed on all persons above 16 years of age demonstrates a form of capitation or poll-based revenue. This created a regular obligation tied to residency rather than property alone, extending across both white inhabitants and slaves. The delegation of collection authority to churchwardens shows that local administrative roles were used to enforce fiscal obligations. These officers acted as agents of the Company in gathering revenue from the population. The power of distraint authorised the seizure and sale of goods to satisfy unpaid dues. This provided a direct enforcement mechanism where voluntary payment was not made, ensuring that revenue could still be recovered. The requirement to account for collections within a fixed period imposed oversight on the collectors themselves. This ensured that funds were properly transferred to Company authority and not misappropriated. The reference to accumulated arrears indicates that compliance with the levy had been inconsistent. This suggests that enforcement required periodic intervention by the council. The reconsideration of procedural rules for filing complaints shows that the administration adjusted legal processes in response to practical difficulties. This reflects an evolving system of governance adapting to local conditions. Speculations The need to enforce arrears through distraint suggests that many inhabitants were unable or unwilling to pay the levy promptly. This implies that the economic capacity of the population was uneven and that coercive measures were necessary to secure revenue. The use of churchwardens as collectors suggests that the Company relied on locally embedded figures to manage obligations. This implies a blending of ecclesiastical and civil functions to maintain administrative reach across the island. The revision of court filing procedures indicates that earlier rules may have disadvantaged defendants or delayed proceedings. This suggests that the council sought to balance efficiency with fairness in managing legal disputes. | |
66 | [...] dayes before the Court be opened att which tyme they then file up their Declarations whereby the truth or warrants cannot be Issued out and served tyme enough to give the Defendant sufficient leasure to make his Defence and summon his Witnesses Wherefore on further Consideration thereof and Debate of this matter It is Ordered That all psons whatsoever that have any Cause or Accoᵗ depending in this Court shall enter their Accoᵗ ten dayes before the Court be opened so yt ye writts or Warrᵗs may be timely Issued forth and served 5 dayes before ye Court be opened & if whatsoever pson has not ye Warrant served on him five dayes before ye Court sitt may if he will plead it Obteyn or have a Nonsuite against ye Plain- tiffe so yt there it is to be understood that altho the plaintiff must enter his Accoᵗ 10 dayes sooner then ye party sitts yet if he files up his Declaration as formerly ordered but five dayes before ye Court be opened it shall be a sufficient plea of ye plaintiff against ye defendant if he should object to Answer whereby to stop his Nonsuite and cause ye Defendant to make his Defence Whereas in ye sd Councell held the 12ᵗʰ of March severall Accts belonging to ye Clarkes were settled to prevent their unreasonable demands amongst which none was as to the matter of Probates of Wills and Administration to Estates &c It is therefore Ordered That ye fees hereafter Mentioned for ye Probate of Wills & Administrations to Estates be henceforward allowed unto ye Table of Clarkes fees settled in the Councell held the aforesaid 12ᵗʰ of March Instant Coppy of a Will includes ye Probate with Recording of a Will = . . . . . . . . . . . 0 : 2 : 6 Recording ye Inventory of Deceased for a Letter of Administratᵒn . . . . . . . 0 : 5 : 0 Recording a Letter of Administration . . . 0 : [...] : 6 Coppy of ye Letter of Administration . . . 0 : 3 : 0 | Further consideration was given to the earlier order requiring complaints to be entered five days before the opening of the court. It was found that, where accounts were entered only at that stage, writs or warrants could not be issued and served in sufficient time to allow the defendant adequate opportunity to prepare a defence and summon witnesses. It was therefore ordered that all persons having any cause or account pending before the court should enter their account ten days before the opening of the court. This was intended to ensure that writs or warrants might be issued in due time and served at least five days before the sitting of the court. If any person did not have such a warrant served upon them five days before the court sat, that person might plead the deficiency and obtain a nonsuit against the plaintiff. It was further provided that, although the plaintiff must enter the account ten days beforehand, the declaration might still be filed five days before the court as previously ordered. This filing would be sufficient to proceed and to prevent the defendant from avoiding the case by objection, requiring the defendant to make a defence. Reference was also made to the council held on 12 March 1688, in which several clerk’s fees had been regulated to prevent excessive charges. It was noted that no provision had then been made for fees relating to the probate of wills and the administration of estates. It was therefore ordered that the following fees should henceforth be allowed and added to the established table of clerks’ fees: For a copy of a will, including probate with the Company seal affixed, £0 3s 0d. Interpretations The extension of the time required to enter accounts from five to ten days reflects an effort to ensure proper procedural fairness. Adequate notice allowed defendants sufficient time to prepare responses and gather evidence. The rule that failure to serve a warrant within the prescribed period could result in a nonsuit demonstrates the importance of formal service of process. Proper notification was a necessary condition for legal proceedings to continue. The retention of the five-day period for filing declarations shows a balance between procedural flexibility and enforcement. Plaintiffs were given additional preparation time while still being required to complete filings within a defined window. The regulation of clerks’ fees indicates an attempt to standardise administrative costs and prevent overcharging. This ensured predictability and control over the expenses associated with legal processes. The introduction of fees for probate and administration demonstrates the formalisation of estate management procedures. These charges reflect the administrative work required to validate wills and manage the property of the deceased. The requirement that probate include the Company seal shows that legal authority over estates was exercised through official certification. This linked private property matters to institutional oversight. Speculations The adjustment of procedural deadlines suggests that earlier rules had caused practical difficulties in bringing cases to court. This implies that the administration was refining its processes to improve efficiency and reduce disputes over technicalities. The formal addition of probate and administration fees suggests an increase in cases involving estates or a recognition that such matters required clearer regulation. This implies growing complexity in property and inheritance arrangements on the island. The emphasis on proper service of warrants indicates concern that defendants might otherwise be disadvantaged or evade proceedings. This suggests that procedural compliance was seen as essential to maintaining legitimacy in the court’s decisions. | |
67 | Tho[ma]s Hoath a Wri[tor] which Came over in Upon Consideration that ye sd Hoath being sufficient It is Ordered That his Petition be granted accordingly [...] R[ich] R[ange] | Thomas Hoath, a writer who had arrived on the ship Royall Merchant, submitted a petition requesting permission to return to England on the next ship. Upon consideration that Thomas Hoath was competent to serve the Honourable Company as a writer, and that his conduct had been useful both to himself and serviceable to the administration on the island, it was ordered that his petition should be granted. The record was subscribed by Robert Gillam and Richard Range. | |
68 | [...] Helena At a Consultation held on Monday [...] Blackmore Govr Benorall Brown &c did stand indebted unto the Joseph Wickes did appeare and said that he could [...] Ordered [...] Tho [...] did likewise appeare and he said yt [...] Ordered & Agreed [...] Gorge Soales did also appeare and pleaded his poverty | A consultation was held at Fort James on 22 October 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. It was noted that Benorall Brown and others stood indebted to the Company for slaves purchased at a public sale held on 19 October 1687. They appeared in accordance with an order of council made on 1 October 1688, to make payment for the slaves, to propose a method of payment, or otherwise to return them and satisfy the Company for their labour in accordance with the articles of agreement. Joseph Wickes appeared and stated that he was unable to pay the remainder of his debt in money at present, being in extreme difficulty, but requested additional time and offered to pay interest on the sum due. [...] Thomas [...] also appeared and stated that he was unable to pay his debt to the Company in money at present, but requested additional time and offered to pay interest on the sum owed. It was ordered and agreed [...] George Soales likewise appeared and pleaded poverty, requesting additional time to pay his debt, and offering to pay interest on the amount due for goods. [...] Interpretations The requirement for debtors to appear before the council shows direct administrative oversight of financial obligations owed to the Company. Personal appearance ensured accountability in cases of non-payment. The option to return slaves or to compensate for their labour reflects the treatment of such individuals as assets with measurable economic value. Debts could be settled either through repayment or through restitution of labour. The acceptance of proposals to pay interest indicates that debts could be extended rather than immediately enforced. This created a mechanism for managing insolvency while preserving the Company’s financial claim. The repeated pleas of poverty demonstrate that inability to pay was a recognised factor in negotiations. The council considered financial hardship when determining enforcement or extension of obligations. The reference to articles of agreement shows that terms governing purchase and repayment had been formally established. These agreements structured both the initial transaction and the remedies available in case of default. Speculations The willingness of multiple debtors to request extended time with interest suggests that liquidity was limited among inhabitants. This implies that transactions involving slaves were often financed over time rather than paid immediately. The council’s consideration of extensions rather than immediate seizure suggests a preference for maintaining ongoing economic activity. This implies that retaining debtors in productive use of labour may have been more valuable than immediate enforcement. The consistent offer to pay interest suggests that debt arrangements were evolving toward more structured credit practices. This implies an increasing formalisation of financial relationships within the island economy. | |
69 | [...] Ordered That the sd Soales have six Months forbearance of Isaak Leach did appeare and sd he could not pay his [...] Ordered That ye sd Leach shall have forbearance ye payment of ye sd James Wakeford did likewise appeare who pleaded It is Agreed And Ordered That ye sd Wakeford have 8 months tyme longer [...] Memᵈ That ye Copy of this Councill Who sett saile from ye Island | George Soales was granted six months’ delay in payment of his debt to the East India Company, extending to 19 April 1689. Interest was to be added so that the full amount became […], which he promised to pay in cash or in approved current bills on or before that date. Isaac Leach appeared and stated that he could not immediately pay his debt of […] in money. He requested further time and offered to pay interest. He was granted eight months’ delay from 19 October 1688. Interest was to be added so that the total debt became […]. He undertook to pay in cash or in such current bills as the council approved, on or before 19 June 1689. James Wakeford also appeared and pleaded illness and personal burden as the reason he could not presently pay his debt of […] to the Company. He requested further time and agreed to pay interest. He was granted eight months’ extension. Interest was added so that the total debt became […], which he promised to pay in cash or approved bills on or before 19 June 1689. The record was subscribed by Robert Gillam and Richard Range. A memorandum noted that a copy of the council book, covering the period from 12 April 1688 to 22 October 1688 inclusive, was sent to the Company in the ship Tangwong, commanded by Robert Knox. This vessel departed from St Helena on Monday 31 October 1688 in the afternoon. Interpretations The granting of forbearance shows structured credit extension. Debtors were allowed time under formal conditions rather than facing immediate enforcement. The addition of interest indicates regulated financial practice. Delay in payment carried a defined cost, preserving the value of the debt. The acceptance of payment in “current bills” reflects limited coin circulation. Alternative financial instruments were recognised within the local economy. The fixing of precise repayment dates shows administrative control. Obligations were tied to specific deadlines to ensure accountability. The transmission of council records to the Company demonstrates oversight. Local governance was subject to review by central authority overseas. Speculations The repeated granting of extended time suggests widespread financial strain. Settlers perhaps relied heavily on credit to sustain operations. The reliance on approved bills indicates an emerging local financial system. Formal acceptance of such instruments may have eased liquidity shortages. The regular dispatch of records implies concern for accountability. The authorities perhaps sought to maintain transparency in their management of debts and decisions. | |
70 | Island Helena At a Consultation Held Tuesday the [...] Present John Blackmore Govʳ Margaret the Wife of Cr[is]ton Sexton (who with Whereupon It is Ordered That her request be granted Provided that [...] R[ich] R[ange] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 21 November 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Margaret, the wife of Criston Sexton, whose husband had previously departed for England in the good ship Successe, submitted a petition expressing her desire to travel to join him aboard the ship Madona, then lying in the road. She presented several reasons in support of her request. Upon consideration, it was ordered that her request should be granted, provided that she ensured that her children remaining on the island were properly provided for, and that she settled all outstanding debts before her departure. The record was subscribed by Robert Gillam and Richard Range. Interpretations The requirement that Margaret provide for her children before departure shows that permission to leave the island was conditional upon fulfilment of familial obligations. Responsibility for dependants was enforced as a prerequisite for mobility. The condition that debts be satisfied prior to departure reflects control over the movement of indebted persons. This prevented individuals from evading financial obligations by leaving the island. The granting of a licence to travel demonstrates that departure from the island was subject to official approval. Movement was regulated by the governing authority. The reference to ships in the road indicates that vessels anchored offshore served as points of departure, linking the island to wider maritime routes under Company control. Speculations The imposition of conditions on Margaret’s departure suggests that the administration aimed to prevent both social and financial disruption. This implies concern that dependants might otherwise become a burden on the community. The need for formal permission to leave the island indicates that population movement was monitored. This suggests that labour and settlement stability were considered important to the functioning of the colony. | |
71 | Island Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the Present John Blackmore Govʳ Capt Samʳ Holden Comander of Information having bin given [...] by one But now the said Long & Wakeford having bin brought for- That he the said Long and Wakeford having bin lately drinking That neither You nor your Capʳ King shall keep And the said Garling and Tho Allex Seaton being in company And [...] Harris Mate being sworn saith that one morn- | A consultation was held at Fort James on 29 November 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Captain Samuel Holden, commander of [...], and Mr Philip Harris, surgeon’s mate, were also noted. Information had previously been given by one [...] Seaton that James Wakeford, carpenter, had spoken scandalous and derogatory words concerning the King. At the time of that report, the informant had been much affected by drink and not considered fit to give evidence in a matter of importance. As urgent business relating to the dispatch of the good ship Madona required attention, examination of the allegation had been deferred, though it had been intended that it should later be pursued. James Long and James Wakeford were then brought forward, and Long, being examined, stated that he and Wakeford had recently been drinking together and had fallen into quarrel. He declared that he had heard Wakeford say, “That neither you nor your Captain King shall keep me in awe.” Garling and Thomas Allex Seaton, who had been present drinking with Long and Wakeford, testified that provoking and abusive language had passed between them, including insults such as “rogue,” “dog,” “Protestant rogue,” “dog priest,” and “heretic.” However, both witnesses affirmed upon oath that they had not heard Wakeford mention the King in the words alleged, nor had they heard the initial cause of the quarrel. They stated that, after some time, Long and Wakeford went outside, and that further words passed between them before the disturbance ended. They added that Long afterwards reported that Wakeford had spoken the words concerning the King, but they themselves had not heard this. Both witnesses further stated that Long and Wakeford had been so drunk that they were scarcely able to stand. Philip Harris, surgeon’s mate, being sworn, stated that he had seen Long and Wakeford during the morning when the quarrel occurred, but had not heard any words of the kind alleged. Interpretations The allegation of speaking against the King reflects the seriousness with which expressions of disloyalty were treated. Such words could constitute an offence subject to formal inquiry. The initial suspension of the examination due to the informant’s intoxication shows that credibility of evidence was assessed before proceedings continued. Testimony given under the influence of drink was considered unreliable. The use of multiple sworn witnesses demonstrates the evidential process required to establish serious accusations. Corroboration was necessary, especially where statements concerned offences against authority. The distinction between direct testimony and reported speech is evident in the treatment of Long’s claim. Statements not directly heard by other witnesses carried less weight in determining the facts. The repeated references to intoxication indicate that drunkenness was recognised as affecting both behaviour and reliability. This influenced how testimony and conduct were judged. Speculations The delay in examining the allegation suggests that administrative priorities, such as the departure of ships, could temporarily outweigh judicial matters. This implies that governance was responsive to immediate logistical needs. The conflicting testimony regarding the alleged words suggests that accusations of disloyal speech could arise from personal disputes. This implies that quarrels might escalate into formal complaints with broader implications. The emphasis on the drunken state of those involved suggests that the council may have been cautious in pursuing severe charges where intent was uncertain. This implies a reluctance to impose penalties without clear and reliable evidence. | |
72 | [...] [...] [...] the said Long [...] to [...] but Wm Clifton being sworn saith that Rich Carling informed the Christopher Jeames being sworn saith that very early the same The aforesaid Seaton being sworn saith that he saw the James Wakeford being asked at the Court hath spoke the said Upon serious consideration of the whole matter in the It is ordered That the said Wakeford be committed to prison and that a And that the said Long be restrained unto his own house [...] | Further examination was made of the conduct of James Long and James Wakeford. It was reported that Long had expressed a strong desire to prosecute Wakeford and had sworn that, if possible, he would have him punished by the court, even to the extent of seeking severe penalty against him. William Clifton, being sworn, stated that Richard Carling had informed him on the same morning that Wakeford had been lying on a table in a very drunken state and was in danger of falling and injuring himself. Clifton was asked to secure him to the table, which he did in order to prevent harm. Christopher Jeames, being sworn, stated that early on the same morning he had been awakened by the noise of Long and Wakeford quarrelling, fighting, and striking against the doors. He heard Wakeford, whom he recognised by his voice, call someone a “papist dog”, though he could not identify the person addressed. He heard no mention of the King. He later understood that both Long and Wakeford had been drinking heavily. He further stated that he heard Long say that he would throw Wakeford by the buttock if he had the opportunity. Seaton, being sworn, stated that he had seen Long and Wakeford fighting from his window, both being extremely drunk, but he did not hear the words spoken between them. He only heard Long afterwards say that he would be revenged on Wakeford and would throw him by the buttock. James Wakeford, when questioned in court, denied speaking the alleged words and stated that he did not remember what he had said or done at the time. Upon serious consideration of the matter and the circumstances shown by the evidence, it was determined that both Long and Wakeford had been guilty of serious misconduct. However, there was not sufficient proof that Wakeford had committed treason against the King. It was therefore ordered that Wakeford should be committed to prison, and that further examination of the case should be undertaken without delay. It was also ordered that Long should be confined to his own house at Fort James until further order. Interpretations The distinction made between misconduct and treason demonstrates that serious accusations required a high standard of proof. Without clear evidence, the charge of treason was not upheld. The decision to imprison Wakeford while placing Long under house restraint shows differing degrees of custody. Confinement could be adapted according to perceived responsibility or risk. The reliance on multiple sworn testimonies reflects the importance of corroborated evidence in determining both conduct and intent. Statements based on hearsay or unclear recollection were insufficient for more severe charges. The recognition that intoxication affected both behaviour and memory influenced the evaluation of testimony. Drunkenness was treated as relevant to both the offence and the reliability of witnesses. The use of preventive restraint, including binding an individual to prevent harm, indicates concern for immediate physical safety as well as order. This reflects a practical response to disorderly conduct. Speculations The willingness to detain Wakeford despite insufficient proof of treason suggests that the authorities acted cautiously where accusations touched upon loyalty to the Crown. This implies that suspicion alone could justify temporary restraint pending further inquiry. The strong language attributed to Long indicates that personal conflict may have intensified the accusation. This suggests that interpersonal disputes could escalate into formal proceedings with wider implications. The separation of the parties through imprisonment and house restraint suggests an intention to prevent further disorder. This implies that maintaining immediate peace was a priority alongside investigating the allegation. | |
73 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held Tuesday the 11ᵗʰ of [...] John Blackmore Govʳ Information having bin given by Jnᵒ Long and It is Ordered That the above mentioned Informers and all other persons That thereupon a Narrative of the whole Intrigue (so Accordingly several persons Depositions and Declarations The Deposition of Jnᵒ Long Quarter The Deponent saith that the 22 of Novemʳ last past he was | A consultation was held at Fort James on 11 December 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Information had been given by John Long and Matthew Dovey that, on Friday 30 November 1688, being the day before the departure of the good ship Madona for England, it had been reported that Captain James Dovey, who sailed in that ship, had previously been tried at Bombay and found guilty of sedition in the ship Royall James, and of making many scandalous speeches. It was further alleged that, by his instigation and persuasion, certain persons had prepared a petition to the King expressing dissent against the Company, its Lords, Governor, and established government on the island, representing the Governor and Deputy Governor as unfit to be trusted or continued in their offices. The potential significance and consequences of such a petition were considered uncertain, but the matter was judged serious and requiring full inquiry. It was therefore ordered that the informers and all other persons concerned should be immediately examined upon oath, and that their depositions should be subscribed by each of them. These were to be transmitted, or copies thereof, to the Honourable East India Company. It was further ordered that a narrative of the entire matter, as far as could be established, should be prepared and annexed to the depositions, to be sent to the Company by the next available conveyance. Accordingly, several depositions and declarations were taken and subscribed, copies of which followed. John Long, quartermaster, deposed that on 22 November 1688 he had been among those who had arrived on the ship Madona. He stated that Captain James Dovey had told him that, if Matthew Dovey made a petition, he should sign one to his former Governor seeking the appointment of a new Governor on the island, and that he would obtain the signatures of his neighbours, including John Fuller. Some days later, Long met Captain Dovey at his lodging, where Dovey showed him the petition but read only nine or ten lines of it. The contents were not fully disclosed, but it was indicated that the petition was intended to be circulated and subscribed by several merchants, including [...] Shildon, Mr Doveton, and Mr Crichlow, who were to take [...] Interpretations The order to take sworn depositions and transmit them to the Company demonstrates a formal investigative procedure. Matters affecting governance were documented and referred to higher authority for review. The allegation of a petition to the King against the Company’s administration shows that political dissent could be expressed through formal written complaint. Such actions were treated as serious and potentially subversive. The reference to Captain James Dovey’s prior conviction for sedition indicates that past conduct was considered relevant in assessing credibility and intent. Previous offences informed the evaluation of current allegations. The requirement to prepare a narrative alongside depositions shows an effort to organise evidence into a coherent account. This suggests a structured approach to reporting complex matters. The involvement of merchants in the proposed petition indicates that individuals engaged in trade could participate in political action. This reflects the interconnected roles of commerce and governance. The partial reading of the petition and the uncertainty about its contents demonstrate that knowledge of its purpose was limited among those involved. This affected the reliability and completeness of testimony. Speculations The decision to escalate the matter to the Company suggests concern that local authority alone was insufficient to resolve allegations of sedition. This implies that higher approval or judgement was required in politically sensitive cases. The attempt to gather multiple signatures indicates that the petition sought to present collective grievance. This suggests an effort to strengthen its influence by demonstrating broader support. The incomplete disclosure of the petition’s contents implies that participants may not have fully understood its implications. This suggests that persuasion or influence by key individuals played a role in its circulation. | |
74 | [...] [...] he had time the said Jno Gnr Deatly Jnᵒ Long Jnᵒ Long being examined saith that mr Slater Jnᵒ Long Mathew Dovey being one of the persons sworn Island St Helena Novemʳ ye 24ᵗʰ 1688 Capt James Dovey sent for me to his lodging house | Further examination of John Long produced additional statements. He reported that […] Gnr Deatly had acknowledged the matter in part, stating that if he had known that […] Cundy and Thomas Rich[…] had signed the petition, he might have acted differently, though he did not clearly recall seeing their names. John Long also stated that Mr Slater Moore told him that James Dovey had claimed Moore had sworn treason against the council. Robert Holden had instructed Long to take note of this, though Long could not recall the exact time. He further stated that Moore had said Dovey approached him and requested ten gallons of arrack or other goods in exchange for returning the signed paper, or that Moore himself had made such an offer, though Long could not state this with certainty, only that one of them had done so. Mathew Dovey then submitted a written declaration in his own hand dated 24 November 1688. He stated that James Dovey had sent for him to his lodging above the town. Dovey, who had injured his leg some time earlier, asked him to come inside and then explained that several persons had requested him to draw up a petition to the King of England. He asked whether Mathew Dovey would sign it. At first he agreed, but later reconsidered, stating that signing such a petition might endanger his life. James Dovey then went with him toward his house and drew him aside, showing him the petition and again urging him to sign. Mathew Dovey refused, stating that doing so would bring ruin upon himself and his family. James Dovey replied that many others had already signed and suggested that he should do the same. He further stated that he expected to become governor of the island and would then favour and forgive those who had supported the petition. Later, while at Mathew Dovey’s house, James Dovey and several others were present. After going downstairs, he met again with Mathew Dovey, John Stanfell, and John Fuller. He again produced the petition and asked them to sign it. Mathew Dovey declined, stating that he could not write. He then observed Gabriel Powell and William Clifton sign the document. Further details were then recounted […] Interpretations The taking of written declarations alongside oral depositions shows layered evidence gathering. Personal testimony was formalised in both spoken and written forms. The reference to inducements, such as arrack or goods, indicates potential bribery. Material exchange was linked to control over documentary evidence. The mention of treason reflects the seriousness of the allegations. Political dissent was framed within the language of criminal offence. The act of signing a petition demonstrates participation in collective action. Written endorsement served as proof of alignment or opposition. The suggestion that Dovey might become governor reveals contested authority. Claims to future office were used to influence present behaviour. Speculations The reported offer of goods for return of the petition suggests fear of exposure. Control over the document may have been crucial to limiting consequences. The claim that Dovey expected to become governor may have been strategic persuasion. It perhaps aimed to encourage compliance by implying future reward or protection. The hesitation of Mathew Dovey indicates perceived risk. Signing the petition may have been understood as dangerous within the existing power structure. | |
75 | [...] had some others [...] about eight a clock, and The Heads of the Petition Whereas we his Majesties poor distressed and unliberted The above written is just and true some of the heads of Mathew Dovey Another of the common sort Saith going at work at Morris most part speaking | Further statements were recorded concerning the petition associated with James Dovey. It was reported that around eight o’clock in the evening, efforts were made to obtain the document from him. Confusion followed as some believed it would not be signed, while others stated that it had already been delivered to him at night, accompanied by two servants. It was also claimed that signatures had been added in the names of others, including Fletcher Bolton, John Fuller, and George Holden. The principal points of the petition were then outlined. The inhabitants described themselves as distressed subjects under the East India Company. Complaints were made against the governors previously employed, accusing them of mismanagement and abuses of authority. It was asserted that burdens and charges had been imposed upon the inhabitants, affecting English-born subjects on the island. The petition sought redress and requested that a loyal subject be appointed as governor. The document was intended to be conveyed to the King through James Dovey. Mathew Dovey affirmed that these points accurately represented the substance of the petition he had been shown. Another witness, described as of the common sort, stated that while at work he heard discussion that Dovey intended to write a petition to be sent to England. He further reported that the name of Robert Holden had been mentioned in connection with these matters […] Interpretations The allegation that names were added to the petition suggests concerns over authenticity. Signatures functioned as proof of consent and could be contested. The framing of grievances in collective terms shows organised complaint. Petitioning was used as a formal channel to challenge authority. The reference to English-born subjects highlights identity and rights. Claims were grounded in status within the wider political structure. The request for a new governor indicates direct challenge to local administration. Authority was not only criticised but alternatives were proposed. The intention to send the petition to the King shows appeal beyond Company governance. Higher authority was invoked to override local control. Speculations The confusion over signatures suggests instability in the petition’s circulation. Control over the document may have shifted between parties. The emphasis on grievances and burdens indicates accumulated dissatisfaction. The petition may have drawn on existing tensions rather than a single issue. The use of Dovey as intermediary suggests reliance on maritime connection. Ships provided the only practical means to transmit political complaints beyond the island. | |
76 | [...] [...] Information Written Capt Dovey sent to desire to speake wᵗʰ me in morning Wᵐ Clifton The Examination of Tho Ritchie [...] taken Saith that on Sunday night of the last past this Deponent But the said Ritchie refused to take his Oath Tho Ritchie The Depositions of Henry Ludlow Saith that he this Deponent went upon Sunday was sennight | Further depositions were taken regarding the actions of James Dovey and the proposed petition. William Clifton stated that on a Saturday around noon, after dinner, Dovey asked to speak with him privately and requested that he write something on his behalf. Clifton agreed at first. Dovey then asked him to write a petition to the King, setting out complaints of ill usage and oppression and seeking redress for conditions under the East India Company. Dovey urged him to proceed and encouraged him to support the matter further, but Clifton declined out of fear of bringing trouble upon himself. Dovey reacted with anger and told him he would gain nothing by refusing, adding that he need not fear anything the governor might do if he complied. Clifton continued to refuse. Francis Dovey entered the room during this exchange, while Gabriel Crooke was downstairs. Thomas Ritchie was examined and stated that on a Sunday night he was at the house of Morris in the company of others. Dovey asked him to walk outside and then described how he had been mistreated in India by the Company. He said he had drawn up a petition to the King on behalf of people on the island whom he claimed were under condemnation, and showed it to Ritchie, asking him to sign. Ritchie refused, stating that he had nothing to do with it, and they parted. He declined to swear an oath confirming this account. Henry Ludlow stated that on a Sunday he accompanied Dovey and others to the house of Gabriel Crooke. Dovey called him aside and asked whether he would subscribe to a petition to the King on behalf of island inhabitants seeking relief from grievances. Ludlow refused, stating that he was not concerned in the matter and would not involve himself. Interpretations The attempt to have Clifton draft the petition shows control over authorship. Composition of the document was a key stage in shaping its claims. The repeated requests for signatures indicate organised recruitment. Support was actively sought rather than passively received. The refusal of witnesses reflects perceived risk. Association with the petition was treated as potentially dangerous. The appeal to the King demonstrates use of higher authority. Petitioning bypassed local governance structures. The mention of alleged oppression frames the petition politically. Complaints were structured to justify external intervention. The refusal to swear an oath by Ritchie shows limits of cooperation. Witnesses could resist full participation in the investigative process. Speculations The pressure placed on Clifton suggests urgency in drafting the petition. Dovey may have needed the document completed quickly before departure. The claim that Dovey would become governor may have been used as leverage. It perhaps aimed to reassure or persuade potential supporters. The reluctance of multiple individuals to sign indicates widespread caution. Fear of consequences may have outweighed agreement with the grievances. The refusal to take oath by Ritchie suggests mistrust of proceedings. He may have feared legal or social repercussions from formal testimony. | |
77 | [...] and [...] him for [...] Henry Ludlow The Deposition of Jo: Hallowe Clanton that sitting in Mr Morris House about 7 at night [...] Jo Hallow The Declaration of Gabriell Cornish that the sd Dovey that sd Dovey under Condemnation Gabriell Cornish | Further depositions were taken concerning the petition promoted by Captain James Dovey. Henry Ludlow, continuing his sworn testimony, stated that Captain James Dovey had repeatedly asked him to subscribe the petition. He declared that he refused on each occasion, including when the request was made in the presence of William Clifton. He further stated that Captain James Dovey attempted to persuade him by saying that Gabriel Crooke and George Haddon had already signed. He also reported that Captain James Dovey later said that Crooke had stated that Cornish had signed the petition. Henry Ludlow added that he had observed Captain James Dovey and George Haddon frequently in private conversation together. John Hallow Clanton, being examined, stated that while sitting at Mr Morris’s house in the evening, Thomas Dovey told him that Captain James Dovey had shown him a petition addressed to His Majesty, though he could not recall its contents. He further stated that Cornish had encouraged him to subscribe to the petition. He added that, at Mr Crooke’s house, several persons were present, including George Cornish, Peter Clark, John Kent, Captain James Dovey, Gabriel Crooke, Claxton, William Clifton, John Haddon, Taylor, and Thomas Ritchie, and that it was said that signatures had been set to the petition. Gabriel Cornish, in his declaration, stated that Captain James Dovey had approached him while he was in a house with others and asked him to subscribe the petition. Captain James Dovey showed him the document, which was directed to His Majesty, and he declared his approval of its purpose. Gabriel Cornish stated that he then signed it in his own name. He further stated that Captain James Dovey later returned and requested a note or letter from him, which he could not provide. Captain James Dovey subsequently asked him to show the names of those who had subscribed the petition, which he did. Interpretations The repeated requests made by Captain James Dovey to obtain signatures indicate a sustained effort to gather support for the petition. This suggests that the document was intended to represent a collective grievance. The use of named individuals as examples of prior signatories shows that persuasion relied partly on the appearance of growing support. This method may have been used to encourage further participation. The acknowledgement by Gabriel Cornish that he signed the petition provides direct evidence of involvement. Such admissions were central to establishing responsibility. The recording of meetings at private houses indicates that discussions and actions relating to the petition occurred in informal settings. This reflects how political activity could take place outside formal institutions. The identification of numerous individuals present during these events demonstrates the council’s effort to map the extent of awareness and participation within the community. The noting of private conversations between Captain James Dovey and others suggests that particular relationships were considered relevant to the development of the matter. Speculations The emphasis on who had already signed the petition suggests that social influence played a role in its circulation. This implies that individuals may have been encouraged by the actions of others rather than acting independently. The willingness of Gabriel Cornish to sign, contrasted with the refusals of others, indicates differing attitudes toward the risks involved. This suggests variation in how individuals assessed the consequences of participation. The observation of repeated private meetings between Captain James Dovey and George Haddon suggests that certain individuals may have played a more active role in organising the petition. This implies the possibility of a smaller group coordinating the effort. | |
78 | [...] [...] sd Capt Dovey and Geo: Haddon after consultation [...] Whereas by the sd Examinations it appears that It is Ordered Whereas upon Mr Clifton sd he had been concerned It is Ordered Information having been given that George Slanton The sd Long Dovey sd if he had done any such thing | Further evidence was considered regarding the activities surrounding the petition promoted by Captain James Dovey. It was reported that Captain James Dovey and George Haddon were observed in close and private conversation, speaking together secretly. William Clifton stated that Captain James Dovey had requested assistance in writing the petition, and that Matthew Burney, Gabriel Cornish, and George Haddon were frequently in his company. The informant further stated that Captain James Dovey had said that several persons on the island had promised to sign the petition and that he himself had signed it. The informant also stated that he had seen the petition but refused to sign and attempted to dissuade others from doing so. It was further stated that Captain James Dovey had requested that a letter be delivered to his sister in London, whose husband had been executed for the late rebellion on the island, and had given directions for its delivery. Upon consideration of the examinations, it was noted that Gabriel Cornish and George Haddon, both of whom had previously been condemned for the late rebellion, had recently been seen in the company of Thomas Dovey, described as a principal instigator in this matter. It was further noted that they had been at liberty to attend to their affairs during a period when no ships were present on the island. It was therefore ordered that Gabriel Cornish and George Haddon be immediately committed to close prison until further order. It was also noted that William Clifton had acknowledged involvement with Captain James Dovey in relation to the petition and that his name had been set to it. Thomas Ritchie was likewise reported to have subscribed the petition. Both William Clifton and Thomas Ritchie were found to have refused to give a full account of their knowledge of the matter. It was therefore ordered that William Clifton and Thomas Ritchie be committed to close prison and that they be kept apart and not permitted to converse with one another until further order. Information was also given that George Slanton had been present at night in a lodging house in the company of Captain James Dovey and others. Further statements relating to this matter were noted, including references to John Long and Gabriel Cornish, though the details remain incomplete. [...] Interpretations The commitment of multiple individuals to close prison demonstrates that the authorities treated involvement in the petition as a serious matter. Custody was used both as a precaution and as a means of control during investigation. The separation of prisoners indicates concern that communication between them might influence testimony or obstruct the inquiry. This reflects an effort to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The reference to prior involvement in rebellion shows that past offences were considered relevant when assessing current conduct. Individuals previously condemned were treated with particular suspicion. The identification of Thomas Dovey as a principal instigator suggests that responsibility was attributed to those seen as leading the activity. This indicates an attempt to distinguish between organisers and participants. The mention of a letter intended for England shows that communication beyond the island was closely monitored. Written correspondence could be linked to broader concerns about loyalty and authority. The collection of testimony from multiple informants demonstrates a reliance on cumulative evidence. Statements from different individuals were used to build a fuller account of events. Speculations The immediate imprisonment of Gabriel Cornish and George Haddon suggests that their prior association with rebellion heightened concern about their involvement. This implies that authorities may have acted pre-emptively to prevent further disorder. The refusal of William Clifton and Thomas Ritchie to provide full accounts suggests reluctance to implicate others or themselves. This implies that participation in the petition carried perceived risks. The emphasis on secret meetings and repeated contact between certain individuals suggests that the petition may have been organised through a small group. This implies coordination rather than spontaneous action. | |
79 | [...] and that he had sent for a m[or]ingo black who proved Some other persons were ready to relate many other But the sd Long being moved to make a Cleare and He did freely acknowledge that he did kill the sd It is Ordered That he repaire to his owne House for the present [...] | Further information was received concerning misconduct attributed to John Long. It was reported that he had sent for a black man during the night for a particular purpose, and that William Clifton had been seen in his company on or about 21 and 22 October. It was also stated that a black woman had been observed at his house on Saturday 24 October. Additional testimony was given by another black woman, who reported that Long’s servant had said that her master had killed a cow during the night, along with other related circumstances. Several other persons were prepared to give further evidence to clarify the matter. John Long, being urged to make a full and clear confession, freely acknowledged that he had killed a cow belonging to the Honourable Company’s stock. He admitted that he had given the head, entrails, and part of the shoulder to the black man who had assisted him in killing it. He asked for pardon for his offence and appeared to show some remorse. It was ordered that he should return to his own house for the present and appear when summoned. Interpretations The reliance on testimony from multiple individuals, including slaves, shows that evidence could be gathered from a wide range of sources. Information from different witnesses was used to establish the facts. The admission by John Long confirms that confession was an important element in resolving such matters. A voluntary acknowledgment of wrongdoing influenced how the case was handled. The reference to Company-owned cattle indicates that livestock was considered property of significant value. Unauthorised killing of such animals was treated as an offence against Company interests. The distribution of parts of the animal to an accomplice shows that assistance in committing the act was recognised. This reflects awareness of shared responsibility in such offences. The decision to allow John Long to remain at his house rather than imprison him suggests a degree of discretion in enforcement. His confession and apparent remorse may have influenced this outcome. Speculations The relatively lenient immediate response suggests that cooperation and confession could mitigate punishment. This implies that authorities may have prioritised admission of guilt over strict enforcement in certain cases. The involvement of slaves in both the act and the reporting of it indicates their role within the colony’s social and labour structure. This suggests that they were both participants in and witnesses to events affecting Company property. The readiness of others to provide further testimony suggests that such offences were not isolated and that additional scrutiny might reveal wider patterns of misconduct. | |
80 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Holden Thursday the 9ᵗʰ Present: John Blackmore Govᵣ George Haddon (one of the condemned from It is Ordered That James Haddon Clanton with whom the said [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 9 October 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Haddon, Deputy Governor, and Richard Helms, Ensign. George Haddon, one of those previously condemned and now in prison for debt following his earlier offences and irregular conduct, was considered. It was noted that, while the ship Modena lay in the road, he had been associated with a certain paper dictated and contrived by Captain James Dovey, who was on board that ship. It was further noted that George Haddon had been managing the affairs of Mr Bolton and intended to go to England in his place. He was also believed to be indebted beyond the value of his estate. It was therefore ordered that James Haddon Clanton, with whom George Haddon had recently lodged and who was thought most likely to be well acquainted with his affairs, should inspect and assess George Haddon’s estate. This was to ensure that his creditors might receive their proper shares or dividends. James Haddon Clanton was to give an account of this as soon as possible. He was also instructed to secure Mr Bolton’s interests found in George Haddon’s possession, to ensure that what was owed to the Honourable Company was paid, and that the remainder be sent to her. [...] Interpretations The appointment of a person familiar with George Haddon’s circumstances to assess his estate shows a practical approach to debt recovery. Knowledge of the debtor’s affairs was considered important in managing liabilities. The requirement to distribute the estate among creditors demonstrates an organised process for settling debts. Creditors were to receive proportional shares based on what could be realised. The instruction to secure Mr Bolton’s interests indicates that property held on behalf of others was distinguished from the debtor’s own estate. This reflects an effort to protect third-party claims. The reference to the paper associated with Captain James Dovey shows that involvement in the petition matter was considered alongside financial concerns. Conduct and indebtedness were treated as related aspects of a person’s standing. The intention that any remaining value be sent to England suggests that obligations extended beyond the island. Assets could be transmitted to satisfy interests elsewhere. Speculations The combination of prior condemnation, debt, and involvement in the petition suggests that George Haddon was regarded as a person of concern to the authorities. This implies that multiple factors influenced how his case was handled. The selection of James Haddon Clanton, likely connected or familiar with him, suggests reliance on personal knowledge in administrative processes. This implies that formal systems were supplemented by local relationships. The effort to secure and distribute assets promptly suggests urgency in resolving financial matters linked to individuals under suspicion. This may indicate concern that property could otherwise be concealed or lost. | |
81 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation hold on Saturday the Prsent John Blackmore Govᵣ A small ship came before fort James this Whereupon It is Ordered That as many sould be immediately sent on board Accordingly Mr Doran went on board Further It is Ordered That the three Portugeeses left on the Island | A consultation was held at Fort James on 29 December 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Haddon, Deputy Governor, and Richard Helms, Ensign. A small ship appeared off Fort James on that day but passed under the island at a distance of about three leagues. A Portuguese man came ashore and reported that the ship, named Manna, had come from Bantam with pepper for the Honourable Company. He stated that he was unable to bring the vessel into the road or moor her due to a lack of manpower, having only seven working men aboard. He further reported that the ship was very leaky and required constant pumping to prevent her from sinking. He therefore requested immediate assistance in the form of men to help bring the ship safely into the road and to maintain the pumps. He also requested additional hands to enable the vessel to proceed to England. Upon consideration, it was ordered that as many men as were required should be immediately sent on board to assist as the commander thought necessary for the preservation of the ship and its cargo. Mr Doran accordingly went on board and remained there as long as he judged appropriate. It was further ordered that the three Portuguese left on the island [...] Interpretations The prompt response to the request for assistance shows the importance placed on preserving ships and cargo belonging to or associated with the Honourable Company. Maritime trade was treated as a priority. The provision of labour from the island indicates that local resources could be redirected to support vessels in distress. This reflects the island’s role as a support point in wider trading networks. The description of the ship’s condition, including its leaking and need for constant pumping, shows the practical risks of maritime transport. Immediate action was necessary to prevent loss. The willingness to assist a Portuguese vessel suggests that cooperation extended beyond English ships when Company interests were involved. The cargo of pepper was of particular value. The involvement of a named individual, Mr Doran, indicates that responsibility for overseeing such assistance could be assigned to specific persons. This ensured accountability in the execution of orders. Speculations The urgency of the request and the response suggests that the loss of the cargo would have had significant economic consequences. This implies that preserving the shipment was a matter of considerable importance. The limited number of crew on the ship indicates that long voyages could severely reduce manpower. This suggests that ships arriving at the island might frequently require assistance. The decision to assist may also reflect a strategic interest in maintaining good relations with other trading parties. This implies that cooperation could serve broader commercial purposes. | |
82 | [...] by Capᵗ Knox to be ordered forthwith to goe [...] the state and condition of the said little To the Worshipᶠᵘˡ Govᵣ and Councill of this Island Whereas by the Providence of the Almighty yoᵘʳ good ship St Helena Road Janʸʳ the 5ᵗʰ 1688/9 Yoᵘʳ Servants at Command Robt Gamon | A consultation was held at Fort James on 29 December 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Haddon, Deputy Governor, and Richard Helms, Ensign. At the request of Captain Robert Knox, several persons were ordered forthwith to go on board the said ship. One Englishman left by Captain [...] was also directed to proceed as far as Nicholson. John Josky and Thomas Wilson, soldiers, declared their desire to be licensed to depart in the said ship as part of her company, and they were accordingly permitted and sent on board. A letter setting forth the state and condition of the ship Little James was presented by the commander and officers, and was recorded in substance as follows. It was represented to the Governor and Council that the ship Little James of London had arrived safely at the island, having been at Bencoolen on the west coast of Sumatra for three months, during which time most of her company had been lost through sickness, so that only seven men and boys remained. It was thereby declared that the voyage to England could not be performed without apparent danger to both ship and cargo, which belonged to the Honourable Company. Assistance was therefore requested in the form of ten men capable of service, to enable the vessel to proceed to the port of London. It was further stated that such assistance would be of service to the Honourable Company and would oblige the officers making the request. The letter was dated at St Helena Road on 5 January 1688/9 and was subscribed by Robert Gamon, Joseph Burton, Thomas Gilchman, Jacob Lanchott, and James Wilson. Interpretations The request for assistance was framed as necessary for the preservation of both ship and cargo, indicating that the safe transport of goods was a primary concern. The loss of crew through sickness was recorded as the principal cause of the ship’s inability to proceed, showing the vulnerability of long voyages to disease. The granting of permission for soldiers to join the ship’s company indicated that manpower on the island could be reassigned to meet urgent maritime needs. The formal presentation and recording of the letter demonstrated established procedures for communication between ship officers and the island’s authorities. The emphasis on service to the Honourable Company reflected the shared responsibility of its agents to support its commercial operations. Speculations The urgency of the request suggested that delay might have risked the loss of the vessel or its cargo, indicating the importance of rapid response. The willingness of individuals to join the ship’s company may have reflected personal motives, such as returning to England or seeking opportunity elsewhere. The appeal to the Company’s interest implied that cooperation between ships and the island authorities was expected as part of a broader operational network. | |
83 | [...] Worshipfull Governors and Councill of the Island of Whereas by the Providence of the Almighty your good ship Your Servants at Command St Helena Road Janʸʳ the 5ᵗʰ 1688/9 Wᵐ Turner [...] Dn Bryan being sworn saith that Capt Doctor Mr Cole being sworn saith that Mr Coulson did agree | A consultation was held at Fort James on 29 December 1688. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Haddon, Deputy Governor, and Richard Helms, Ensign. A letter was presented to the Governor and Council concerning the condition of the ship Little James. It was stated that, by the providence of Almighty God, the said ship had arrived safely at the port, but that, having remained at Bencoolen on the west coast of Sumatra for three months, most of her company had been lost through sickness, leaving only seven men and boys. It was thereby represented that the voyage to England could not be performed without apparent damage to both ship and goods, the cargo belonging to the Right Honourable English East India Company. Assistance was requested for relief, namely that ten men be provided who were capable of service, to enable the vessel to proceed to the port of London. It was further expressed that such assistance would be of considerable service to the Company and would oblige the petitioners. The letter was dated at St Helena Road on 5 January 1688/9 and was subscribed by William Turner, Joseph Burton, Thomas Gilchman, Caleb Serle, and James [...]. Daniel Bryan, being sworn, stated that Captain Doctor had again come to him and requested that he accompany him to deliver a message to Mr Coulson. This was done, and it was then heard that Captain Doctor promised Mr Coulson that he would take from the Honourable Company’s stores such goods as she might require for her use, to the value of five pounds sterling, upon which Mr Coulson consented. Mr Cole, being sworn, stated that Mr Coulson agreed with Captain Doctor to take such goods out of the Honourable Company’s stores as she desired, to the value of £5 : 5 : 0. Interpretations The letter concerning the ship Little James demonstrated the reliance of vessels upon the island for manpower when weakened by sickness, showing the island’s role in sustaining maritime operations. The specific request for ten men indicated the scale of labour required to safely conduct a vessel on a long voyage, particularly when crew numbers had been reduced. The mention of the cargo belonging to the Company emphasised the importance of protecting commercial goods, which justified the request for assistance. The testimony regarding Captain Doctor’s promise showed that goods from Company stores could be used in private arrangements, subject to agreement, indicating the availability of such resources for negotiated purposes. The agreement by Mr Coulson to receive goods to a fixed value demonstrated that such transactions were quantified and treated as obligations. The recording of sworn testimony from multiple witnesses reflected the importance of corroboration in establishing the facts of such agreements. Speculations The promise to supply goods from Company stores suggests that individuals in positions of authority may have exercised discretion over Company resources, implying potential flexibility or misuse. The agreement for goods to a stated value indicates that such exchanges could substitute for monetary payment, suggesting a system where goods functioned as currency in local dealings. The need to formally record these statements implies concern about the legitimacy of the transaction, suggesting that such arrangements may have been subject to scrutiny or dispute. | |
84 | [...] Consideration that Mr Coulson hath made It is Ordered That Mr Coulson doe accept of goods of the store pay from Mr Tho[ma]s [Cla][n]ton Complaines of the Wilson Tho[ma]s and William both not denying the said Debt, but Which the said Tho[ma]s doth acknowledge proved Whereupon It is Ordered That the Judgement be Entred against the said John Road Complaines of William Wilson his And the said Wilson sayth that the Ground was not But the said Road alledged that part of that Bill Whereupon issue being joyned by both parties, and all Whereupon It is Ordered That the said Wilson doe pay to the said Road the summe Mr [B][r]own Complaines of John Wilson [...] saith that he hath received of John Hearing heard all that could be said by both | Consideration having been made that Mr Coulson had entered into an agreement with Captain Doctor, whereby the said Doctor was to deliver goods to her, and that there might otherwise be damage in the absence of a just demand upon the Company’s stores, it was ordered that Mr Coulson should accept such goods from the said Doctor as he was to deliver to her upon demand in satisfaction. Mr Thomas Clanton complained against William Wilson for the non-payment of a bill of forty shillings. William Wilson did not deny the debt, but stated that it was to be satisfied in goods from the Honourable Company’s stores. Thomas Clanton acknowledged that such an arrangement had been proposed and that it had been authorised by a previous order of the Governor, but that it had not been performed according to agreement. Whereupon it was ordered that judgement should be entered against William Wilson for the said debt. John Road complained against William Wilson, his father, for the sum of three shillings for labour performed for him and his son. William Wilson stated that the work was not to be paid in money, but that he had already provided compensation in goods, as appeared by a bill. John Road alleged that part of that bill related to other work he had performed for the son and not to the present claim. Issue being joined by both parties and the matter being referred to the Governor and Council for determination, it was ordered that William Wilson should pay to John Road the sum of eighteen shillings and the costs of suit in full satisfaction of the debt and demand. Mr Brown complained against John Wilson concerning a small matter arising from the killing [...]. It was stated by John Wilson that he had already made some payment and that the work performed had been upon a former account, though the present matter related to the killing [...]. After hearing all that was said by both parties, [...] Interpretations The order allowing Mr Coulson to accept goods in satisfaction of a debt shows that obligations could be discharged in kind rather than in money. Goods from the Company’s stores functioned as a recognised means of payment. The judgement against William Wilson demonstrates that failure to perform an agreed method of payment, even if authorised, resulted in enforcement of the original debt. Agreements had to be fulfilled as arranged. The dispute between John Road and William Wilson shows that labour was commonly compensated through goods as well as money, and that disagreements could arise over how such payments were allocated between different tasks. The increase of the awarded sum from the claimed three shillings to eighteen shillings indicates that the court considered the broader account between the parties rather than a single claim in isolation. The involvement of the Governor and Council in resolving these disputes reflects their role as a central judicial authority on the island. Speculations The repeated use of goods from the Company’s stores to settle debts suggests that cash may have been scarce, leading to reliance on material goods as a medium of exchange. The disputes over accounts imply that record-keeping and clarity in agreements were limited, which may have led to frequent disagreements requiring formal adjudication. The escalation of the claim in the case of John Road suggests that underlying tensions or accumulated grievances could surface in individual disputes, leading to more substantial settlements than initially claimed. | |
85 | It is Ordered That the said Mudge doe forthwith pay the sum Tuesday the 1ˢᵗ of Janʸʳ 168[8/9] the Court Jnᵒ Knipes Complaines of Bridgett Coales, that a Bridgett Coales being sworne saith that shee never Jnᵒ Smith being sworne saith that one day hee Tho Coales being sworne saith that he knowes not Mary Smith being sworne saith that shee was also Jnᵒ Coales being sworne saith that when the said Knipes Jnᵒ [...] | It was ordered that Mudge should forthwith pay the sum of twenty shillings to Downing, together with the costs of suit. On Tuesday 1 January 1689 the Court of Justice was continued. John Knipes complained against Bridget Coales, alleging that a contract of marriage had been agreed between them upon promise made before the Governor and Council, and that she had afterwards refused to perform the same. He therefore requested that she be compelled to perform the contract and to marry him according to her promise. Bridget Coales, being sworn, stated that she had never given John Knipes any promise. John Smith, being sworn, stated that on one occasion, being in company with John Knipes and Bridget Coales, discourse arose concerning a marriage between them. He stated that John Knipes asked Bridget Coales whether she would have him, and that she answered that she would marry him if he would have her, but that she afterwards said she would not have him. Thomas Coales, being sworn, stated that he knew nothing of any contract between John Knipes and Bridget Coales, and that he had heard John Knipes say that he had no promise from her. He further stated that John Knipes had attempted to take her by boat some miles towards another ship, but that she, being afraid, returned to shore. Mary Smith, being sworn, stated that she had been present at the time when John Knipes and Bridget Coales were speaking of marriage, and that she heard Bridget Coales say that she would not marry him. John Coales, being sworn, stated that when John Knipes first came to the island he accompanied him about the country, and that afterwards John Knipes came to his house where Bridget Coales was. He stated that John Knipes asked her whether she would marry him, and that she answered that she would not have him. He further stated that he had been informed by others that she had at one time said she would marry him, but that she afterwards denied it. John [...] Interpretations The complaint shows that alleged promises of marriage could be brought before the court and treated as matters requiring formal determination. The conflicting testimony demonstrates that verbal agreements were difficult to prove, particularly when statements were inconsistent or later withdrawn. The reliance on multiple witnesses indicates that the court required corroboration to establish whether a binding promise had been made. The distinction between conditional statements and firm promises appears to have been significant, as expressions such as “if he would have her” were open to interpretation. The reference to an attempted removal by boat suggests that disputes over marriage could involve concerns about coercion or personal safety. Speculations The disagreement over whether a promise had been made suggests that informal courtship arrangements could lead to legal conflict when expectations differed. The variation in witness accounts implies that social pressures or personal loyalties may have influenced testimony. The attempt to compel marriage indicates that such promises, if proven, could carry serious obligations, suggesting that marriage agreements were treated with considerable weight. | |
86 | [...] further discourse they agreed to draw lots This informant Jnᵒ Knipes saith that Jnᵒ Smith Mary Smith of the Roade who was also there Further the said Jnᵒ Knipes saith that on or | Further evidence was given in the matter between John Knipes and Bridget Coales. It was stated that, after further discussion, it was agreed between them to draw lots to determine who should appoint the day of marriage. Mary Smith was to prepare the lots, and whoever drew the longest lot was to appoint the day. John Knipes drew the longest lot three times in succession. Bridget Coales then objected, suspecting that the lots had not been fairly made, and requested that another person prepare them. Her brother, Thomas Coales, then made the lots, and Bridget Coales drew the longest lot twice. They then agreed to draw again, and John Knipes drew the longest lot three times more. John Knipes then asked whether the marriage should take place while the ship lay in the road, to which Bridget Coales replied that, if matters came to the worst, she had seven pounds and would work to obtain three pounds more rather than marry him. John Knipes further stated that John Smith had struck him to the ground in the presence of Bridget Coales. He also stated that after supper Bridget Coales complained that she felt unwell from being too full, and when he addressed her affectionately, she responded with abusive language and threatened him, holding a knife in her hand. Mary Smith of the Road, being sworn, confirmed that after supper Bridget Coales had complained of being too full, and that when John Knipes spoke to her, she responded with abusive language and rejected him. John Knipes further stated that on another occasion, at the Cook’s house, Bridget Coales had sat in the lap of one of the gunners of the ship Modena from evening until about eleven at night, during which time she was kissed and embraced by the man. He stated that she would not allow him to approach her, and that when they later returned home, she refused to go to bed. He sat beside her and asked why she treated him with such disregard and whether he was not as good as the other man. He stated that she called him a dunce and a dog, compared him to an old dog belonging to her father, and told him to go about his business. He stated that he considered himself ill-treated but received nothing from her except contemptuous words. Interpretations The use of drawing lots to determine the date of marriage suggests that informal methods could be employed in personal agreements, though such methods did not necessarily establish a binding contract. The repeated objections and changes in the process indicate uncertainty and disagreement, undermining the reliability of any supposed agreement. The statement by Bridget Coales that she would rather pay money than marry shows a clear refusal, which would weigh against the existence of a binding promise. The testimony regarding threats and abusive language reflects the breakdown of relations between the parties and suggests that mutual consent was absent. The reference to her conduct with another man was introduced to demonstrate her unwillingness to marry John Knipes, though such evidence related more to behaviour than to the existence of a contract. The presence of multiple witnesses and the recording of their statements shows the court’s reliance on corroborated testimony in determining such disputes. Speculations The resort to drawing lots suggests that the parties may not have had a clear or formal agreement, indicating uncertainty from the outset. The emphasis on Bridget Coales’s behaviour with others implies that John Knipes sought to strengthen his claim by portraying her conduct as inconsistent with a promise to him. The hostility and conflict described suggest that personal disputes could escalate into formal legal proceedings when expectations of marriage were not met. | |
87 | Mary Booles saith that shee did see the said Bridgett Jnᵒ Bridgett Coales being sworne saith that shee did never Knipes saith that on the first day that he did Mary Booles saith that shee did also see the said Bridgett Bridgett Coales was asked what shee could say Upon serious consideration of the whole matter It is Ordered That Bridgett Coales doe pay to the said Knipes | Mary Bowles, being sworn, stated that she saw Bridget Coales sit upon the knee of the butcher [...] in the house, and that the butcher kissed Bridget Coales many times. Bridget Coales, being sworn, stated that she had not willingly allowed the butcher to kiss her, nor had she encouraged such behaviour. John Knipes stated that he had seen Bridget Coales willingly permit the butcher to kiss her, and that she spoke abusively to him, calling him rogue and dog, and using other profane and contemptuous language, behaving in a disorderly manner. Mary Bowles further stated that she heard Bridget Coales declare that she would not marry John Knipes, and that if she did, she would leave him within a day and a night, and that she would have him for nothing. Bridget Coales, when questioned, stated that John Knipes had spoken against her reputation and had told Mary Bowles that he wondered whom she would choose for a husband, although she had been engaged. She further stated that he had reported that she was with child and had spread other damaging claims, which caused her to dislike him and to treat him as she did. After full consideration of the matter, and of Bridget Coales’s conduct towards John Knipes, and the complaint that she had refused to fulfil a supposed promise of marriage, it was ordered that Bridget Coales should pay John Knipes ten pounds within ten days, and a further five pounds towards his expenses in London connected with the case. It was also ordered that Bridget Coales should be committed to prison until she entered into security to pay the ten pounds and ensure performance, unless a later agreement was made between them. | |
88 | Bridgett Coales Complaining of the Knipes in John Knipes denyed the Accus[e] Th[om]as Claxton being sworn saith that Mary Harmon saith that Bridgett Coales did Mary Booles saith that Bridgett Coales did say to the Upon the whole Matter It is Ordered Henry Coales Complaining of the Dowring in The Dowring denies the Acct was so proved Accordingly Henry Coales did declare in the Account It is Ordered Tuesday after noone Court Continued Thomas Smale complaining of Thomas Sherwin Tho Sherwin denyed he owed the said Thomas | Bridget Coales complained against John Knipes in an action of defamation. John Knipes denied the accusation. Thomas Claxton, being sworn, stated that John Knipes came to Mary’s house and spoke about Bridget Coales. During the discourse, there was talk of household matters, including bread and beef, and Mary remarked upon having a good husband and good housekeeping. John Knipes replied that he would not have anything connected with Bridget Coales, and spoke in a disparaging manner concerning her condition and character. Mary Harmon, being sworn, stated that Bridget Coales had said that John Knipes, described as a butcher, was a lecher, alleging that Mary Harmon had gone to bed with him. John Knipes responded that if that were so, then both parties were of disreputable behaviour. Mary Bowles, being sworn, stated that Bridget Coales spoke to John Knipes in a manner implying disapproval of his conduct, and that in the course of the exchange words were used suggesting immoral behaviour. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that John Knipes be fined [...] pounds to Bridget Coales. Henry Coales complained against Dowring in an action of debt for four cows and two steers. Dowring denied the account. Henry Coales declared in his own hand and upon oath that there was due to him the sum of £4 : 9 : 18. It was ordered that Henry Coales should have judgement against Dowring, and that execution be granted accordingly. On Tuesday afternoon the court was continued. Thomas Smale complained against Thomas Sherwin Claxton in an action of debt. Thomas Sherwin denied that he owed Thomas Smale anything. | |
89 | [...] the opening of this action at law, on both sides, it was It is Ordered That the differences by both pties, to an Arbitration [...] | Upon the opening of the action at law on both sides, it was found that the matter was too difficult and too costly to continue in court. A proposal was therefore made that it should be decided by way of arbitration. This was put forward by the judge, referring the matter to the Governor and Council. Both parties agreed to this course and openly promised to abide by whatever award should be made for the final determination of their differences. It was ordered that the dispute between both parties should be referred to arbitration by the Governor and Council, in accordance with their mutual agreement and promise. | |
90 | [...] Helena Att a Consultation held on Wensday the 8ᵗʰ Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Mr Charles Moore and the persons under named The sume Attending as Exᵖᵗ att 3 To Carters food and workeing worke .... 00 12 00 For keeping of Mr Davys two black boyes To Mr Moore for goods bought in Novʳ and Decʳ .... 03 09 06 To the Coopers for Worke and labour .... 00 13 00 For Extraordinary Charges of the said Estate .... 02 06 00 To ye sume for Commission of 10 p cent [...] and Considered It is Ordered That they be allowed and that a warrant be granted Whereas it appears in the Acct of Mr Davis Estate Debtor It is Ordered That the said Ballance be Immediately taken care of and | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Wednesday 8 January 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Charles Moore, together with others concerned, produced an account showing receipts and payments made from the estate under his charge, dated 8 of the previous month. At the same time, a number of claims were presented for debts, charges, and expenses relating to that estate, as follows: For attendance at the second sale of goods £0 : 4 : 8 These items were examined and approved. Authority was therefore given for the administrator to discharge these sums from the estate in accordance with the account. The accounts further showed that a remaining balance of the estate was still held by Charles Moore. Directions were given that this balance should be secured and applied towards meeting outstanding payments due on behalf of the estate. It was also directed that goods from the Company’s stores, including shipping materials and ordnance, should be issued to Charles Moore for the same purpose. Captain John Turner offered to stand as guarantor for this balance. It was therefore directed that he should enter into a bond to secure its payment. | |
91 | [...] Moore and Mr Knipes Administrators To the sume for Commission of £3 13 s 04 d .... 03 13 04 All wᶜʰ Demands having bin Examined and Considered It is Ordered That they be allowed and a Warrant granted to the Whereas it appears in the Acct of Marks Landon Estate It is Ordered That this Balance be immediately taken out of the said Mr Moore [...] James Wakeford and Mr Long Claxton have bin lately It is Ordered That the said Wakeford and Long be each fined 5 s for drunkenness And that they doe presently pay these fines Rich Gurling and Tho Ellis having bin also It is Ordered That the said Gurling and Ellis be each of them fined 5 s The Company Elects James Crake having desired | Charles Moore and John Knipes, acting as administrators of the estate of Mark Landon deceased, delivered an account showing the goods they had received and sold, together with the sums paid and disbursed from the estate under a warrant dated 9 September last. They also submitted several claims and debts to be satisfied from that estate, as follows: For commission £3 13s 4d These demands were examined and approved. Authority was given for the administrator to discharge these sums from the estate in accordance with the account. The accounts further showed that a balance of £18 10s 1d remained in the hands of Charles Moore. Directions were given that this balance should be secured and applied towards payments due for the use of the estate. James Wakeford and John Long Claxton were found to have committed several offences, including drunkenness, quarrelling, and breach of the peace, all of which they admitted. Each was fined 5 shillings for drunkenness, [...] for swearing, and 6 shillings for breach of the peace, and payment was required before discharge. Richard Gurling and Thomas Ellis were also found to have been drunk in company with Wakeford and Claxton. Each was fined 5 shillings, to be paid before discharge. James Crake requested an additional labourer to assist him in the work he already held on the island. Theophilus Gonsalves petitioned for permission to depart from the island in Crake’s employment. | |
92 | It is Ordered That the said Jones shall be dismissed out [...] St Helena Att a Consultation held on Monday the 21ᵗʰ Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ [...] Clawton did this day desire that his It is Ordered That the said Mr Crady wife and Daughter have [...] | It was ordered that Jones should be dismissed from the service and pay of the Honourable Company on Saturday 19 January 1689 and be granted permission to go on board the ship for England, provided that all debts on the island were settled before departure. Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Monday 21 January 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor [...] Clawton requested that his [...] and his daughter Martha Crady be permitted to leave the island for England in the Little James, Crady declaring good behaviour and willingness for the voyage. Permission was granted for Crady’s wife and daughter to depart accordingly. | |
93 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Fryday the Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ [...] Gurling Samˡ Taylor and Thomas Burch It is Ordered That the sd Gurling Taylor and Burch shall have lycense Geo Long having formerly Confesed of the sd killing one of It is Ordered That the sd Long doe accordingly forthwith pay or cause to [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Friday 25 January 1689. Those present were John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Richard Gurling, Samuel Taylor, and Thomas Burch Clanton requested permission to sell and retail strong liquor, rum, and tobacco for the coming year. Permission was granted to Gurling, Taylor, and Burch to retail liquor, on condition that they paid what the Right Honourable Company required and gave security to observe the rules and orders imposed upon retailers. George Long, having previously confessed to killing one of the Right Honourable Company’s cattle when the good ship Moone was in the road, appeared again. Nothing was offered in his defence except a plea for favour and pity, reference being made to his wife and three small children. Consideration was then given to the valuation placed upon the animal by Mr Bagley, who assessed its true value at £3 10s 0d. The Company’s order applicable to such a case was then consulted. It was ordered that Long should immediately pay, or cause to be paid, to the Company’s receiver the full value of the animal together with three times that value more, amounting in all to £14 0s 0d. This payment was to be made in good bills, in salt, in a bill from a commander of a ship, or in beef or salt, according to Captain Holden’s choice. Because Long had confessed his offence and appeared very penitent, Company punishment was for the present suspended. Interpretations The grant of licences to retail liquor, rum, and tobacco shows that such trade was controlled through formal permission rather than left open to general sale. Retailing functioned as a regulated privilege, tied to payment and to compliance with prescribed rules. The requirement that the retailers give security indicates that licence-holders were bound in advance to proper conduct. This provided a mechanism for enforcement if the conditions of retailing were broken. The valuation of the killed animal by Mr Bagley shows that loss to the Company was converted into an assessed monetary sum before penalty was imposed. Compensation was therefore based upon an official valuation rather than private bargaining. The order requiring payment of the animal’s value plus three times more demonstrates a punitive multiplication of the loss rather than simple restitution. The offence was treated not merely as damage to property but as a punishable breach against Company interests. The acceptance of several forms of payment, including bills, salt, beef, and a commander’s bill, shows that debts to the Company could be satisfied in different kinds of recognised value where ready money may not have been available. The suspension of further punishment after confession and apparent remorse shows that discretion remained with the authorities even after liability had been established. Penalty could therefore be moderated by behaviour after the offence. Speculations The licensing of three named retailers for the coming year probably reflects an attempt to limit and supervise the sale of drink and tobacco by concentrating it in approved hands. This would have reduced unlicensed trading and made enforcement easier. The requirement that Long pay four times the appraised value suggests that the Company intended to deter further killing of its stock by making the financial consequence much heavier than the immediate loss alone. The choice left to Captain Holden over the form of payment probably served to ensure that the Company received whatever commodity or instrument was most useful at that moment, rather than whatever Long found easiest to provide. | |
94 | Island St Helena Att a Generall Court of Justice held on Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ Whereas Information having bin given that It is Ordered That the sd Sherrin and Price shall be confined And Booker Gunn mate confessed his Crime to be It is Ordered That he be continued in prison as long as the Being informed that Rachowin lately went word | Island of St Helena At a general court of justice held on Monday 30 April 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Information was received that Thomas Sherrin, Samuel Price, and Booker Gunn, a mate, had gone on board the ship Bengall Merchant during the night on the previous Friday. Entry had been made into the cabin of Mr Jones, where they remained until the following night and into the next day. They were therefore committed to prison. On the following day they confessed their offences, stated that this was their first such misconduct, and promised not to repeat it. It was also admitted that they had been drinking beforehand and had become intoxicated, leading to profane behaviour in breach of the Company’s orders. Consideration was given to the view that ignorance, combined with previous leniency, had encouraged boldness in disobeying orders. Confinement in prison was ordered for Sherrin and Price for the duration of the stay of the ship Bengall Merchant in the road. Each was also required to pay a fine of half a dollar for drunkenness and to forfeit half of his earnings. Booker Gunn, having confessed to the same offence, requested leniency and promised not to offend again. However, it was noted that he had previously shown a tendency towards such misconduct and was not considered fit to perform the duties of a gunner’s mate. Continued confinement was ordered for the duration of the ship’s stay, followed by dismissal from his position as gunner’s mate. He was instead required to serve the Honourable Company as a private soldier for the remainder of his contracted term. Information was also received that Rachowin had recently sent word by the ship Boston to Prince, and that while on board the same vessel he had arranged for certain goods or carts to be brought ashore [...]. Interpretations Unauthorised boarding of a ship and entry into a private cabin was treated as a serious breach of order, particularly when combined with drunkenness. Control over ships in the road formed part of maintaining discipline and security in the harbour. Confinement for the duration of a ship’s stay indicates that punishment could be tied to a specific circumstance rather than a fixed term. The presence of the vessel appears to have been the relevant context for the offence. The forfeiture of half earnings shows that wages functioned as a disciplinary mechanism. Financial penalties were directly linked to labour obligations and could be reduced as punishment. The dismissal of Booker Gunn from his role as gunner’s mate and reassignment as a private soldier demonstrates that rank and function within the Company’s service could be altered as a consequence of misconduct. Office was conditional upon behaviour and competence. The reference to repeated misconduct in Gunn’s case indicates that prior behaviour was taken into account in determining punishment, even when the immediate offence was similar to that of others. Speculations The decision to confine Sherrin and Price only while the ship remained in the road perhaps reflects concern about preventing further interference with that vessel rather than imposing a long-term punishment. The harsher treatment of Booker Gunn suggests that maintaining reliability in specialised roles, such as a gunner’s mate, was considered essential, and that repeated misconduct made him unsuitable for such responsibility. The combination of fines and loss of earnings likely served to reinforce discipline by making misconduct immediately costly, particularly in a setting where monetary resources were limited. | |
95 | [...] them not to return that night wherefore [...] follow having Information against them who denyed those words speaking wrong, yet confessed that themselves were not long soe back to the aforesaid [...] Jn Wilson being sworn saith that being at Custom house from to lookeing after ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ goods there harbour, Joh Price gave ye sd words [...] and yt he should take Price’s shovell and throw [...] and throwd for the house, the sd words mentioned on ye Rocks Michᵃˡ Price being sworn saith yt being one of them guilty to haveing spoken to say the words, which he was sorry for, and therefore submitted himself to ye Court to come on shoar too night Upon the whole matter It is Ordered That they immediately receive such punishmt for the sd offence, which being accordingly was inflicted on them Rich Griffin Clanton complaining of Wᵐ Clanton in an action of defamation in saying that he the sd Griffin had loyns of his Hoggs Tho Wilson deny not positively ye accusation, but altogather saith that some one may have spoke him between them, and that he also saith Griffin did lye his Hoggs, there he said his Hoggs were by Richard Gaston, given in ye Mannor from a person that gave Henry Kersy being sworn saith yt Thomas Clanton had declared to them that he saw ye sd Wilson give Griffin and him, that Griffin did lye his Hoggs Upon the whole It is Ordered That the sd Wilson be aquitted of this suit, and that he be bound unto ye sd Griffin in ten pounds, to be of good behaviour, and the same to goe to ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ for this his misdemeanour Jno Smout who entered ye Books long since about tenne or more yeares, which term is now ended this day next, now declared that he should not serve the said Company any longer time being not able to pay ye Rent [...] | […] information was given that certain persons had been warned not to return that night. Further complaint was made against them, which they denied in part, although it was admitted that they had not long been absent from the place previously mentioned […]. John Wilson, being sworn, stated that while he was at the Custom House attending to the Honourable Company’s goods in the harbour, John Price spoke the words in question […] and declared that he would take Price’s shovel and throw […], and that the words had been spoken upon the rocks. Michael Price, being sworn, admitted that he had spoken the words and expressed regret, submitting himself to the court and requesting to be allowed to come ashore that night. After consideration of the matter, it was ordered that they should immediately receive punishment for the offence, which was carried out accordingly. Richard Griffin Clanton brought a complaint against William Clanton in an action of defamation, alleging that he had said Griffin had stolen or taken his hogs. Thomas Wilson did not fully deny the accusation but stated that the report may have come from another person, and further alleged that Griffin had taken hogs, saying they had been given to him by Richard Gaston. Henry Kersy, being sworn, stated that Thomas Clanton had declared that he had seen William Clanton accuse Griffin of taking hogs. After consideration, it was ordered that William Clanton should be acquitted of the suit. He was, however, required to enter into a bond of £10 0s 0d for good behaviour, payable to the Honourable Company for this misconduct. John Smout, who had entered into the Company’s service about ten or more years previously and whose term now ended, declared that he would not continue in the Company’s service any longer, stating that he was unable to pay the rent […]. Interpretations The swift infliction of punishment following admission of wrongdoing shows that minor offences could be dealt with summarily without prolonged proceedings, particularly where confession was made. The reference to the Custom House indicates a controlled point for the management of Company goods, where oversight of cargo and harbour activity formed part of official duties. The requirement for a bond of £10 0s 0d for good behaviour demonstrates a preventive legal mechanism. Instead of immediate punishment alone, a financial obligation was imposed to deter future misconduct, with the Company as beneficiary. The acquittal in the defamation case suggests that insufficient or uncertain evidence could lead to dismissal of the main charge, even when some misconduct was still recognised and penalised separately. The declaration by John Smout that he would not continue service at the end of his term shows that service to the Company was structured by fixed periods, after which continuation depended on willingness and capacity, including the ability to meet financial obligations such as rent. Speculations The immediate punishment following confession probably reflects an intention to maintain discipline efficiently without burdening the court with extended proceedings in straightforward cases. The imposition of a bond despite acquittal suggests that the court aimed to manage ongoing tensions between individuals by securing future good conduct rather than resolving all underlying disputes. The mention of Smout’s inability to pay rent may indicate that financial pressure influenced decisions to leave Company service, suggesting a link between economic conditions and labour retention on the island. | |
96 | Edwᵈ Ashford desired that he might hire of the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ one Negro youth named Robin late under Gunnery for one yeare Wherefore It is Ordered & Agreed to him That he have ye sd Negro for one yeare he continuing paying the sd hire, besides paying for his victualls and apparell, and that he maintaine what sufficient Maintenance, according to the Articles of Agreement signed by him Whereas in ye Consultation July 30ᵗʰ 1683 Jn Knapp of Blackhead Plantation was to be bound to learn George Cranton to live and allow him two pence a day in the mean tyme, to teach him ye trade of a Taylor and give him some clothes, and the sd Orphan free and to allow him a years wages Now Jn Knapp Clanton having desired that he have the sd Orphan for his Apprenticeship for the term of seven yeares, promising to teach him the trade of a Taylor and also to feed and cloath him with English It is Agreed & accordingly Ordered That ye sd Jn Knapp shall have ye sd Orphan for the said Apprenticeship from the 29ᵗʰ of March last past 1689 until eight yeares be fully accomplished keeping maintaining and clothing ye sd Orphan and for the better performing whereof he shall give sufficient security, and also the sd Orphan to have two suits of apparell every yeare, one of English Cloath and another of Canvas, and the sd Knapp to teach him to read and write English, and further ye sd Knapp is not to alien or remove the sd Orphan from the sd Plantation without the consent of the Governor & Councell being all which Agreements to be drawn into Articles of Indenture J. Blackmore Robᵗ Holden [...] | Edward Ashford requested permission to hire from the Right Honourable Company a black youth named Robin, who had formerly been under the gunner, for the term of one year. It was agreed and ordered that Robin should be hired to Ashford for one year, on condition that the agreed hire was paid, that Ashford bore the cost of food and clothing, and that proper maintenance was provided in accordance with the articles of agreement signed by him. Reference was then made to a consultation of 30 July 1683, in which John Knapp of Blackhead Plantation had been required to take an orphan, George Cranton, into service, allowing him two pence a day while teaching him the trade of a tailor, providing clothing, and granting him freedom at the end of the term together with a year’s wages. John Knapp Clanton then requested that he be allowed to take the same orphan as an apprentice for a term of seven years, undertaking to teach him tailoring and to provide food and clothing in English style. It was agreed and ordered that Knapp should take the orphan into apprenticeship, commencing from 29 March 1689, and continuing until eight full years had been completed. During this period, the orphan was to be maintained and clothed, and Knapp was required to provide sufficient security to ensure performance of these obligations. The apprentice was to receive two sets of clothing each year, one made of English cloth and the other of canvas. Instruction was also to be given in reading and writing English. Removal of the apprentice from the plantation was not permitted without the consent of the Governor and Council. All these terms were to be formalised in articles of indenture. John Blackmore Interpretations The hiring of Robin shows that Company-owned slaves could be leased out for fixed terms, with responsibility for subsistence transferred to the hirer. This arrangement combined revenue generation with delegated labour management. The requirement that Ashford both pay hire and maintain the slave indicates a dual obligation, separating ownership from day-to-day care while ensuring the Company bore no maintenance cost during the term. The apprenticeship arrangement imposed on Knapp demonstrates a system in which orphans could be bound into long-term labour training. This served both as social provision and as a means of creating skilled workers within the settlement. The obligation to teach reading and writing English alongside a trade shows that apprenticeship could include basic education where it supported integration into Company structures. The requirement to provide annual clothing of specified types reflects a regulated standard of maintenance, ensuring minimum provision while also reinforcing distinctions between materials and status. The restriction on removing the apprentice without approval indicates that labour was tied to place and subject to oversight, preventing transfer or relocation without authority. The requirement for security shows that apprenticeship obligations were enforceable through financial or legal guarantees, ensuring compliance with agreed terms. The use of indenture formalised the relationship as a binding legal contract, defining rights and obligations over a fixed term. Speculations The extension of the apprenticeship term from the earlier arrangement to eight years may have been intended to ensure a longer period of productive labour in return for training and maintenance. The specification of English clothing and instruction in literacy suggests an intention to shape the apprentice into a culturally and functionally integrated member of the English colonial community. The prohibition on removing the apprentice from the plantation without consent may have been designed to prevent the loss or misuse of trained labour, especially where skills acquired would have had economic value. | |
97 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Tuesday the 9ᵗʰ of Aprill 1689 att Fort James Present Jn Blackmore Govʳ Robᵗ Holden Depʸ Govʳ Rich Keeling Ensign Whereas in the Court of Justice held ye 5ᵗʰ of Aprill last past Tho Smout Clanton exhibited a Complaint against Jno Sherrin Clanton, for non payment of a debt due unto him ye sd Smout of 30£ which upon opening of the and Examining both their Accᵗ at large there was found much difficulty and obscureness in them, soe yt the controversy could not suddenly be cleared up in order to a finall determination at that tyme, Thereupon a motion was made for a Reference, and both partys by joynt consent did in open Court refer their whole differences unto ye Govʳ & Councell to hear determine ye same, whereunto they did both Engage to stand, and be concluded We having spent some houres this day both in Exami nation of ye sd partys papers, Accts and Demand particularly a Bond Bill given by ye sd Smout to Sherrin, we found ye sd Sherrin to be indebted to the sd Smout a considerable sume of money, but also not being satisfyed what ye sd Sherrin demanded by way of reprizes, and knowing that ye sd Smout is in arreare to ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ for ye Cargoes sometime since Consigned to him, Wee did upon a very serious and solemn debate agree and conclude, as the most likely way of a finall determination of this controversy, and for Reimbursing ye Honᵇˡᵉ Masters to Order And It is Ordered That an Accᵗ of the differences between the sd Sherrin and Smout be forthwith prepared in Order to its being transmitted to the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ by the said Ship Bengall Merchant, together with a Coppy of ye sd Bond Bill, and that ye whole controversy be humbly referred unto their Honᵇˡᵉ Arbitration for a full and finall Determination But withall It is Agreed and Ordered That a true Inventory of all ye goods ready of ye sd Sherrin on ye sd Island be immediately taken and secured, untill the sd Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ pleasure, and a deduction be signified thereout, that soe what the sd Sherrin shall by their Justice be awarded to pay unto the said [...] | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Tuesday 9 April 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor A complaint had been brought in the court of justice on 5 April 1689 by Thomas Smout Clanton against John Sherrin Clanton for non-payment of a debt of £30 0s 0d. When both accounts were examined in detail, considerable difficulty and uncertainty were found, so that the dispute could not be resolved at that time. By mutual consent, the entire matter was referred in open court to the Governor and Council for determination, with both parties agreeing to abide by the outcome. Several hours were spent examining the papers, accounts, and claims presented by both sides, including a bond bill given by Smout to Sherrin. It was found that Sherrin owed Smout a substantial sum, but uncertainty remained regarding the claims Sherrin made in set-off. It was also known that Smout was in arrears to the Right Honourable Company for cargoes previously consigned to him. After careful consideration, it was concluded that the most suitable course for resolving the dispute and securing repayment to the Company was to refer the matter onward. It was ordered that a full account of the dispute between Sherrin and Smout be prepared without delay and transmitted to the Right Honourable Company by the ship Bengall Merchant, together with a copy of the bond bill. The entire case was to be referred to the Company for final determination. It was further agreed and ordered that a complete inventory of all goods belonging to Sherrin on the island be immediately taken and secured until the Company’s decision was known, so that any sum awarded against him might be satisfied from those assets […] Interpretations The referral of the dispute from the local court to the Governor and Council shows that complex financial disagreements could be escalated within the island’s administrative hierarchy when ordinary proceedings proved insufficient. The further referral to the Company indicates that ultimate authority in significant commercial disputes rested with the central governing body rather than the island administration. The bond bill functioned as a formal financial instrument, providing written evidence of obligation that could be examined and transmitted as part of the case. The mention of claims in set-off shows that debts could be balanced against counterclaims, requiring detailed accounting rather than simple repayment. The taking and securing of an inventory of Sherrin’s goods demonstrates a precautionary measure to preserve assets pending judgment, ensuring that funds would be available to satisfy any eventual award. The reference to Smout being in arrears to the Company reveals that private disputes were considered alongside wider obligations to the Company, linking individual debts to broader financial accountability. Speculations The decision to transmit the case to the Company rather than resolve it locally probably reflects both the complexity of the accounts and the involvement of Company interests, making external judgment more authoritative. The securing of Sherrin’s goods suggests concern that assets might otherwise be removed or dissipated before a decision was reached, indicating a preventative approach to enforcement. The emphasis on reimbursing the Company alongside settling the dispute between the parties implies that recovery of Company funds was a central priority influencing how the case was handled. | |
98 | said Smout may be satisfyed, and that ye sd Smout On the Morrow morning if the sd Smout or Sherrin [...] Memorand That this Councell | Provision was made that, once the Right Honourable Company had determined the matter, the sum awarded against John Sherrin should be satisfied from the goods secured on the island, and that Thomas Smout should pay over to the Company such portion of that sum as they might direct. It was further agreed that, on the following morning, if Smout or Sherrin, or both, wished to take passage for England in the ship Bengall Merchant then lying in the road, or in any other ship present or arriving, permission would be granted so that each might present a defence before the Company. A memorandum recorded that this council covered proceedings from 26 January 1689 until 20 April 1689, and that it was sent by the Honourable Company’s ship Bengall Merchant, commanded by Captain William [...], which had sailed from Spithead for St Helena on Saturday 27 April 1689. Interpretations The direction that payment should be made from secured goods shows that enforcement of debts relied upon the prior seizure and control of assets, ensuring that any award could be realised in practice. The requirement that Smout pay over part of any recovered sum to the Company demonstrates that private disputes could intersect with Company claims, with the Company taking precedence in allocation. The grant of permission for both parties to travel to England indicates that litigants could pursue their case directly before the Company, reflecting a layered system of jurisdiction between the island and the metropolitan authority. The memorandum recording the transmission of proceedings shows that consultation records were formally compiled and dispatched, forming part of ongoing communication between the island administration and the Company. Speculations The option given to both parties to travel to England suggests that the outcome of the dispute may have depended on arguments or evidence best presented in person before the Company, rather than solely through written records. The forwarding of the council record over a defined period implies an organised reporting cycle, likely intended to keep the Company informed of governance, disputes, and financial matters in a structured manner. | |
99 | [...] St Helena Att a Consultation held on Wensday ye 10ᵗʰ Present Grace Coulson delivering her request for her Daughter It is Ordered [...] It is Ordered Joseph Wilks single man who came over a Souldier It is Ordered Edward Powell delivering a request for his son Gabriel It is Ordered | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Wednesday 10 April 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Grace Coulson submitted a request concerning her daughters. One daughter, Grace, aged about 18 years, had recently married Jonathan Reckbrough, a surgeon on the ship Bengall Merchant, and sought permission to travel to England in that vessel. A further request was made for her daughter Sarah, aged about 14 years, to travel to England in the ship Loyall Merchant, which had recently arrived in the road. Permission was granted for both daughters to depart, and licences were to be prepared and signed accordingly. Joseph Wilks, a single man who had arrived in 1683 as a soldier in the service of the Honourable Company, requested permission to return to England as a passenger in the ship Loyall Merchant. This request was granted. Edward Powell submitted a request for his son Gabriel, aged about 9 years, to travel to England in the ship Bengall Merchant, in the care of Thomas Bowry, who served him. Permission was granted. Interpretations The requirement for formal licences before departure shows that movement off the island was regulated and subject to official approval. Travel, even for personal or family reasons, required administrative authorisation. The mention of a marriage to a ship’s surgeon indicates that connections formed with visiting ship personnel could facilitate departure from the island, linking personal relationships to opportunities for mobility. The reference to Wilks’s earlier arrival as a soldier demonstrates that service terms could be finite, after which individuals might seek to return home, subject to approval. The arrangement for a child to travel under the supervision of a named servant shows that responsibility for minors during voyages was formally assigned, ensuring accountability during transit. Speculations The granting of multiple travel permissions at the same consultation suggests that the arrival of ships created limited windows for departure, prompting several individuals to seek leave at the same time. Allowing children and young persons to travel under supervision may have been intended to ensure their safety while also maintaining order by formally recording who was responsible for them during the voyage. | |
100 | [...] Jons desiring Licence for his son It is Ordered [...] | […] Jones requested permission for his son Phillip, aged about 10 years, to travel to England in the ship Loyall Merchant, of which William Denton was master, Phillip being placed as a servant or apprentice on that vessel. Permission was granted for this request. Robert Holden Interpretations The placing of Phillip as a servant or apprentice on board the ship indicates that passage could be arranged through service rather than simple fare, linking travel to labour obligations. The naming of the ship’s master shows that responsibility for the child’s supervision and placement was formally recognised, ensuring accountability during the voyage. The requirement for permission confirms that even minor departures from the island were subject to official oversight and recording. Speculations Arranging passage through apprenticeship or service may have been a practical means of securing a child’s transport where direct payment or independent travel was not feasible. The formal approval of such arrangements suggests an effort to ensure that c`hildren leaving the island did so under structured and supervised conditions rather than informally. | |
101 | [...] St Helena Att a Consultation held on Monday ye 22ᵈ Present [...] Howndale planter living under a sentence It is Ordered William Clifton a Souldier who had a sentence of Banishment It is Ordered [...] | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Monday 22 April 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Howndale, a planter who had been living under a sentence of banishment imposed at a court martial held on 22 April 1689, made his condition known following a motion associated with William Clifford, late President of Madras. A request was made for the sentence of banishment to be revoked. Great remorse was expressed, and the offender, kneeling, confessed his fault and promised not to commit any further offence that might incur the displeasure of the government. It was ordered that the offence should be forgiven on this occasion and that the sentence of banishment be revoked. However, the offender was required to enter into a recognisance for good behaviour for one year in the sum of £10 0s 0d, with a surety bound in £20 0s 0d. William Clifton, a soldier who had received a sentence of banishment at a court held on 24 January 1689 for swearing and for involvement in a seditious petition, was also considered. A request was made on his behalf by several commanders of the ship Loyall Merchant, who had brought him to the island. His conduct on board was described as orderly, and a plea was made for his sentence to be set aside. Clifton himself confessed his fault, promised not to offend again, and consideration was given to his youth, being under 20 years of age, as well as to the fact that this was his first offence on the island and that he had been influenced by others. It was ordered that the sentence of banishment be revoked. Clifton was permitted to remain on the island under the condition of good behaviour, with the prospect of being readmitted into the Honourable Company’s service as a soldier if his conduct proved satisfactory. Interpretations The revocation of a sentence of banishment shows that penalties imposed by court martial could be reconsidered and reversed by the Governor and Council, indicating a layered authority over military and civil discipline. The requirement to enter into a recognisance demonstrates a legal mechanism by which future conduct was secured through a financial obligation, enforceable if the terms of good behaviour were breached. The involvement of William Clifford, identified as a former President of Madras, suggests that influence or status within the wider Company hierarchy could support petitions for leniency. The consideration of age and prior conduct in Clifton’s case shows that punishment was not applied uniformly but could be adjusted according to personal circumstances and perceived culpability. The possibility of readmission to Company service indicates that exclusion from employment was not always permanent, and that discipline could be combined with opportunities for reintegration. Speculations The willingness to revoke sentences in both cases may reflect a practical need to retain labour and personnel on the island, particularly where offenders showed repentance and could still contribute to the settlement. The imposition of a recognisance rather than renewed punishment suggests an approach aimed at controlling future behaviour while avoiding the costs or disruption associated with enforcing banishment. The emphasis on Clifton’s youth and influence by others implies that the authorities sought to distinguish between principal instigators and those drawn into misconduct, adjusting penalties accordingly. | |
102 | [...] St Helena Att a Consultation held on Monday the Present [...] Wilgre[a]s Ralph Sayon Corpᵗ who ran away from It is Ordered Whereas there hath bin no Boat of ye It is Ordered | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Monday 13 May 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Ralph Sayon, a corporal, had absconded from the island in the small boat belonging to the Little James, which departed on 23 January 1689. Since that time, Drasmus Carlogno had performed most of the duties of that position and was considered a quiet and sober man. It was ordered that Drasmus Carlogno be appointed and sworn as corporal, and that he receive the salary attached to that rank, being 2 shillings per month from Thursday 15 May 1689. It was noted that no boat belonging to the Honourable Company had been available on the island for several months, which had caused inconvenience in various respects. A need was identified for a boat to be kept constantly ready, particularly for urgent occasions. A boat had recently been purchased from Captain Harding, commander of the ship Loyall Merchant, and it was considered necessary to appoint a responsible individual to oversee it. Robert Goodwin, having been found to be industrious, sober, and willing to undertake the responsibility, was appointed as coxswain. He was required to take custody of the boat, to be ready at all times to use it when directed, and to exercise care in its operation and preservation. Proper mooring was also required upon return to prevent damage so far as could be avoided through diligence and skill. Provision was to be made for his encouragement […] Interpretations The appointment of Carlogno following the desertion of a corporal shows that military roles were filled promptly to maintain order and continuity of command. The stated salary of 2 shillings per month indicates a fixed and relatively modest rate of pay for lower-ranking positions, reflecting a structured but limited wage system. The absence of a Company boat for several months highlights the importance of maritime equipment for communication, transport, and response within the island’s administration. The purchase of a boat from a ship’s commander demonstrates that essential infrastructure could be acquired opportunistically from visiting vessels rather than supplied centrally. The role of coxswain involved not only navigation but also responsibility for maintenance and safeguarding of equipment, showing that technical roles combined operational and custodial duties. The emphasis on readiness and proper mooring indicates concern with preserving valuable resources in a setting where replacement was difficult. Speculations The rapid promotion of Carlogno may reflect a need to stabilise discipline after the desertion of his predecessor, ensuring that authority at the lower ranks remained intact. The detailed instructions given to Goodwin suggest that the loss or damage of boats had previously caused difficulty, leading to stricter oversight and defined responsibility. The purchase of a boat from a passing ship may indicate that supply from the Company was irregular, requiring local initiative to address practical shortages. | |
103 | [...] It is further Ordered That ye sd Robᵗ Goodwin shall be freed from his Whereas Wᵐ Clifton having his sentence of Banishmᵗ It is Ordered Thomas Dixon soldier having bin Marshall to ye It is Ordered Also It is Ordered And Robᵗ late Servᵗ to Nathan having bin It is Ordered | It was further ordered that Robert Goodwin should be excused from duty as a sentry, except in extraordinary circumstances. In addition to his existing pay, he was to receive an allowance of one collar per month, bringing his total to 2 shillings per month. William Clifton, whose sentence of banishment had been revoked in the consultation of 22 April 1689, submitted a petition to be restored to the service of the Right Honourable Company as a sentry. He promised faithful and dutiful conduct, and his behaviour since the earlier decision had been orderly. It was ordered that Clifton be readmitted into service and that he should recommence duty on 1 May 1689, being the general pay day of the garrison. Thomas Dixon, a soldier who had served as marshal of the garrison and island for some time, requested to be relieved of that position. It was ordered that Dixon be discharged from the office of marshal and return to duty as a private soldier. It was also ordered that Robert Eddy, a soldier, be appointed as marshal of the garrison and island. He was to be excused from sentry duty and to receive the usual privileges attached to that office. Robert, formerly servant to Nathaniel […], had previously been convicted of a serious offence at a consultation held on 1 April 1689. As part of that judgment, he had been imprisoned, removed from his position as gunner’s mate, and assigned to serve as a private soldier for the remainder of his contracted term. It was ordered that William Waterson, who had been left sick on the island from the ship Susan, commanded by Captain Rogers, and had since […] Interpretations Exemption from sentry duty for Goodwin shows that specialised roles could release individuals from routine military obligations, reflecting a prioritisation of certain functions over general duties. The additional allowance described as a collar indicates a supplementary form of pay or provision attached to specific responsibilities, augmenting the standard wage. The reinstatement of Clifton into service demonstrates that disciplinary measures could be reversed and that individuals could regain status through subsequent good behaviour. The designation of a general pay day suggests that wages within the garrison were issued on a regular and coordinated schedule. The role of marshal appears to have combined administrative and enforcement functions within the garrison, carrying privileges and exemption from ordinary duties. The reassignment of individuals following misconduct, such as the reduction of rank, shows that discipline could involve reallocation of labour rather than dismissal. The reference to a person left sick from a ship indicates that crew members might remain on the island and become subject to local administrative decisions. Speculations The exemption of Goodwin from sentry duty likely reflects the importance of maintaining constant readiness of the boat, requiring his availability at all times. The reinstatement of Clifton soon after the revocation of his banishment suggests a practical need to maintain manpower within the garrison, particularly where individuals demonstrated improved conduct. The transfer of the marshal role from Dixon to Eddy may indicate either personal preference or the need to place the role in the hands of someone considered more suitable or reliable at that time. | |
104 | [...] Voyages to India as Gunnᵉʳ in ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Josiah Charlesworth & Rich Leach Church Therefore It is Ordered Thomas Horsdale & Rich Barram Overseers It is Ordered And It is further Ordered And Giles Balmer fisherman having bin allowed 12 p week to It is Ordered [...] | William Waterson, who had formerly made several voyages to India as a gunner in the service of the Right Honourable Company, was appointed as gunner’s mate from Thursday 16 May 1689. He was to receive the salary customarily allowed for that position upon performing its duties. Josiah Charlesworth and Richard Leach, who had served as churchwardens for the past three years, presented an account of the sums they had been authorised to collect from the inhabitants for the use of the church, including amounts received and those still outstanding. Upon examination, it was found that the warrant had not been effectively executed and that only a small portion had been collected, leaving more than £30 0s 0d in arrears. It was considered unreasonable to impose this burden on newly appointed churchwardens. It was therefore ordered that Charlesworth and Leach should continue in office and proceed without delay to enforce the warrant and collect the outstanding sums, paying them as directed. Thomas Horsdale and Richard Barram, who had served as overseers of the highways for the previous year, submitted an account listing those who had performed that duty, which was approved. It was ordered that Horsdale and Barram be discharged from that office. Thomas Barrham and Thomas Allison were appointed as surveyors of the highways for the year 1689. Giles Balmer, a fisherman who had been receiving an allowance of 12 pence per week to provide his own tools, was reported to have received some increase yet remained unable to supply himself with necessary equipment. It was ordered that while Balmer was employed in fishing he should not be assigned to other Company service or work, and that he should continue to receive his former allowance of 12 pence per week. Interpretations The appointment of Waterson shows that prior experience within the Company’s maritime service was recognised and could lead to advancement into technical roles on the island. The failure of the churchwardens to collect funds under warrant demonstrates that local administrative enforcement depended on active execution, and that arrears could accumulate when duties were not carried out. The decision to retain the same churchwardens rather than replace them indicates that responsibility for incomplete administrative tasks remained with those originally entrusted with them. The collection of funds for church use reflects a structured system of local contribution, enforced through official warrants rather than voluntary giving. The roles of overseers and surveyors of highways show that maintenance of infrastructure was organised through appointed local officers, with duties recorded and reviewed. The provision of a weekly allowance to a fisherman to supply his own tools indicates a form of support tied to productive labour, where equipment costs were partially subsidised. The restriction preventing Balmer from being assigned to other work shows that certain essential tasks, such as fishing, were prioritised and protected from competing labour demands. Speculations The reappointment of the same churchwardens to complete their collection duties suggests an effort to enforce accountability by requiring them to fulfil obligations already assigned rather than transferring the burden to others. The continued financial support for Balmer, despite his inability to equip himself adequately, may reflect the importance of maintaining a steady supply of fish for the settlement. The structured rotation of highway officials implies an organised system for distributing communal labour responsibilities across the population while maintaining oversight through recorded accounts. | |
105 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Wodday the Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govᵒʳ Whereas an Order was passed in a Consultation Therefore It is Ordered. It is further Ordered And It is also Ordered Whereas ye sd Jnᵒ Botno was lately out of ye [...] | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Wednesday 15 May 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Reference was made to an order and covenant issued on 23 July 1680 prohibiting gambling beyond the value of one day’s pay in a single day. Information was received that John Botno and Luke Fry had played cards on Tuesday 12 May 1689 at the house of John Marsh for 3½ dollars, being 21 shillings, which Botno had lost to Fry. Both men were called before the council and admitted the offence. It was ordered that Luke Fry immediately deposit the sum of 3½ dollars before the Governor and Council. He produced 5 shillings in silver and 7 shillings in copper, but did not produce the remaining dollar, stating that he had relied on William Marsh to pay it. Marsh acknowledged this and, upon being required, paid the remaining amount, bringing the total to 21 shillings. It was further ordered that Ensign Keling take custody of this money and apply it towards providing Botno with a suit of clothing, as he was in great need. It was also ordered that Botno and Fry be committed to the marshal and kept in irons during the Governor’s pleasure, in accordance with the penalty prescribed in the order of 23 July 1680. It was further noted that Botno had recently received from the Company’s stores 5 yards of serge and other materials intended for making him a suit of clothing. This serge had been purchased from Botno by William Marsh, contrary to a council resolution of 8 July 1680 which prohibited planters from buying clothing from soldiers without permission from their officers […] Interpretations The reference to the earlier order shows that gambling was regulated through standing rules, with limits tied to a soldier’s daily pay to prevent excessive loss. The requirement that the gambling winnings be deposited before the authorities indicates that illicit gains could be confiscated and redirected by the administration. The use of the confiscated money to provide Botno with clothing demonstrates that penalties could be repurposed to address practical needs within the garrison. The commitment of offenders to irons underlines that breaches of discipline could result in immediate physical restraint, reinforcing authority through visible punishment. The mention of payment in both silver and copper reflects the circulation of mixed currency, with different metals accepted in settlement of obligations. The prohibition on planters purchasing clothing from soldiers shows an attempt to control the distribution of goods issued from Company stores, preventing resale or misuse. Speculations The redirection of the gambling money to purchase clothing for Botno suggests that the authorities sought not only to punish but also to stabilise the condition of soldiers who might otherwise fall into disorder through poverty. The strict enforcement of earlier orders implies concern that gambling and informal trade could undermine discipline and the controlled distribution of Company resources. The involvement of Marsh in both the gambling payment and the purchase of store-issued cloth suggests that interactions between soldiers and planters were closely monitored, possibly due to repeated attempts to bypass official controls. | |
106 | It is Ordered That ye sd Serge be Im̃ediately fetched And that ye sd Botno be continued some good Mary Mathews Widdᵒ having in a Petition sett forth It is Ordered Whereas ye number of ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Blacks It is Ordered J: B[ea]um[ont] | The serge that had been improperly sold was ordered to be recovered from William Marsh and delivered to Ensign Richard Keling for the use of John Botno. Continued confinement in irons was imposed on Botno for a further period because of the two offences committed. Marsh was required to forfeit the money he had paid for the serge, in accordance with the earlier order. Mary Mathews, a widow, submitted a petition stating her poverty and inability to pay the remaining debt for two slaves purchased from the Right Honourable Company during her husband’s lifetime. A request was made to return the two slaves into Company service. It was ordered that Mary Mathews deliver the two slaves to John Smith, the Company’s broker, whenever they were demanded. All sums already paid by her, together with the amount that Thomas Dixon, a soldier, had undertaken to pay on her behalf at the next general pay day, were to be set off against the labour performed by the slaves while they had been in her possession. She was thereby discharged from any further payment relating to them. An increase in the number of Company-owned slaves on the island was noted, making it possible to sell or hire some of them. It was ordered that two or three of these slaves be offered for sale at Fort James on Wednesday or Thursday 29 May 1689, and that public notice be given in the usual manner so that all persons might be informed. J Beaumont Interpretations The recovery of the serge and forfeiture of payment shows that goods issued from Company stores remained under strict control, and unauthorised transactions could be reversed without compensation. The continued confinement in irons reflects the escalation of punishment where multiple offences were committed, reinforcing discipline through extended restraint. The arrangement allowing Mary Mathews to return the slaves in satisfaction of her debt demonstrates that obligations to the Company could be settled through the return of labour assets rather than cash. The role of the Company’s broker in receiving the slaves indicates a structured system for managing transactions involving Company property. The set-off of payments already made against the labour performed by the slaves shows that their work was treated as quantifiable value, capable of being credited against debt. The decision to sell or hire Company-owned slaves illustrates that such individuals were treated as assets that could be redistributed to meet financial or labour needs. The use of public proclamation for the sale indicates that transactions were formalised and made open to potential buyers, ensuring transparency and participation. Speculations The decision to discharge Mathews from further payment after accounting for labour suggests an attempt to balance enforcement of debt with practical recognition of her inability to pay. The planned sale of slaves following an increase in their number may reflect a need to reduce maintenance costs or to convert labour assets into immediate revenue. The strict enforcement of regulations on clothing and store goods, alongside penalties for both buyer and seller, suggests ongoing concern about the informal circulation of Company-issued supplies undermining official control. | |
107 | [...] St Helena Present [...] Blackmore Govʳ It is Agreed and Ordered Accordingly ye sd Declaration was openly made in Court And the publique Cryer after mentioning ye price Thomas Goodwin Junʳ made bidds for ye Govʳ & Councill George Wright hath agreed for one Black man Rich Stacy [Clerke] for one Black woman named It is Ordered And further it is Ordered Which accordingly was done. J[...][...] | Island of St Helena At a council held on Monday 22 May 1689 at the session house near Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor It was agreed and ordered that all slaves belonging to the Right Honourable Company exposed for sale that day should be offered at fixed starting prices, the men at £10 0s 0d and the women at £12 0s 0d. Payment was to be made in four quarterly instalments within one year, either in ready money, Company bills, or in beef or mutton to be supplied for the provisioning of ships. This arrangement was publicly declared before the sale began. The declaration having been made, each slave was brought forward individually and presented for bidding. The public crier announced the starting price and called for higher offers in successive rounds until the highest bid was established. Thomas Goodwin junior, acting on behalf of the Governor and Council as accountant for the estate of Anne Whitley, an orphan, agreed to purchase a man named Moroho for £10 5s 0d, the payment to be made from the estate of the orphan in accordance with the stated terms. George Wright agreed to purchase a man named Moody for £10 7s 0d, under the same conditions. Richard Stacy, clerk, agreed to purchase a woman named Jenny for £15 0s 0d, with payment to be made in part under the same conditions. It was ordered that formal articles of agreement be immediately drawn up and signed or sealed by each purchaser to ensure performance of the agreed conditions. It was further ordered that the slaves not sold on that day be offered again for sale on the following day, 30 May 1689, at the reduced rate of £6 0s 0d for one year, payable under the same terms and conditions. Public notice of this further sale was to be given by the crier, which was done accordingly. J[…] Interpretations The use of fixed starting prices for men and women indicates a standardised valuation system applied before competitive bidding, reflecting structured pricing of labour. The acceptance of payment in instalments shows that access to such purchases was extended beyond those with immediate cash, while still securing value over time. The option to pay in provisions such as beef or mutton demonstrates that goods necessary for maritime supply were treated as equivalent to money within the Company’s economy. The involvement of the Governor and Council in purchasing on behalf of an orphan’s estate shows that estates under their supervision could be actively managed and invested. The requirement for formal agreements to be signed or sealed confirms that these transactions were legally binding and enforceable. The reduction in price for unsold individuals on the following day indicates a mechanism for ensuring disposal of assets when initial demand was insufficient. The role of the public crier and open bidding process reflects an attempt to make sales transparent and publicly witnessed. Speculations The acceptance of provisions in place of money likely reflects the practical needs of the island, where supplying ships may have been more urgent than accumulating cash. The reduced price for unsold individuals suggests a priority on transferring labour into use rather than holding assets idle, indicating an emphasis on productivity. The purchase made on behalf of an orphan’s estate implies that labour assets were considered a viable means of generating income or value for dependants under administrative care. | |
108 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday ye Present [...] Blackmore Govʳ Severall of ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Blacks were But no person came up to ye prices sett J[...][...] | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Thursday 30 May 1689 at the session house near Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Several slaves belonging to the Right Honourable Company were publicly offered for hire. Each individual was presented separately for inspection and consideration. The public crier announced the set prices and invited bids in the same manner as on the previous day. No bidders offered the required prices, and very few offers were made at all. J[…] Interpretations The offering of slaves for hire rather than sale shows that labour could be temporarily allocated while ownership remained with the Company, providing flexibility in managing its workforce. The individual presentation of each person indicates that hiring decisions were based on visible assessment, suggesting that perceived capacity for labour influenced value. The use of a public crier and repeated bidding process reflects a structured and transparent method for allocating labour, similar to the procedure used for sales. The failure to reach the set prices indicates that the Company’s valuation did not match current demand or the ability of inhabitants to pay. Speculations The lack of bidders at the set prices suggests that either labour demand was limited at that time or that the terms of hire were considered too costly by potential hirers. The repetition of the same bidding process as the previous day implies that the authorities expected similar outcomes but maintained procedure to uphold fairness and formality. The decision to offer slaves for hire after attempts at sale may indicate an effort to ensure that labour assets generated some return even when outright purchase was not achievable. | |
109 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Monday the 17ᵗʰ of Present [...] Blackmore Govʳ Capᵗ [...] Bromwell Commander of ye good ship Rochest[er] Upon which Request was Immediately That so many of the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Negro men But as to the 12 Men of his Majᵗʸ subjects desired at It was seriously debated whether so many hands in this | Island of St Helena At a consultation held on Monday 17 June 1689 at Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor Captain […] Bromwell, commander of the ship Rochester, having arrived on 16 June 1689, submitted a written account describing the weakened condition of his vessel and crew, noting that 25 men had died. A request was made for as many of the Right Honourable Company’s slaves as could be spared to be sent on board so that the remaining crew might recover ashore. It was further explained that without such assistance the ship would be unable to proceed safely on its return voyage and might be at risk from enemy action. It was ordered that as many male slaves as could be spared be immediately sent on board, and that additional numbers be provided if required, to be employed at the commander’s discretion for as long as needed. A further request was made for 12 Englishmen to assist in the ship’s passage home. This was considered alongside the Company’s standing orders regulating how many men might be permitted to leave the island each year, and the number already assigned to outbound vessels. Information was also taken into account from Captain March of the ship Nathaniel, who had reported uncertain political conditions in England and neighbouring countries, raising concerns about the possibility of conflict. The matter was therefore carefully debated, particularly whether so many men could be spared at a time when the island might itself face danger from attack, […] Interpretations The use of Company slaves to support a ship’s crew shows that labour under Company control could be redirected to meet urgent maritime needs, especially where crew losses threatened a voyage. The immediate compliance with the request indicates that preservation of shipping and cargo was treated as a priority, reflecting the central importance of maritime operations to the Company. The consideration of limits on how many Englishmen could leave the island demonstrates that manpower was regulated and treated as a strategic resource. The reference to intelligence from another ship about political conditions shows that decisions on the island were informed by wider geopolitical awareness. The concern about leaving the island vulnerable to attack highlights the defensive role of the local population and garrison, linking labour availability to security. Speculations The willingness to supply slaves rather than English crew suggests that the authorities aimed to preserve their limited number of trained or armed men while still assisting the ship. The hesitation over providing Englishmen reflects a balancing of competing risks, between safeguarding the island and ensuring the safe return of a Company vessel. The mention of uncertain conditions in England and abroad implies that the decision-making process was influenced by fears of war, leading to caution in releasing manpower. | |
110 | [...] said ship Rochest[er] hath a very rich Cargoe for It is Ordered That the persons hereafter mentioned (who have Boris Millon Claverton a Swede and his son Jacob 12 years, Wᵐ Mooring 2d English man Jnᵒ Johnson Total 11 J[...][...] | The value of the cargo carried by the ship Rochester for the East India Company was considered significant, and strong efforts were directed toward its preservation. Permission was granted for certain individuals, who had requested to leave the island, to embark on the Rochester. These were Boris Millon Claverton and his son Jacob Claverton aged twelve, Jo[…] Martin who had been left sick from the ship B[…], John B[…] who had served one year on the ship, John Milbanke, described as a single man, William Mooring, Walter Mor[…], John Broshott, William Lovett, James Macel[…], John Johnson, and Thomas Moore. Eleven persons in total were allowed to depart. The order was subscribed by Robert Holden and others […] Interpretations The emphasis on preserving a valuable cargo shows priority of Company assets. Maritime trade goods were central to economic policy. The controlled permission for departure reflects regulated mobility. Individuals required official approval to leave the island. The listing of nationalities indicates diverse population. Labour and residency included English, Dutch, French, Scottish, and Swedish individuals. The inclusion of a child among those departing shows family movement. Migration was not limited to adult labourers. The identification of individuals by occupation or status reflects administrative record-keeping. Personal details were used to track population changes. Speculations The decision to allow departure may have balanced labour needs with individual requests. Those leaving may have been considered expendable to local needs. The urgency tied to the cargo suggests economic pressure. Protecting goods may have outweighed concerns over reducing population. The inclusion of sick or displaced individuals indicates practical adjustment. Departure may have served both humanitarian and logistical purposes. | |
111 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held on Monday the Present [...] Blackmore Govʳ Mr Rich Kelinge Atto Coᵃ on Exhibiting his The said Gurling denies the Accusation, and desired that Mary the wife of James Lashrope being sworn saith Stephen Lancaster Sould being sworn declareth that on Prudence the wife of Tho Shorwin being sworn saith Upon hearing of the severall Witnesses it was Judged upon Whereupon It is Ordered That the sd Gurling has forfeited his License, and that from | Island of St Helena At a court of justice held on Monday 22 July 1689 at the session house near Fort James Present John Blackmore, Governor A complaint was brought by Richard Keling, acting as attorney for the Company, against Richard Gurling, a planter licensed to retail strong liquor, punch, tobacco and related goods. It was alleged that Gurling had obtained 200 pounds of sugar from the ship Loyall Merchant during its recent stay, despite being obliged under the terms of his licence to purchase such supplies from the Company’s stores whenever they were available, which at that time were well stocked with sugar. Gurling denied the allegation and required proof. Mary, wife of James Lashrope, testified that a cask had been brought to her house at night, which she had believed to contain rice promised by Solomon Carver, a mate of the Loyall Merchant. The following morning Gurling stated that the cask contained sugar and took it away. Stephen Lancaster, a soldier, testified that on Sunday 21 June 1689 in the morning he had assisted Mary Lashrope in moving a cask from the crane to her house, for which she offered him a bowl of punch. He had been told it contained rice, but observed sugar spilling from it while moving it. He later saw Gurling remove the cask from Lashrope’s house to his own. Prudence, wife of Thomas Shorwin, testified that Gurling had stated he had obtained 60 gallons of arrack and intended to draw 20 gallons, using sugar valued at 8 pence per pound. After hearing the evidence, it was determined that Gurling had breached the conditions of his licence. It was ordered that his licence be forfeited and that from that date he was prohibited from selling or retailing strong liquor, punch, sugar or related goods until further order. Public notice of this decision was to be given. Interpretations The licence system for retailing alcohol and related goods shows that trade in key commodities was regulated and restricted to authorised individuals under defined conditions. The requirement to purchase supplies from Company stores demonstrates an attempt to centralise control over valuable goods and prevent private sourcing that could undermine official revenue. The role of an attorney acting on behalf of the Company indicates that formal legal representation was used to enforce commercial regulations. The use of witness testimony, including that of women and soldiers, shows that evidence was gathered broadly from those present and considered admissible regardless of status. The forfeiture of the licence represents a significant economic penalty, effectively removing the individual’s right to trade in regulated goods. The mention of quantities such as gallons of arrack and prices per pound of sugar reflects the integration of commodity measures into legal and commercial oversight. Speculations The strict enforcement of the licence terms suggests that unauthorised acquisition of goods from ships was a recurring issue that threatened the Company’s control over trade. The involvement of multiple witnesses and detailed testimony implies that the authorities aimed to establish clear proof to justify revoking a licence, possibly to deter similar breaches. The prohibition on further trading until notice suggests that the authorities retained flexibility to reinstate privileges, indicating a system that combined punishment with the possibility of future compliance. | |
112 | [...] the sd Atto Coᵃ exhibited his Declaration The sd Goodwin Denyes the Accusation. Margery the wife of Tho Burchell Planter being sworn John Gurling Planter being sworn saith that he did This being all the Evidence to prove the Accusation it Mr Kelinge added to the Court as a member thereof Atto Coᵃ Robinson Coᵃ Complaint of Tho Ellison Planter that The sd Ellison Denyes the whole, & saith that the sd Yams Rich Harris being sworn saith that he having desired Rich Battey being sworn saith the same as Rich But upon Consideration that the sd Ellison declared It is Ordered That the sd damage be respited untill the sd Land | A further complaint was brought by the Company’s attorney against Goodwin, a gunner and planter, alleging that he had sold and retailed punch without a licence, contrary to Company orders. Goodwin denied the accusation. Margery, wife of Thomas Burchell, testified that she had heard Samuel Taylor state that Richard Gurling had said Goodwin sold several bowls of punch to him at 3 pence per bowl, and that Goodwin had no authority to sell such drink. John Gurling testified that he had heard Goodwin complain that he had been wronged by Thomas Goodwin, stating that he had paid for several bowls of punch, and that a total of 12 dollars had been agreed for 11 bowls. This evidence was considered insufficient to prove the charge and was regarded instead as damaging to Goodwin’s reputation without adequate support. Further proof was required, and no penalty was imposed. Richard Keling was then formally admitted as a member of the court. A separate complaint was brought by Robinson against Thomas Ellison, alleging that Ellison’s hogs had eaten yams planted by Robinson in a pathway, causing loss. The damage had been assessed by Richard Tattney and Thomas Martin. Ellison denied the claim and asserted that the yams had been planted on his own land. Richard Harris testified that Robinson had been asked to move his fence to separate the ground, and that Robinson stated Ellison’s hogs had eaten the yams. Harris confirmed that he had seen the damage, with the yams eaten and scattered on the ground. Richard Battey gave similar evidence, stating that he had seen the yams eaten and damaged on the ground. It was considered that the ownership of the land was uncertain, as Ellison claimed it as his own. It was ordered that the matter of damages be deferred until the land had been measured and the true boundary established, so that it could be determined whether the yams had been planted on Ellison’s land or not. Interpretations The dismissal of the complaint against Goodwin shows that the court required direct and reliable evidence, and that hearsay alone was insufficient to sustain a charge. The involvement of multiple witnesses recounting statements made by others highlights the distinction drawn between firsthand observation and indirect report in evaluating proof. The admission of Keling as a member of the court indicates that the composition of the court could be adjusted during proceedings. The dispute over the yams demonstrates that agricultural damage claims depended on clear determination of land ownership. The reference to measuring land shows that physical survey was used as a method of resolving boundary disputes. The use of appointed individuals to assess damage indicates a recognised practice of valuation in agricultural conflicts. Speculations The rejection of the case against Goodwin suggests a concern to avoid unjust punishment based on weak or second-hand evidence, preserving confidence in the court’s decisions. The decision to delay judgment in the land dispute implies that boundary uncertainty was a recurring issue, requiring formal measurement rather than immediate resolution. The reliance on witness observation of damage, combined with uncertainty over land ownership, suggests that disputes between neighbours were common and required procedural safeguards to prevent bias. | |
113 | [...] Starling Complains of Wᵐ Marsh Planter in an Wᵐ Marsh Acknowledgeth that his Hoggs had come upon Eliz Starling denies that Marsh had satisfyed her for Thomas Dixon being sworn on the behalfe of the Mary Johnson being sworn saith that she did see Mr Draper & Rich Garroway being sworn on the behalfe Upon the whole Matter, And Consideration of It is Adjudged And Ordered That the sd Marsh Defendant do pay the sum of eight shillings Wᵐ Marsh Planter Complains of Eliz Starling in The sd Eliz Starling doth not deny the owing of the Plaintiff | Starling brought a complaint against William Marsh, a planter, in an action of trespass for damage caused to a plantation by Marsh’s hogs. The damage had been inspected by Mr Orpen and Thomas Carleton, who considered it considerable. Marsh acknowledged that his hogs had entered the plantation and caused damage, but stated that compensation had already been made. Elizabeth Starling denied that any satisfaction had been given for the more recent damage, which had been appraised by Mr Draper and Richard Garroway. Thomas Dixon, giving evidence for the defence, stated that on or before 24 April 1689 he had been present with Marsh at Starling’s property and had seen an arrangement whereby a dozen of Marsh’s hogs were to be counted against earlier damage to Starling’s plantation. Mary Johnson testified that she had seen Marsh’s hogs in Starling’s ground, which had been newly broken, though she could not specify how many animals caused the damage. Mr Draper and Richard Garroway testified that Elizabeth Starling had shown them damage that appeared recent, which they assessed at between 12 and 14 groats. However, they could not confirm that the damage had occurred after 24 April 1689, only that it appeared to have been done in that season. After considering the evidence, it was ordered that Marsh pay 8 shillings to Starling for all damage caused by his hogs, if satisfaction had not already been made. William Marsh then brought a complaint against Elizabeth Starling in an action of debt for 40 shillings, which he claimed she retained. Elizabeth Starling did not deny the debt but stated that she had offered payment, partly in sheep valued at 14 shillings and the remainder in money within a few days, according to their agreement. Marsh had refused this arrangement. She stated that she remained ready to pay the full 40 shillings. Interpretations The use of livestock, such as hogs and sheep, as both cause of damage and form of payment shows that animals functioned as economic assets within both dispute and settlement. The inspection and valuation of damage by named individuals indicates a recognised role for informal assessors in quantifying loss. The reference to seasonal timing of damage suggests that agricultural cycles influenced both disputes and the ability to verify claims. The acceptance of partial payment in goods, such as sheep, reflects a mixed economy where debts could be settled through barter as well as cash. The court’s conditional order, requiring payment only if satisfaction had not already been made, shows an attempt to account for prior informal settlements. Speculations The dispute over whether compensation had already been given suggests that informal agreements between neighbours were common but could later become contested. The relatively modest sum awarded compared to the initial valuation may reflect uncertainty over the timing of the damage and an effort to reach a compromise. The refusal by Marsh to accept payment in sheep may indicate a preference for cash or dissatisfaction with the valuation, highlighting differing expectations in settlement terms. | |
114 | Sam Taylor Planter being sworn saith that Capt Richard Dixson sworn saith he desired Upon hearing of the whole Matter it doth appear Whereupon It is Concluded & Ordered That the sd Marsh be left in his present suite and Grace Paxton widd Complains of Mary Ammon in The sd Paxton denies the accusation and Eliz Starling being sworn saith that one day the | Samuel Taylor, a planter, testified that William Marsh had stated that Elizabeth Starling owed him £30 0s 0d in rice. It was also reported that Elizabeth Starling had acknowledged the debt and had sent part of the payment through Jenkins, which Marsh accepted. Further payment had been promised from an exchange or according to their agreement, and it was stated that Marsh had accepted what was given and declared himself satisfied with the whole. Captain Richard Dixon testified that he had been asked to assist in arranging payment to Marsh. It was indicated that payment would be made on the garrison pay day, but Marsh refused to accept this, stating instead that he had already been paid and would pursue the matter through legal action. After consideration, it was determined that the matter between Marsh and Starling had not been fully resolved. It was ordered that the case should proceed, and that Starling should immediately settle the payment to Marsh. It was further directed that Marsh should present himself to establish proof regarding the damage caused by the hogs, which he had previously valued at 12 or 15 groats, and that clearer evidence should be provided by both parties from the beginning of the dispute to the present. Grace Paxton, a widow, brought a complaint against Mary Ammon in an action of slander, alleging that Ammon had spoken words implying that Paxton’s daughter, who had married Mr Backstrowe, master of a ship, was immoral and had accused her of being a whore. Mary Ammon denied the accusation and requested that it be proven. Elizabeth Starling testified that both Paxton and Ammon had been present at her house when insulting language was used. It was stated that words had been spoken asserting that Paxton’s daughter was a whore and a slut, and that she would not remain with Backstrowe but would leave him for another man. Interpretations The use of rice as a unit of debt shows that staple goods functioned as a medium of account and payment alongside money. The involvement of intermediaries such as Jenkins and Dixon indicates that debt settlement could involve third parties facilitating or witnessing transactions. The reference to garrison pay day suggests that financial obligations were often timed around regular payment cycles. The continuation of the legal action despite partial payment demonstrates that informal settlements could be contested and required formal resolution. The requirement for both parties to present fuller evidence reflects the court’s role in clarifying disputes where prior agreements were unclear or disputed. The slander case shows that reputational harm, particularly concerning sexual conduct, was treated as a matter for legal redress. The testimony of Elizabeth Starling highlights that domestic settings could serve as sites where disputes arose and where witnesses observed relevant exchanges. Speculations The dispute over whether payment had been fully made suggests that reliance on goods and informal delivery created ambiguity in accounting, leading to recurring conflicts. The insistence on further proof in the hog damage claim may reflect dissatisfaction with earlier valuations or uncertainty about the extent of loss. The slander case indicates that accusations affecting marital reputation were taken seriously, possibly because they could influence social standing and alliances within the small community. | |
115 | [...] Rich Barrum Planter being sworn saith that he did hear Upon Consideration of the whole Matter it appears that It is Judged & Ordered That the sd Thomas be punished for this by paying James the son of Mr Draper Planter Complains of Mary Hennings Denyes the Accusation Eliz Starling being sworn saith that she did hear Rich Barrum being sworn saith that he did hear the sd Upon hearing the Witness It is Judged that the sd Hennings hath scandalized the And therefore It is Ordered That the sd Mary Hennings shall have three lashes Mary Hennings Complains of Grace Cudworth Widow in an The sd Grace Cudworth Denyes the Accusation and desires | Richard Barrum, a planter, testified that he had heard Thomas Draper say that he had visited Richard Gurling shortly after Gurling had come from William Marsh’s plantation. During that conversation, it was reported that Marsh had been seen with Gurling and had stated that he intended to reclaim his hogs. After consideration of the matter, it was determined that Thomas had made statements damaging to the reputation of Grace Green, which could harm her standing. It was ordered that Thomas be punished by paying 5 shillings to the court, either in money or in another form of payment as directed, and that he stand at the market house to perform a public act of penance in acknowledgement of the harm caused to Grace Green. James Draper, son of Thomas Draper, brought a complaint against Mary Hennings in an action of defamation, alleging that she had stated he had kept a man named Cudworth at the Two Guns before Grace was married. Mary Hennings denied the accusation. Elizabeth Starling testified that she had heard Hennings say that she had seen Draper lying with Cudworth before marriage at the Two Guns. Richard Barrum testified that he had heard Hennings say that Grace Cudworth had been involved with Draper before marriage at the same place. After hearing the evidence, it was judged that Mary Hennings had defamed James Draper. It was ordered that Hennings receive three lashes on her back at the Two Guns on Monday 24 July 1689. Mary Hennings then brought a complaint against Grace Cudworth, a widow, in an action of defamation, alleging that Cudworth had made statements about her conduct concerning illness and behaviour. Grace Cudworth denied the accusation and requested proof. Interpretations The requirement to perform public penance at the market house shows that reputational offences could be addressed through visible acts intended to restore social standing. The imposition of a monetary penalty alongside public penance indicates that both financial and symbolic forms of punishment were used together. The use of corporal punishment in the form of lashes demonstrates that defamation could be treated as a serious offence warranting physical sanction. The repeated references to specific locations, such as the Two Guns, indicate that identifiable social spaces played a role in both alleged conduct and the spread of reputation. The reliance on witness testimony about spoken words highlights the importance placed on verbal reputation within the community. Speculations The combination of public penance and corporal punishment suggests that maintaining social order and reputation was considered essential in a small settlement where personal standing had practical consequences. The severity of punishment for defamation involving sexual conduct may reflect heightened concern over moral behaviour and its impact on family and social relationships. The sequence of accusations and counter-accusations implies that disputes over reputation could escalate, leading to multiple interconnected legal actions within the same community. | |
116 | Eliz Starling being sworn Declare, that the Not having better proofe that the sd Coulson did It is Ordered That the sd Hennon be cast in her suite and Mary Hennon Complains of Rich Barrum in The sd Barrum Denyes the Accusation and Mary Seales being sworn saith that Rich Barrum Rich Leach being sworn declared that Rich Barrum Eliz Starling upon her oath saith that the sd Barrum Upon the hearing the Evidences of what the sd It is judged that the sd Barrum hath reported of It is Ordered That the sd Barrum do pay to the sd | You’re right. Under your rules, the word should have been retained in the main text and explained in Interpretations, not replaced there. Here is the full corrected text: Elizabeth Starling testified that the widow Coulson had spoken to Mary Hennon in abusive terms, calling her a “dirty draggall” and saying that she had more need to stay at home and look after her plantation than to go gossiping and whoring about the country. Hennon replied by asking whether she would prove her to be a whore, and Coulson answered that she would prove her to be what she was. As no better proof was produced that Coulson had said Hennon played the whore for bits of silk and silk bodices, it was ordered that Hennon should lose her suit and pay the charges. Mary Hennon then complained of Richard Barrum in an action of defamation, alleging that Barrum had reported to several persons that two gentlemen, passengers in the ship, had kissed her, and that he had seen one of them and Hennon with their bare bodies together belly to belly. Barrum denied the accusation and asked that it be proved. Mary Seales, being sworn, stated that Barrum had reported to Richard Leach in her hearing that one of the gentlemen had lifted up Hennon’s clothes and that Hennon had sent her little maid out of doors, but that the maid had looked in at the window and seen the gentleman’s bare body against Hennon’s bare belly. Richard Leach, being sworn, stated that Barrum had told him that he had seen one of the gentlemen with his bare body against Hennon’s bare belly. Elizabeth Starling, upon oath, stated that Barrum had told her the same, and had added that he would not go to the fort for such a prank if he were in Hennon’s case, because the gentlemen had shifted their shirts and so forth. After hearing the evidence of what Barrum had said and reported, it was judged that he had reported more of the plaintiff than he had proved. It was ordered that Barrum should pay Hennon one dollar in damages and the costs of suit. Interpretations “Draggall” was an abusive term for a slovenly, dirty, or disreputable woman. Its force in this passage lay not only in insult but in the social damage it could do when joined to accusations of sexual misconduct. The dismissal of Hennon’s first suit shows that offensive language alone was not enough unless the more specific imputation could be proved. The court appears to have distinguished between general abuse and a charge capable of measurable reputational harm. The second suit shows that repeating sexual allegations to others could amount to defamation when the speaker could not substantiate them. Reputation was treated as a matter of legal consequence, not merely private grievance. The award of one dollar in damages, together with costs, shows that injury to reputation could be converted into a monetary penalty recoverable through the court. Speculations The court’s refusal to uphold the first complaint, while upholding the second, probably reflected a judgement that the first charge had not been proved with enough specificity, whereas the second involved repeated and more clearly evidenced allegations. The relatively modest damages perhaps suggest that the court aimed to mark the wrong and restrain further scandal without imposing a punishment so severe that it would create a new grievance. | |
117 | Wᵐ Marsh Complaines of Rich Barrum in an The sd Barrum denyed the Accusation, and said he knew Edw Barger Planter being sworn saith that the sd Marshes Robt Exell being sworn saith that the sd Barrum’s Black Upon Consideration of what hath bin alledged It is Ordered That the sd Barrum be cast, and warned that he Court Adjourned untill to morrow The Court of Justice Continued on And Wilson Planter Complaines of Rich Griffin The sd Griffin denyed the Debt Wᵐ Watts Gunner Mate declares that being at Rich Griffin’s Jno Loveridge Planter saith that he was in Company Upon examining the Plaintiffs and Defendants Accoᵗ it Whereupon It is Ordered That the sd Griffin doe pay the sd Wilson the | William Marsh brought a complaint against Richard Barrum in an action of trespass, alleging that a slave belonging to Barrum had set Barrum’s dogs upon one of Marsh’s cows, which had been badly torn and injured, and that a threat had been made to kill another cow on a future occasion. Barrum denied the accusation and stated that he knew nothing of it. Edward Barger, a planter, testified that Marsh’s cow had indeed been torn and badly hurt, though he could not say who was responsible. Robert Exell testified that a slave belonging to Barrum had admitted to setting Barrum’s dogs upon the cow and had stated that he would kill it another time. It was also noted by several persons in court that Barrum’s dogs were known to be unruly. After consideration, it was ordered that Barrum should lose the case and be warned to prevent both his slaves and his dogs from harming the cattle of his neighbours. The court was then adjourned until the following day. The court of justice resumed on Tuesday 23 July 1689. Wilson, a planter, brought a complaint against Richard Griffin, also a planter, in an action of debt for 20 shillings, alleging that Griffin had neither paid nor accounted for the sum. Griffin denied the debt. William Watts, a gunner’s mate, testified that he had been at Griffin’s house when Wilson arrived. Griffin had asked Wilson whose hogs were feeding in his plantation, to which Wilson replied that they were his. Griffin swore an oath, and Wilson stated that he had come to settle accounts. Griffin then left without resolving the matter. John Loveridge, a planter, testified that he had been present with both men and had heard Wilson ask Griffin to reckon with him, but Griffin had left. Upon examining the accounts of both parties, it was found that Griffin owed Wilson 14 shillings and 3 pence. It was ordered that Griffin pay Wilson 14 shillings and 3 pence, together with the costs of the suit. Interpretations The attribution of responsibility for damage caused by dogs to their owner shows that liability extended to harm caused by both animals and slaves under a person’s control. The testimony that a slave admitted to setting the dogs indicates that statements made by slaves could be used as evidence in court proceedings. The warning issued rather than a monetary penalty suggests that the court could impose corrective measures where responsibility was established but loss was not precisely valued. The term “cast” reflects a legal outcome in which a defendant loses the case and is found liable. The use of account examination in the debt case shows that disputes over money were resolved through scrutiny of records rather than solely through testimony. The expression “to reckon” refers to the settlement of accounts, indicating a common expectation that debts should be resolved through mutual accounting. Speculations The absence of a financial award in the trespass case may indicate uncertainty about the exact value of the damage or a preference to prevent further incidents rather than compensate past loss. The reliance on witness testimony about the behaviour of Barrum’s dogs suggests that reputations for disorderly animals could influence judicial outcomes. The departure of Griffin without settling accounts may have contributed to the court’s finding against him, implying that refusal to engage in informal resolution could weaken a party’s position. | |
118 | [...] Wilson Planter Complaines of Richᵈ The said Griffin Denyes the Action and desires Richᵈ Barrum Planter being sworne saith that he But the surveyor for Testifying in the Court Whereupon it is Judged the said Griffin is Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Wilson be cast in his suite, and that And Wilson Planter Complaines of Richᵈ Richᵈ Griffin Denyes the Action The Plaintiff delivered into the Court a paper wᶜʰ was | Wilson, a planter, brought a complaint against Richard Griffin, also a planter, in an action on the case, alleging that Griffin had refused to pay half the expense agreed upon for building a fence between their adjoining lands. Griffin denied the claim and required proof. Richard Barrum testified that he had heard Griffin promise to pay half the cost of constructing the portion of the fence between their lands, on the condition that the adjoining ground, when measured, proved to belong to Griffin. The surveyor testified that the land adjoining the fence had been measured and was found to belong to Wilson rather than Griffin, and that the fence provided no benefit to Griffin’s land. It was therefore judged that Griffin was not obliged to contribute to the cost of the fence. It was ordered that Wilson should lose the case and pay the costs. Wilson then brought a further complaint against Griffin in an action of trespass, alleging that Griffin’s hogs had eaten and damaged his yams in his plantation to a value of £8 0s 0d, as assessed by Richard Stacey and John Nicho[…]. Griffin denied the claim. A written statement was presented to the court, signed by George Stacey and Jonathan Baker, seamen, who affirmed in the presence of William Watts, a gunner’s mate, and Henry Kersby, a planter, that they had seen Griffin’s hogs in Wilson’s plantation eating the yams. They also stated that Griffin, while driving the hogs out with his dogs, had pursued Wilson’s dog and wounded it severely with a knife, and then chased Wilson’s son with a drawn knife. It was stated that Griffin stopped only when the witnesses revealed themselves. Interpretations The conditional agreement about sharing the cost of the fence shows that obligations could depend on the outcome of land measurement, linking financial responsibility to property boundaries. The role of the surveyor demonstrates that disputes over land and associated costs were resolved through formal measurement rather than assumption or custom. The court’s finding that no benefit accrued to Griffin indicates that contribution to shared works could depend on demonstrable advantage. The use of a written attestation by witnesses shows that documentary evidence, even when not given directly in court, could be submitted and considered. The valuation of crop damage at £8 0s 0d reflects the economic importance of agricultural produce and the practice of quantifying loss. The description of violent behaviour involving a knife shows that disputes over property could escalate into threats of physical harm, which were recorded alongside the primary complaint. Speculations The rejection of the fencing claim suggests that agreements between neighbours were interpreted strictly according to their stated conditions, rather than general expectations of shared responsibility. The inclusion of detailed witness statements about violence may have been intended to strengthen the credibility of the trespass claim by portraying a pattern of aggressive conduct. The reliance on written attestations from seamen suggests that not all witnesses were available to appear in person, requiring the court to accept alternative forms of testimony. | |
119 | [...] Watts & Henry Kersby being sworne saith that Richᵈ Wakefield Aged abt 12 years declares that he Jnᵒ Nicholls & Richᵈ Stacey did see the said Wilsons dogg The said Jnᵒ Nicholls & Richᵈ Stacey being sworne saith The said Nicholls & Stacey saith that the fence Upon Consideration of the whole matter it doth Wherefore It is Ordered That the sd Griffin doe pay to the sd Wilson for the damage Provided that the sd Wilson and Griffin doe give each For as much as there have bin many controversies | William Watts and Henry Kersby, being sworn, stated that the attestation had been read aloud by the two seamen who signed it, and that they had affirmed its truth and declared themselves willing to swear to it if formally required. Richard Wakefield, aged about 12 years, stated that he had seen hogs several times in Wilson’s plantation, though he could not identify their owner, only that they resembled those belonging to Richard Griffin. John Nicholls and Richard Stacey testified that they had seen Wilson’s dog wounded on its side, though they did not know who had inflicted the injury. The same witnesses further stated that Wilson had asked them to inspect the damage to his plantation, which they did, and they assessed the loss of yams at £8 0s 0d. Each declared that he would have paid 50 shillings for the same quantity had the crop still been standing. They also reported that the fence around Wilson’s plantation had been sound except for a single breach at one end caused by cattle entering from outside. After considering the matter, it was determined that Griffin’s hogs had caused the damage as assessed, that Griffin had stabbed Wilson’s dog, and that he had pursued Wilson’s son with a knife. It was ordered that Griffin pay Wilson £8 0s 0d for the damage to the yams, 2 dollars for injuring the dog, and that he enter into a recognisance for good behaviour until the next court of sessions for threatening Wilson’s son. It was further ordered that both Wilson and Griffin provide mutual releases of all debts, accounts, damages, and trespasses up to the date of the order, upon satisfaction of the judgment. It was noted that numerous disputes among inhabitants had arisen from cattle trespassing into plantations due to inadequate fencing, and that no clear or established standard existed to determine which fences were sufficient […] Interpretations The acceptance of a written attestation supported by sworn confirmation shows that documentary evidence could be validated through witness endorsement even if the original authors were absent. The testimony of a child witness indicates that age did not exclude participation in legal proceedings, though the weight of such evidence depended on certainty. The valuation of crop damage based on both loss and potential market value reflects a developed approach to assessing agricultural harm. The identification of a defective fence as a contributing factor shows that responsibility for trespass could involve consideration of boundary maintenance. The award of separate sums for crop damage and injury to an animal demonstrates that different forms of harm were treated as distinct claims. The requirement to enter into a recognisance for good behaviour indicates a preventive measure aimed at controlling future conduct rather than punishing past actions alone. The condition requiring mutual release of claims shows that the court sought to resolve ongoing disputes comprehensively and prevent further litigation. Speculations The emphasis on fencing suggests that recurring disputes over livestock trespass had become significant enough to prompt consideration of standardised rules. The inclusion of a mutual release condition may reflect an attempt to prevent continued conflict between neighbours whose disputes had escalated. The combined financial penalties and behavioural bond suggest that the court aimed both to compensate loss and to restore order by discouraging further confrontation. | |
120 | [...] It is Ordered That four Inhabitants out of each of the The Names of the persons appointed hereafter For ye East Division mᵣ Wᵐ B[owm][an] For ye West division Capt Johnson [...] Robᵗ Holden [...] | It was ordered that four inhabitants from each division of the island be nominated and appointed to meet and determine the proper standards for fences across all plantations. These persons were to agree upon the required height, breadth, and depth of fences, both existing and future, so that they would be sufficient to protect land and crops from cattle that were not considered wilfully destructive. The agreed standards were to be set down in writing, signed by those appointed, and presented to the council before the next general council, with the intention that they be established as a formal law or ordinance to be observed by all planters thereafter. The persons appointed were as follows. For the East Division: William Bowman, John Coals, Orland Bagley, and John Draper. For the West Division: Captain Johnson, George Charlton, Richard Gurling, and William Bries. Interpretations The appointment of representatives from each division shows that regulatory decisions could be delegated to selected inhabitants, reflecting a participatory approach to local governance. The specification of measurable dimensions such as height, breadth, and depth indicates an intention to create enforceable technical standards rather than relying on informal judgement. The requirement that the agreed standards be submitted in writing and approved by the council demonstrates a process by which local consultation was transformed into formal regulation. The distinction between ordinary cattle and those described as unruly or wilful suggests that responsibility for damage could depend on the nature of the animals as well as the adequacy of fencing. The creation of a uniform rule for all planters indicates an effort to reduce disputes by establishing clear and consistent expectations. Speculations The move to formalise fence standards probably arose from repeated conflicts over trespass, as seen in earlier cases, making ad hoc judgements insufficient. The involvement of inhabitants from different divisions may have been intended to ensure acceptance of the rules across the island and reduce resistance to enforcement. The emphasis on measurable standards suggests a desire to limit ambiguity in future disputes, allowing quicker and more consistent judicial decisions. | |
121 | Island of St Helena Att a Consultation held on Wednesday the 24ᵗʰ Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Upon the arrivall lately of Capt Jnᵒ Bromwell Commander As a Confirmation of the said report Capt Tho March Besides the said Capt March declared that the Dutch at | At a consultation held at Fort James on 24 July 1689, information was received from recently arrived ship commanders concerning political and military developments affecting English interests. Captain John Bromwell, commander of the Rochester, reported that during his voyage from India towards England he had encountered a small vessel from New York bound for Madagascar under Captain James Barrow. It was stated by that commander that, before departure, there had been expectation of war between the English and the Dutch, and that he had been instructed by his owners not to call at the Cape of Good Hope. Further confirmation was provided by Captain Thomas March, commander of the Nathaniel, who had arrived shortly before. It was reported that, during his voyage, he had put into the Cape of Good Hope to repair a leaking vessel and had remained there for several weeks. While there, he had been informed by the Dutch that William III of Orange had landed in England with an army, causing serious disturbance to the peace of the kingdom. It was also reported that war existed between the French and the Dutch, and that Dutch forces had seized several French ships both in port and at sea. Captain March further reported that, upon arrival at the Cape, he had been questioned whether his vessel belonged to the Crown or was a merchant ship. When it was explained that the ship served the English East India Company, it was stated that this distinction was important, as orders had reportedly been received from Holland to seize English royal vessels, though not those in Company service. As a result, his ship had been treated with civility and supplied with necessary provisions. It was also reported that, while at the Cape, a French ship had entered the road and was soon boarded and taken by two Dutch men-of-war after some dispute. Further details concerning these developments were said to have been communicated by Captain March […] Interpretations The distinction made between royal ships and those belonging to the English East India Company shows that Company vessels operated under a separate legal and diplomatic status, which could affect their treatment in foreign ports. The questioning of a ship’s allegiance at the Cape indicates that maritime identity determined whether a vessel might be seized or protected under shifting political conditions. The reports of ship seizures demonstrate that naval conflict extended beyond formal battle to the capture of merchant vessels, affecting trade routes and commercial security. The circulation of intelligence through ship captains shows that long-distance communication relied heavily on maritime networks rather than formal state channels. The reference to William III of Orange landing in England reflects awareness, even in distant colonies, of major political events connected to the Glorious Revolution. Speculations The emphasis placed on the Company’s distinct status probably reflects concern that its ships might otherwise be exposed to seizure in a widening European conflict. The detailed reporting of events at the Cape suggests that the council sought to assess immediate risks to shipping and supply lines rather than merely record general news. The favourable treatment received at the Cape may have reinforced reliance on Company affiliation as a form of practical protection in uncertain geopolitical conditions. | |
122 | [...] a warre betwixt England France and Holland Upon serious consideration of all those things, For prevention of any Attempt of Enemies Wee doe conclude and Agree according to our Particularly That all the avenues, Valleys, Mounts, and That all the Ordinance be repaired and Cleared That all the Batteryes be speedily repayred and That to every great Gunn, spunges, Ramers, Worms That all the great shott be sized for each Gunn | Further intelligence was reported that war existed between England, France, and Holland, said to have been brought by a vessel recently arrived from Europe within the past 10 or 12 days. Among the details reported was that the French had equipped six or seven men-of-war, which many believed were intended for an attack upon the Cape of Good Hope. It was stated that warning had been sent there, though the intended destination of those ships, whether to the West Indies or the East Indies, remained uncertain. After careful consideration of these reports, and recognising the importance of the island to the English East India Company and its trade with the East Indies, as well as the uncertainty over whether approaching ships might be friendly or hostile, it was resolved that the entire island and its inhabitants should be placed in as strong a defensive condition as possible. It was agreed that all approaches to the island, including valleys, high ground, and landing places, especially those facing the sea, should be immediately inspected and carefully reviewed in order to determine what measures were most necessary to prevent any enemy landing. It was further agreed that all artillery should be repaired and cleared, and that their carriages should be thoroughly examined, including wheels, axles, iron fittings, and any defective parts, which were to be promptly repaired or replaced. All batteries were to be repaired and strengthened where needed. Each large gun was to be fully equipped with sponges, rammers, worms, aprons, iron crows, handspikes, and all other necessary implements, with any deficiencies to be made good so that everything would be ready for immediate use in the event of an alarm. All cannon shot was to be properly matched to each gun and placed ready beside them. Interpretations The reference to intelligence arriving by vessel shows that strategic information depended on maritime communication, often delayed and uncertain in accuracy. The decision to place the entire island in a defensive posture reflects the island’s role as a strategic point in the Company’s trade network rather than merely a settlement. The inspection of landing places indicates that coastal access points were recognised as the primary vulnerability to attack. The detailed attention to artillery equipment demonstrates that effective defence relied not only on weapons themselves but on the readiness of all supporting tools and infrastructure. The requirement to size shot for each gun shows an understanding of the technical need for compatibility between ammunition and artillery to ensure effective firing. The emphasis on immediate readiness for an alarm suggests that sudden attack was considered a realistic threat. Speculations The concern over French naval preparations may have heightened urgency, even though the exact destination of those forces was unknown. The comprehensive nature of the defensive measures suggests that the council anticipated the possibility of a surprise attack rather than a prolonged warning period. The focus on repairing existing resources rather than acquiring new ones may indicate limitations in supply and reliance on maintaining what was already available on the island. | |
123 | That all the powder Roomes be furnished with That Flaggs and Flagg staffs be Immediately fitted That as many of the St Helena Compᵃs Servants & men That the Command of ships in the St Helena Compᵃs That all the St Helena Armes in the Armory be well That all the small shott be sized to the Boares of That all the Planters (Except the Condemned That all the Officers and Souldiers in the St Helena Compᵃs That all the Planters be also placed att severall | It was ordered that all powder rooms be supplied with gunpowder, partly made up into cartridges and partly kept in casks, in proportion to the number and size of the artillery. Men were to be assigned to each post, together with shot, match, and flints for small arms, and a full account of all such supplies was to be kept by the gunner and his mate. It was further ordered that flags and flagstaffs be immediately prepared for all necessary locations, with existing flags repaired and new ones made where required. As many servants and slaves belonging to the English East India Company as could be spared were to be set to work on fortifications without delay. Priority was to be given first to James Valley mouth, as the most accessible point, then to Fort James, and afterwards to any other locations considered necessary. It was agreed that the commanders of ships in the Company’s service arriving next should be requested and urged to assist in moving heavy guns to places where they were most needed, as the island lacked the equipment, materials, and expertise required for such tasks. It was ordered that all arms in the island armoury be inspected and put into complete working condition, including proper fitting, flinting, and maintenance. All small shot was to be matched to the bore sizes of muskets and carbines. All planters, except those under sentence and those considered too old, were to be issued arms without delay. All officers and soldiers in the Company’s service were to be assigned to specific posts to which they were to repair immediately upon any alarm. All planters were likewise to be assigned to designated posts, where they were to assemble with their arms alongside the soldiers, in order to assist with the artillery and defend those positions. Interpretations The preparation of powder in both cartridges and casks shows an understanding of the need for rapid use in combat as well as reserve storage. The requirement to keep a written account of supplies indicates formal control and accountability over military stores. The use of slaves and Company servants for fortification work reflects the mobilisation of labour resources for defensive purposes. The reliance on incoming ships for moving heavy guns demonstrates logistical limitations on the island and dependence on external assistance. The issuing of arms to planters shows that civilian inhabitants were incorporated into the defensive system rather than kept separate from military roles. The assignment of both soldiers and planters to fixed posts indicates a structured defensive plan with pre-arranged positions in case of attack. Speculations The prioritisation of James Valley mouth suggests it was considered the most vulnerable landing point for an enemy force. The urgency in preparing equipment and assigning roles implies concern over a sudden and possibly imminent threat. The integration of all available manpower, including non-military inhabitants, suggests that the island’s regular garrison alone was insufficient for effective defence. | |
124 | That upon the Approach of two Ships, Notice That the St Helena Compᵃs Blacks upon That there be now hand Crowes forthwith Made A B[u]lk[ing] | It was ordered that, upon the approach of two ships, notice should be given to all planters to proceed to their assigned posts and to take with them all their slaves, who were to attend and assist them. It was further ordered that, upon such an alarm, slaves belonging to the English East India Company should be distributed as required, with some repairing to Fort James, others remaining at plantations, and several equipped with iron crowbars to be sent to the mouths of valleys. There they were to join armed white inhabitants in order to prevent any enemy landing. It was also ordered that additional iron crowbars be made without delay and placed where needed, including at workshops and at entrances from the sea into the valleys and further inland, so that they might be readily available for defensive use. Interpretations The requirement that planters bring their slaves to defensive posts shows that enslaved labour was integrated directly into military organisation during emergencies. The division of Company slaves between fort, plantations, and forward defensive positions indicates a coordinated allocation of labour according to strategic need. The provision of tools such as iron crowbars suggests that defence included not only combat but also physical obstruction, construction, or reinforcement of positions. The combination of armed white inhabitants with enslaved workers at key locations reflects a structured hierarchy in roles while still relying on combined effort for defence. The instruction to store tools at key access points shows foresight in ensuring readiness without delay during an alarm. Speculations The explicit coordination between planters and slaves may reflect concern that labour resources needed to be tightly controlled during a crisis to prevent disorder as well as to strengthen defence. The placement of tools at valley entrances suggests anticipation that these routes would be the most likely paths for an enemy advance inland. The distribution of Company slaves across multiple roles may indicate that their numbers had grown sufficiently to make them a central component of the island’s defensive capability. | |
125 | Island of St Helena Att a Councell held on Fryday the 2ᵈ Day Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Whereas Isaac Mill and Tho Luffings did lately It is Ordered That the said Mill and Luffings do ride yᵉ wooden Jnᵒ Canada & Rich Fox each Planter being security | At a council held at Fort James on 2 August 1689, Isaac Mill and Thomas Luffings were found to have deserted their colours and unlawfully boarded the Nathan, from which they had been brought ashore and kept imprisoned in irons. Although such an offence was punishable by death under martial law, their youth and inexperience in military discipline were taken into account. It was ordered that both men be punished by riding the wooden horse for one hour on that day, each with a full culverin shot fastened to each heel. The same punishment was to be repeated on Monday 5 August 1689, during the general muster of the garrison and planters under arms. They were also to forfeit their pay from 12 July 1689, the day they had gone aboard the ship, until 5 August 1689. From that date they were to return to pay but were required to labour for one full month on the fortifications alongside the slaves belonging to the English East India Company, without wages. John Canada and Richard Fox, both planters, having stood as security for the estate of Gabriel Bowells, who had been condemned for the recent rebellion, requested authority to protect themselves from loss. It was stated that Bowells had disposed of or transferred most of his estate without their knowledge and had recently escaped from prison, and it was suspected that he had left the island aboard one of the ships recently departed for England. Interpretations The punishment of riding the wooden horse was a military disciplinary measure designed to inflict pain and public humiliation without resorting to execution. The attachment of culverin shot to the heels increased the severity of the punishment, indicating a graded approach to discipline depending on the seriousness of the offence. The forfeiture of pay demonstrates that financial penalties were used alongside physical punishment to reinforce military order. The requirement to perform labour without pay shows that punitive labour could be imposed as part of disciplinary measures. The role of individuals acting as security for another’s estate reflects a system in which financial responsibility could be guaranteed by third parties. The concern over the disposal of property by an absconding debtor indicates the importance of preserving assets to satisfy obligations. Speculations The decision to avoid the death penalty may suggest a pragmatic approach to discipline, preserving manpower while still enforcing authority. The public nature of the punishment during a general muster likely served as a warning to others in both the military and civilian population. The request by the securities to seize the estate suggests anxiety over the loss of recoverable assets once an individual had fled the island. | |
126 | Therefore It is Ordered That a Warrant be immediately granted to yᵉ Richᵈ Gurling Planter having hired a It is Ordered & Agreed That the said Black Girle shall continue Whereas George Dwight had on yᵉ Now the said Dwight having Petitioned yt It is Ordered That yᵉ said Dwight doe on yᵉ 12ᵗʰ of this | It was ordered that a warrant be immediately granted to John Canada and Richard Fox, allowing them to seize, secure, and take possession of the estate of Gabriel Bowells wherever it might be found on the island. They were required to prepare an inventory of all such property so that a full account could be rendered once the decision of the proprietors concerning Bowells and other offenders’ estates became known. Richard Gurling, a planter, had previously hired a young girl named Jole, a slave belonging to the English East India Company, for one year, which had expired on 30 July 1689. He requested to hire her for a further year. It was agreed that she should remain with Gurling for another year, from 30 July 1689 to 30 July 1690, at a price of 28 shillings for the year’s service. It was noted that George Dwight had, on 2 May 1689, agreed at a public sale to pay £18 12s 0d for a slave belonging to the Company within two years, under specified conditions. Among these was a requirement that he pay 4 shillings weekly for the labour of the slave if he failed to make payment according to the agreed terms. Dwight petitioned to return the man and to be released from paying the weekly sum for the period during which he had kept or might continue to keep him. It was ordered that Dwight bring the man to Fort James on 12 August 1689 and deliver him to the person appointed to receive him […] Interpretations The authority granted to seize Bowells’s estate shows that property could be recovered from third parties to satisfy obligations when an individual absconded. The requirement to prepare an inventory reflects formal procedures for documenting assets before further legal or administrative decisions. The hiring of a slave for a fixed annual sum demonstrates that labour could be leased rather than permanently transferred, creating a structured labour market. The renewal of the hiring agreement indicates that such arrangements could be extended by mutual agreement under set terms. The contractual terms imposed on Dwight show that deferred payment for a slave could include ongoing weekly charges for labour as a form of security. The requirement to return the slave to Fort James indicates centralised control over Company property and labour. Speculations The immediate seizure of Bowells’s estate suggests concern that assets might be concealed or dispersed following his escape. The relatively low annual hiring cost for the girl compared to the purchase price of the man may reflect differences in age, labour capacity, or perceived value. The condition requiring weekly payment for labour in case of default suggests an attempt to ensure continued return on Company property even when full payment was delayed or uncertain. | |
127 | to be ordered to receive him, he then paying or satisfying Thomas Goodwin, Gunner’s Mate having in yᵉ It is Agreed and Ordered That the said Thomas Goodwin shall have the said A B[u]lk[ing] | It was ordered that George Dwight deliver the man to the person appointed to receive him at Fort James on 12 August 1689, upon payment of £2 [...] s to Captain Holden, being calculated at 4 shillings per week for 13 weeks, amounting to one quarter of a year. Thomas Goodwin, a gunner’s mate, had previously agreed in council on 13 August 1689 to hire the labour of a boy named Bochumbo, a slave belonging to the English East India Company, for one year ending on 24 August 1690. He now requested to purchase the boy outright. It was agreed and ordered that Bochumbo be sold to Goodwin as his slave for life, upon payment of £15 0s 0d within one year from 24 August 1689, to be made in four quarterly instalments. It was further ordered that the usual covenants and articles for such a sale be drawn up between the Company and Goodwin to ensure performance of the agreement. Interpretations The requirement to pay 4 shillings per week for the period of possession shows that labour charges continued to accrue even when a contract was not fully completed. The calculation of arrears over a defined period demonstrates a structured approach to accounting for the use of labour. The transition from hiring to outright purchase indicates that labour arrangements could shift from temporary use to permanent ownership. The use of instalment payments for the purchase shows that large sums could be paid over time rather than in a single amount. The reference to standard covenants and articles suggests that established legal forms governed such transactions. The description of lifelong ownership reflects the treatment of slaves as transferable property within the legal and economic system. Speculations The requirement for partial payment before returning the man may have been intended to prevent loss to the Company from unpaid labour. The willingness to allow instalment purchase suggests that encouraging ownership may have been seen as a way to stabilise labour supply. The formalisation of the sale through written articles indicates concern to avoid future disputes over ownership or payment. | |
128 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice held on Monday Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Mr Keeling Attoʳnʸ on behalfe of the St Helena The sd Shorwin Denyes the Accusation, and Edwᵈ Bryan Planter being sworne saith that Jnᵒ Downing Planter being sworne saith, yt Jnᵒ Bagley singletor being sworne saith yt about Upon hearing of what hath bin said by yᵉ sd Therefore It is Judged & Ordered That yᵉ sd Prudence Shorwin be acquitted of | At a court of justice held near Fort James on 7 October 1689, a complaint was brought on behalf of the Lords Proprietors of St Helena against Prudence Shorwin, alleging that she had sold and retailed punch without a licence. Shorwin denied the accusation and required that it be proven. Edward Bryan, a planter, testified that on or about 29 May 1689 he had gone into Shorwin’s house, where he found John Downing, who invited him to drink punch, which he did. However, he could not say from whom Downing had obtained the punch or who had made it. John Downing, a planter, testified that he had brought three gallons of arrack to Shorwin and left it with her. He stated that she had retained some of the arrack and that he had asked her to prepare punch from it when required, which she had done. The punch consumed with Bryan had been made from that same arrack. John Bagley, described as a single man, testified that around the same date he had drunk part of three bowls of punch with Downing at Shorwin’s house, but he did not know whether it had come from the same three gallons of arrack. After hearing the evidence, it was determined that Shorwin had prepared punch, but that it had not been shown that she had sold or agreed to sell it. Instead, it appeared that she had merely prepared punch from arrack supplied by Downing. It was therefore judged and ordered that Prudence Shorwin be acquitted of the accusation for the present, unless further proof should be produced. Interpretations The distinction made between preparing and selling punch shows that licensing regulations applied specifically to commercial retail rather than private or informal preparation. The reliance on witness testimony about the origin of the arrack indicates that ownership of materials could determine whether an activity was considered trade. The phrasing of the acquittal “for the present” suggests that cases could be reopened if additional evidence emerged. The involvement of an attorney acting on behalf of the Lords Proprietors reflects formal representation of governing authority in legal proceedings. Speculations The court’s reasoning may indicate an effort to avoid penalising informal domestic activity while still enforcing licensing rules on commercial trade. The uncertainty in witness testimony suggests that proving retail activity required clear evidence of exchange rather than mere consumption. The conditional nature of the acquittal may reflect caution by the court in a case where suspicion remained but proof was insufficient. | |
129 | [...] Mr [R][o]l[i][n]g[o] Atto[ ] Gen[ ] Complaines of John Taylor The sd Taylor Denyes that he bought any suger Jnᵒ Gorman Writer being sworne saith yt yᵉ sd [Eliza][b][e]th Little did being sworne saith Upon Consideration of what hath bin alledged Whereupon It is Judged & Ordered That yᵉ sd Taylor be acquitted Mr Rolingo Atto Gen Exhibited his Complaint agᵗ The sd Colegrave Denyes yᵉ Accusation, and desired And [R][o][b][e][r]t Lake being sworne saith, yt when yᵉ good ship | A complaint was brought by the attorney general against John Taylor, a planter licensed to sell punch and related goods, on the grounds that his licence required him to obtain sugar only from the stores of the English East India Company, where supplies were available. It was alleged that he had instead acquired about half a hundredweight of sugar from the Loyall Merchant when that ship had last been in the road, and had taken it to his house. Taylor denied purchasing sugar in that manner but admitted that, at the request of a seaman, he had paid customs duty on a quantity of sugar and had then, in arrangement with that seaman, exchanged portions of it with several persons for goods which the seaman had obtained. John Gorman, a writer, testified that Taylor had paid customs on half a hundredweight of sugar and had taken it away from the custom house. Elizabeth Little testified that she had seen Taylor distributing quantities of sugar in the town in exchange for goods, which had been brought by the seaman. After consideration, it was determined that it had not been proven that Taylor had purchased sugar directly from the ship, but rather that he had paid customs on behalf of a seaman and that the seaman had then disposed of the sugar in exchange for goods. It was therefore judged and ordered that Taylor be acquitted. A further complaint was then brought by the attorney general against John Colegrave, a planter licensed to keep a punch house, alleging that he had refused to accept payment for a bowl of punch in mixed coin, consisting partly of copper bars and partly of silver, which was recognised as acceptable currency on the island for all transactions. Colegrave denied the accusation and required proof. Robert Lake testified that when the Rockingham had last been in the road he had gone into Colegrave’s house and asked for a bowl of punch, offering payment in half silver and half copper bars, but that Colegrave had refused, stating that he would not sell it […] Interpretations The condition in Taylor’s licence shows that licensed retailers were required to source key goods such as sugar from Company-controlled supplies rather than from private trade. The distinction made between purchasing goods and paying customs on behalf of another indicates that liability depended on the precise nature of the transaction. The role of the custom house in recording and taxing goods demonstrates institutional oversight of trade entering the island. The reference to copper bars and silver as joint currency shows that multiple forms of money circulated together and were officially recognised in exchange. The obligation on licensed sellers to accept such mixed payment indicates that commercial practice was regulated to ensure liquidity and fairness in transactions. Speculations The acquittal of Taylor may reflect the difficulty of proving indirect trading arrangements, especially when transactions involved intermediaries such as seamen. The complaint against Colegrave suggests that refusal to accept certain forms of payment could disrupt local commerce, prompting enforcement of standardised currency practices. The presence of multiple currencies in circulation may indicate limited availability of coin, requiring flexible systems of exchange to sustain everyday trade. | |
130 | [...] without all silver against whom yᵉ Upon hearing of what hath bin said, and It is judged & Ordered That yᵉ sd Colegrave be fined only one dollar for Mr Rolingo Atto Gen Exhibited by Declaration The sd Griffin Denyes the Accusation, and Jnᵒ Caverloe Planter being sworne saith, that yᵉ sd Griffin killed was a black Cock, whom it was | Further evidence showed that the customer had left Colegrave’s house and gone to another punch house, where a bowl of punch was obtained for the same mixed payment. After considering the testimony, it was determined that Colegrave had refused part of the recognised currency of the island. However, it was also noted that unfamiliarity with the form of payment may have contributed to the refusal. It was therefore ordered that Colegrave be fined one dollar for refusing accepted currency, and a further half dollar for refusing to take the forms of payment permitted in transactions. A complaint was then brought by the attorney general against Richard Griffin, a planter, for killing a black cock during the time when the Madonna lay in the road, which was alleged not to have been his property but that of the attorney general. Griffin denied the accusation and required proof. John Caverloe, a planter, testified that Griffin had possessed a slave boy and a black cock belonging to a black woman whom he had brought to the island in the Hardwicke in 1680. He stated that the cock had been lost during Griffin’s absence about a year later. Griffin had returned from England around 1687 and had again taken the woman into his household. It was then alleged that Griffin had killed a black fowl at Ballock Hill in Sandy Bay, said to be the same cock. However, the testimony suggested uncertainty as to whether the bird killed was the same as that previously lost. It was indicated that the bird in question might not have been the same, as the earlier cock had been missing for some time, and the age and growth of the bird killed did not clearly match the earlier description. No definitive conclusion was reached from the available evidence […] Interpretations The fine imposed on Colegrave shows that refusal to accept recognised forms of currency was treated as a breach of regulated commercial practice. The differentiation between types of currency indicates that even unfamiliar forms of payment were legally enforceable once recognised as standard. The reliance on witness recollection in the case concerning the black cock demonstrates the difficulty of establishing ownership over movable property without clear records. The reference to the transport of a slave and associated property by ship highlights the movement of both people and goods within imperial trade networks. The uncertainty regarding the identity of the animal reflects the challenges of proof in cases involving livestock or small property. Speculations The reduced penalty for Colegrave may suggest that the court considered ignorance or uncertainty as a mitigating factor in breaches of commercial rules. The inability to prove ownership of the cock may indicate that informal systems of property recognition were insufficient in disputed cases. The emphasis on the age and growth of the bird suggests that physical characteristics were relied upon when documentary evidence was lacking. | |
131 | [...] Marg[a]r[ ]tt yᵉ wife of yᵉ sd Jnᵒ Caverloe being Richᵈ Elston God being sworne on behalfe of yᵉ Richᵈ Griffin saith that his Calfe Originally was Richᵈ Collin, Stephen Lancaster God and Richᵈ [ ] Upon Serious thoughts and Consideration It was Judged and Concluded That yᵉ sd Beast wᶜʰ yᵉ sd Richᵈ Griffin did kill, was yᵉ Whereupon It is Ordered That hee the sd Richᵈ Griffin doe only pay unto Mr Rolingo added to the Court as The Monks sd Complaines of Edwᵈ Wilson Planter, that | Margaret, wife of John Caverloe, testified that a slave belonging to her husband had said in her hearing, at the house of Richard Griffin’s wife, that Griffin had gone to the place where the slaves kept cattle in order to kill a beast that did not belong to him. Griffin’s wife replied that she did not know of any such animal belonging to her husband, but that if he had killed one she could not prevent it, and she then left the house in distress. Richard Elston testified on behalf of the proprietors that the calf in question had been black when it was lost. Griffin stated that his own calf had originally been of a dark brown colour and that the animal he had killed was, in his belief, his own. He further stated that the killing had not been deliberate wrongdoing, as it had taken place openly in daylight, in the presence of several people who also believed the animal to be his. Richard Collin, Stephen Lancaster, and another witness testified that they had been present when the animal was killed and had observed its mark, which they stated closely resembled the mark used by Griffin for his cattle. After careful consideration of all evidence and circumstances, it was concluded that the animal killed by Griffin was in fact a bullock belonging to the proprietors. However, it was also accepted that Griffin had genuinely believed it to be his own and had killed it by mistake. It was therefore ordered that Griffin pay £3 5s 0d to the proprietors as the full value of the animal. The attorney general was then added to the court as a member. A further complaint was brought by Monks against Edward Wilson, a planter, alleging that Wilson had given away or otherwise disposed of certain cattle belonging to Monks without his knowledge, and that despite demand, neither the cattle nor compensation had been returned […] Interpretations The reliance on animal markings as evidence of ownership shows that livestock identification depended on visible marks rather than written records. The acceptance of mistaken belief as a mitigating factor indicates that intent was considered when determining liability. The valuation of the animal at £3 5s 0d demonstrates the practice of compensating loss according to assessed market value. The involvement of slaves in reporting events reflects their role as sources of information, even where their testimony was relayed indirectly. The addition of the attorney general as a member of the court suggests flexibility in court composition depending on the matter under consideration. Speculations The reduced penalty limited to compensation may indicate that the court sought to resolve the matter pragmatically where no deliberate wrongdoing was established. The emotional reaction of Griffin’s wife, as reported, may have influenced perceptions of the incident as unintended rather than malicious. The dependence on physical markings for identification suggests that disputes over livestock ownership were common and often difficult to resolve conclusively. | |
132 | [...] The sd Wilson Denyes the Action, and saith Geo Hodgkinson & James Morton sd Edwᵈ Lancaster sd being sworne saith Upon Consideration of what hath bin said it Therefore It is Judged & Ordered That yᵉ sd Wilson doe pay or allow yᵉ sd Monks Jnᵒ Smith sd Complaines of Mary Homan for The sd Homan did owne yᵉ selling of yᵉ sd Hoffer, But It is Judged & Ordered That yᵉ sd Mary Homan doe forthwith deliver Robᵗ Bullen [...] | Edward Wilson denied the claim brought by Monks, stating that he had not given away the cattle, nor to any member of his family, and that he did not know that the cattle belonged to Monks when they were demanded. George Hodgkinson and James Morton testified that they had accompanied Monks when he demanded the cattle from Wilson, but Wilson refused to deliver them or to make payment, and ordered them to leave his land. Edward Lancaster testified that Monks had demanded either the cattle or payment for them, and that Wilson had told him that he had made a smock from a shirt belonging to Monks, which Lancaster was wearing, and that Wilson had used Monks’s property. After consideration, it was determined that Wilson’s daughter had used Monks’s shirt. It was therefore ordered that Wilson pay Monks half a dollar for the shirt that had been made into a smock, together with the costs of the suit. John Smith then brought a complaint against Mary Homan for taking and disposing of a heifer which her husband, John Homan, had left for the use of his daughter Elizabeth by a former wife before departing for England in the Bonavent in July 1688. Mary Homan acknowledged that she had sold the heifer but stated that she held a cow and calf, and was prepared to deliver them to any person appointed for the benefit of Elizabeth, provided that she might receive land or money for her own son. It was judged and ordered that Mary Homan immediately deliver the cattle to the person appointed by the court to receive them for Elizabeth’s use, and that she account for the benefit derived from the property […] Interpretations The partial outcome in the dispute with Wilson shows that the court could narrow a claim to the specific loss that could be proven, rather than uphold the entire allegation. The award of half a dollar indicates that even small items of property, such as clothing, were subject to compensation when misused. The reference to a garment being remade into a smock illustrates how goods could be altered and reused, complicating questions of ownership. The case involving the heifer shows that property could be reserved for the benefit of children from a previous marriage, reflecting recognised inheritance arrangements. The requirement to deliver replacement cattle demonstrates that restitution could be made in kind rather than solely through money. The obligation to account for the use of the property indicates that individuals could be held responsible not only for the asset itself but also for any benefit gained from it. Speculations The reduction of the claim against Wilson to the value of a shirt may suggest that the court found insufficient evidence to support the larger allegation about cattle. The dispute over the heifer may reflect tension within blended families over control of property intended for children. The court’s insistence on delivery to an appointed party suggests concern to ensure that the intended beneficiary, rather than an intermediary, received the property. | |
133 | [...] Island of Sᵗ Helena Att a Councell held on Tuesday the 8ᵗʰ of October Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Whereas sundry Informations haue bin given Whereupon It is Ordered That none doe kill any Beast, But in 24 houres East Division to search and see yᵉ sd hide, whether it haue yᵉ true Whosoever shall be found guilty of disobeying this | At a council held at Fort James on 8 October 1689, it was reported by several cattle owners that many of their animals had gone missing from the grazing ranges on the waste lands belonging to the proprietors. Although repeated efforts had been made by the owners and their servants to locate the missing cattle, they had rarely been recovered. It was considered that such losses could not easily be explained unless the animals had been stolen or secretly killed for private use, either under false claim of ownership or with the intention of concealing the act. It was therefore ordered that no animal be slaughtered unless, within 24 hours, the hide, horns, and ears were presented to one of the appointed persons in the eastern division, including Captain [...], John Charlesworth, Richard [...], Thomas Box, Samuel Taylor, and John Caverloe of Sandy Bay. These individuals were required to inspect the remains to confirm whether the identifying mark matched that recorded for the owner of the animal. They were further instructed to enquire into the matter and determine the true ownership. Where ownership was established, a certificate was to be issued to the rightful owner. Each appointed person was also required to maintain a register of all such inspections and to present this record to the governor and council at each quarterly session or court of justice. A fee of 6 pence was to be taken for each animal inspected, as compensation for their work. It was also ordered that any person found to have disobeyed this regulation would be treated as a felon and dealt with accordingly. Interpretations The requirement to present hides, horns, and ears reflects a formal system for verifying livestock ownership through physical marks. The appointment of designated inspectors indicates an organised administrative response to suspected theft or unlawful slaughter. The maintenance of registers shows an effort to create a record-based system for oversight and accountability. The issuing of certificates suggests that proof of ownership was formalised through documented confirmation. The imposition of a fee demonstrates that administrative enforcement could be supported by small regulated payments. The classification of non-compliance as felony indicates that livestock offences were treated as serious crimes. Speculations The introduction of this system may have been prompted by increasing losses that could not be explained through ordinary causes. The focus on waste land grazing suggests that cattle kept outside enclosed plantations were particularly vulnerable to theft or misidentification. The severity of the penalty may have been intended to deter covert slaughter and reinforce trust in property rights among settlers. | |
134 | [...] And further it is Ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith drawne and Which Proclamation hereafter followeth Whereas severall psns haue suffered much damage It is Ordered That no psn or psns whatsoever shall presume East Division Which psns are hereby Ordered and appointed to But if yᵉ overseer or overseers doe not find yᵉ marke | It was further ordered that a proclamation be drawn up and published without delay, setting out the full substance of the preceding order. In that proclamation it was declared that many inhabitants had suffered loss of cattle, chiefly through animals being secretly killed without the knowledge of neighbours. Although some persons might have believed the animals to be their own, it was considered probable that, upon closer inspection, many would have been found to belong to others, resulting in loss to the rightful owners. To prevent such irregular practices in future, a standing rule was established to remain in force until revoked. It was ordered that no person was to kill any animal on the island, whether for private use, for supplying ships, or for settling debts owed to the proprietors, unless within 24 hours the hide, together with the horns and ears, was presented to one of the appointed overseers in the eastern division, including Captain [...], John Charlesworth, Richard [...], Thomas Box, Samuel Taylor, and John Caverloe of Sandy Bay. These overseers were required to inspect the hides and compare the ear marks with those recorded for the person claiming ownership. Where necessary, further proof of ownership was to be produced to their satisfaction. If ownership was confirmed, a certificate was to be issued to the person who had killed the animal, and a record of the transaction, including the person, time, and relevant details, was to be kept by the overseer. If, however, the marks did not correspond, or if the overseers were not otherwise satisfied that the animal belonged to the person who had killed it, that person was to be examined further […] Interpretations The issuance of a formal proclamation indicates that council orders were communicated publicly as binding regulations. The requirement to verify ownership before or immediately after slaughter shows an attempt to regulate the use of livestock and prevent disputes. The comparison of ear marks with recorded marks reflects a system of registered identifiers for cattle. The obligation to produce additional proof demonstrates that physical marks alone were not always sufficient to establish ownership. The issuance of certificates formalised proof of lawful slaughter and ownership. The keeping of detailed records by overseers indicates a move towards systematic administrative control over livestock management. Speculations The emphasis on clandestine killing suggests that covert slaughter had become a persistent problem on the island. The detailed procedural requirements may reflect increasing concern over disputes between settlers regarding property rights. The combination of inspection, certification, and record-keeping suggests an effort to create a traceable system to deter theft and false claims. | |
135 | how to com[e] by yo[u]r sd beast or beasts, and [...] for the answer If any person or persons shall refuse or neglect to And that the more speedy and strict observance of this Complaints hath bin made, yt doggs (w[hic]h some psns Therefore It is Ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith issued out forbidding And that all doggs so loose running abroad, out of the Plantation G H[...] | That if the overseer or overseers be not satisfied that the Beast soe killed did truly belong unto the persons that killed it, they shall question them how they came by the sd Beast or Beasts, and what they have to say for themselves, and take their answer, as also take notice of the marks, if they shall then be to be had for the same proofe or testimony, either into their owne hands, or by any other that shall answer upon oath before a Justice for discovering the truth, and to be further examined. And the sd person or persons appointed overseers shall during or at the sd enquiry, after their satisfaction (or what they judge), declare or give their register favourable to them; but shall by them, where such cause or suspicion shall come to their knowledge that any Beast hath been killed, or that any hide hath been brought unto them to be viewed, and after having the same examined, that the names of the said persons may be openly and publickly read, whereby all persons may be informed what Cattles have been killed, and the names of the persons that killed those Beasts, or from whom they are, and not any other. And for preventing of such like disorders or mischiefs, any of them may command two or more persons for any trouble or resistance, they shall both be registers of every Beast that is killed, that shall be brought unto them, and to give account of the same. If any person or persons shall refuse or neglect to give due notice as aforesaid, or not observe this rule concerning the killing of Cattles, they shall be proceeded against as in cases of felony, and as contemners of Authority. And that the more speedy and strict observance of this duty may be had, it is ordered that the same be forthwith published and proclaimed at the publique Market, and thereupon at the Market house in Chappell Valley, and also at or by the Church doors in the Country. Dated at Fort James this Eighth day of October 1689. Complaints hath been made that doggs (which some persons keep for their own use, or some of their family) have done much damage to many peoples Cattle. Therefore it is ordered That a Proclamation be forthwith issued out forbidding any doggs, male or female, to go loose; but all such persons from their houses or habitations, and when they go abroad, to keep them tied up, for preventing the killing or harming of any Cattle; and if any dogg shall be found to be loose without such care, it shall be lawful for any person to kill or destroy such dogg, or to take and impound the same, and the owner thereof shall be liable for the damage done. And that all doggs so loose running abroad out of the Plantation lands may be killed; and if any dogg shall be found roving on the sd ground, allowance shall be made for killing it, and for the defraying of such persons for all the damage done to the sd Cattle; provided that such allowance shall not exceed one shilling. G H[...] | |
136 | Whereas in yo[u]r Court of Justice held on yo[u]r 2[ ] Which p[er]sons have accordingly Consented & agreed A double stone wall to be foure foot in height A bank faced in stones on yo[u]r outside of the Where there is only a ditch fence the breadth A ditch fence that is only foure foote broad A fence made all of wood is to be five foote in The same hath bin publickly read yest[er] Therefore It is hereby Ordered And we do confirme and Ratify the fore | Island St Helena At a Court of Justice held on the 2[ ] day of July 1689 it had been ordered that four persons out of each division of the said island should meet together to consider and determine the height, breadth and depth of all fences, whether already made or thereafter to be made, which should be accounted lawful and sufficient to secure plantations against all sorts of cattle. Those persons having accordingly consented and agreed in writing under their hands, their opinions and judgement concerning what fences should be lawful and sufficient were as follows. A double stone wall was to be four feet in height. Banks faced with stone on the inside of the plantation were to be five feet high, and upon the double wall of stones also to be two feet higher, and where stones were wanting, a fence of wood of two feet high. A bank faced in stones on the outside of the plantation was to be five feet and a half high. Where there was only a ditch fence, the breadth of it from brim to brim was to be six feet, and the depth to be the same, but the bottom only one foot broad. A ditch fence that was only four feet broad at the top, and four feet deep, was to be either faced as in the foregoing particulars, or to have a stone wall or other fence of wood two feet high on the top of the inside of the banks. A fence made wholly of wood was to be five feet in height, and each stake was to stand at four feet distance from each other, and no more. These particulars having been publicly read the previous day in open court, and no objection having been made, it was ordered that the said rules and proportions of the height, breadth and depth of all fences on the said island be confirmed and ratified, and approved as lawful and sufficient. These were to stand as the rules for all fences whatsoever until altered or repealed by authority. It was further ordered that the contents be proclaimed and affixed in the usual manner and places, so that all persons might take notice thereof. Interpretations The “divisions” of the island referred to administrative districts used for organising labour and local responsibility. The appointed persons acted as assessors or local jurors to define practical building standards. “Faced with stone” referred to earthen banks reinforced on one or both sides with stone to prevent erosion and to strengthen the barrier against livestock. “Ditch fence” meant a defensive trench, often combined with a bank or additional structure, used to keep cattle out of cultivated land. “Standing rules” indicated that these specifications were intended as a permanent regulatory standard unless formally changed by the governing authority. | |
137 | man For as much as Samᵘˡ Bowell a Condemned It is Ordered That an attachmᵗ be drawne and signed directed Copy of this Councell Who sett saile from the Island St Helena Memorandᵐ Copy of this Councell Who sett Saile from the Island St Helena [...] R[...][...]
| Samuel Bowell, identified as a condemned person, had escaped from prison and could not be found on the island. It was reported that he had departed for Europe or Barbados. Before leaving, his goods and effects had apparently been sold privately or otherwise removed from his possession, and his outstanding obligations had not been settled. His plantation still contained produce growing and standing, and expenses had been incurred both for its cultivation and for related incidental matters. Authority was therefore given for a legal seizure of his remaining property. An attachment was to be prepared and issued to Robert [...] Marshal, requiring him to take possession of all goods and effects located on Bowell’s land and plantation. This included crops and other produce still growing or present there. Company-owned slaves were to be assigned as needed to dig, transport and remove these goods to the Company’s plantation or to any other place as directed. The produce and labour were to be applied for the Company’s use and benefit. A full account was to be maintained by the Marshal. This was to record his own labour, the labour of the slaves, the time spent on the work, and the quantity and quality of all goods and produce removed from the plantation. These were to be delivered as directed, with [...] allowed. A record was made that a copy of the council proceedings covering the period from 18 April 1689 to 8 October 1689 had been sent to the Honourable Company aboard the Rainbow, commanded by Captain Benjamin Goodo. That ship had departed from St Helena on Friday 8 November 1689. The same memorandum was entered again in identical terms. Robᵗ Holden Interpretations An attachment functioned as a formal legal mechanism by which property was seized under authority of the court to secure debts or obligations. Its use here indicates that Bowell’s escape did not cancel his liabilities, and that his estate was treated as recoverable security under Company jurisdiction. The Marshal operated as the enforcing officer of the council’s orders. Responsibility for seizure, supervision of labour and accounting procedures demonstrates the integration of judicial authority with executive enforcement at the local level. The use of Company-owned slaves to extract and transport the produce shows how labour resources were centrally controlled and could be redirected to recover value from abandoned or forfeited property. This reflects a system in which labour, land and produce were administratively interchangeable assets within Company governance. The requirement to keep a detailed account of labour time and produce taken indicates an expectation of financial accountability. Such records ensured that the value recovered from the plantation could be measured and credited, either against Bowell’s debts or to the Company’s benefit. Speculations The decision to seize only the produce still growing or present on the plantation, rather than pursuing goods already sold or removed, suggests that recovery efforts were directed towards assets that could be immediately controlled and realised with minimal delay. This approach probably reflected practical limits on enforcement once property had been dispersed. The assignment of slaves specifically to dig, carry and convey the produce indicates that the plantation was expected to yield usable value despite Bowell’s absence. This arrangement was probably intended to prevent waste of crops already in the ground and to convert them into recoverable assets for the Company. | |
138 | Island St Helena Information being given that Prudence Shorwin Prudence Shorwin cometh and saith that shee Jnᵒ B[...] & Samˡ Taylor Planter Declares that Remsley Hoggin Govᵒʳ of the ship Rainbow being On Saturday the 2ᵈ of yeare last past Arrived the good Whereupon the sd Steadlor Comming on shore had leave to [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 6 November 1689, attended by John Blackmore, Governor, Robert Holden, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Information had been received that Prudence Shorwin had sold and retailed punch without a licence, contrary to Company orders. She denied selling any punch and stated that Remsley Hoggin, described as governor of the Rainbow, had come to her house and merely requested a bowl of punch. John B[...] and Samuel Taylor, a planter, declared that they had heard Hoggin say that he had received a bowl of punch for himself and another for his friend from Shorwin and that he had paid for them. Remsley Hoggin, being sworn, stated that he had gone to Shorwin’s house where several people were drinking punch, that he had joined them, and that he had asked her to prepare a bowl of punch for him. He confirmed that she had done so and that, for that bowl and another for his friend, he had placed a dollar on the table while she was making the punch. On Saturday 2 November 1689, the ship Rainbow, commanded by Captain Benjamin Goodo, had arrived. Among the passengers was Robert Steadlor, who had served for about two years at Surat in the Company’s service as a gunner. He had been brought to the island in order to return to England under Company orders and permission. After landing, Steadlor had been allowed to go into the country to recover his health. Having remained there for several days, he had returned and informed the Governor that he intended to leave the ship and wished to remain on the island. This prompted further inquiry. [...] Interpretations The requirement for a licence to sell punch reflects a regulated retail system in which the Company controlled the distribution of alcohol. This functioned both as a source of revenue and as a mechanism for maintaining order among inhabitants and visiting sailors. The taking of sworn testimony demonstrates the formal judicial procedure followed by the council. Statements made under oath carried legal weight and formed the basis for determining whether Company regulations had been breached. The description of Hoggin as “governor” of the ship indicates a senior or commanding officer acting with authority aboard the vessel, distinct from the ship’s captain. This reflects the layered command structures often present on Company ships. Steadlor’s movement from Surat to St Helena and then intended return to England illustrates the island’s role as a transit and administrative point within the Company’s wider network, where personnel could be reassigned or redirected according to Company orders. Speculations The payment of a dollar by Hoggin directly onto the table while the punch was being prepared suggests that the transaction resembled a casual purchase rather than a formal retail sale. This detail may have influenced how the council assessed whether Shorwin had knowingly engaged in unlicensed trading or had merely responded to a request from a ship’s officer. Steadlor’s decision to remain on the island after being sent for return to England indicates a deliberate departure from Company instructions. His initial stay in the country for recovery provided an opportunity to reconsider his situation, which probably prompted concern from the council about discipline and compliance among Company personnel. | |
139 | What should be the reason of this his election and after But wee not knowing the true reason of his sd refusing It is Unanimously Agreed and Ordered That the said Mr Robt Steadler doe proceed in his [...] R[...][...] | Further examination was made into the reason for Robert Steadlor’s wish to remain on the island rather than continue his voyage. After extended discussion with him in the presence of the Governor and Council, Captain Benjamin Goodo, and Mr [...][...], and also from common report, it was understood that Steadlor had either been persuaded by others or had chosen of his own will to stay in order to marry a female slave of about 22 years of age belonging to Matt Bonnes, one of those condemned for the recent rebellion. This intention caused considerable concern. Various arguments were put to him in an attempt to persuade him to continue his journey and return to England to his family, but he remained unwilling. Uncertainty remained as to the true reasons for his refusal to leave his employment after only about two years’ service, and as to whether the Company might have grounds for complaint against him. Consideration was also given to the possible reaction of his superiors and of his relatives, as well as to the unfavourable consequences that might arise if he were allowed to remain and marry on the island. A unanimous decision was therefore made that Robert Steadlor was to continue his voyage to England in the Rainbow, the ship in which he had arrived. He was not to go again into the countryside during his stay on the island and was required to be ready to go on board when the ship was prepared to sail. If he refused, absconded or concealed himself, enforcement measures were to be taken to compel his embarkation before the ship’s departure. [...] Robᵗ Holden Interpretations The insistence that Steadlor continue his voyage reflects the Company’s authority over its servants’ movements and employment. Individuals in Company service were not free to determine their place of residence or marital arrangements where these conflicted with assigned duties. The prohibition on his returning to the countryside functioned as a form of supervision or restriction of movement. This measure reduced the risk of escape and ensured that he remained under observation until departure. The concern about how the matter might be received by superiors and family indicates that Company discipline extended beyond the island, with reputational and administrative accountability linking St Helena to wider Company governance structures. The reference to the woman as the property of a condemned rebel shows that her status was tied to confiscated or controlled estates, and that relationships involving such individuals could raise questions about property, ownership and authority. Speculations The decision to prevent Steadlor from returning to the countryside suggests that his earlier stay there had provided the opportunity to form the relationship that prompted his refusal to depart. Restricting his movement probably aimed to remove further contact that might strengthen his resolve to remain. The emphasis on potential disapproval from superiors and relatives indicates that the council viewed his intended marriage not only as a personal matter but as a breach of expected social and institutional norms. This concern may have influenced the firmness of the order requiring his departure. | |
140 | Island St Helena Complaints were made by severall persons of Tho Allison declares that he had lost a black sow Rich Leach saith that he hath lost two sows with Jnᵒ Draper declares that he hath lost out of his It was further alledged that the said Blacks It was demanded of Job whether they did not But Marea the Gunns Black woman who rann Likewise shee Confest that ye said Job did take of | A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 December 1689, attended by John Blackmore, Robert Holden and Richard Rolingo. Complaints were brought by several inhabitants concerning damage caused by Job, a male slave, and Marea, a female slave belonging to Mr Phillips Gunn. Both had been absent from their master for some time and had recently been taken into custody. Thomas Allison stated that he had lost a black sow marked as his own, valued at £0 12s 0d. Job and Marea admitted that they had killed that animal. Richard Leach reported the loss of two sows with pig and also some yams. The two slaves acknowledged taking two bags of yams but denied taking the swine. Job further admitted that they had killed three young pigs at the Rocks but said that they did not know to whom they belonged. John Draper declared that he had lost about two months’ worth of yams from a plantation he rented from Orchard Arphare. The slaves admitted taking three bags of yams from that plantation. Further allegations were made that Job and Marea, together with others, had recently been involved in poisoning. Their examinations and confessions were then taken. Job was questioned as to whether he had poisoned his mistress, the former wife of Gunn, and he denied doing so. Marea, who had run away with him, stated that Job had poisoned that woman. She also confessed that he had prepared a mixture consisting of powdered lead, blood taken from Job’s groin, copper and a plant growing on the plain, which he combined and placed into the dish of Bonas’s horse with the intention of making it blind and lame. [...] Interpretations The formal taking of examinations and confessions shows that the council exercised judicial authority over both slaves and property offences. Testimony from slaves was accepted as evidence, although it was weighed alongside other statements. The valuation of the sow at £0 12s 0d demonstrates that livestock was treated as quantifiable property subject to compensation. Such valuations were essential for determining restitution or penalties within the island’s legal framework. The reference to Draper’s rented plantation indicates the existence of tenancy arrangements. Land could be occupied and cultivated under agreement rather than outright ownership, showing a layered system of property rights. The classification of the accused individuals as runaway slaves highlights the importance of control over labour. Absence from a master without permission was treated as a serious breach, particularly when accompanied by theft or damage. Speculations The admission of killing animals “at the Rocks” without identifying ownership suggests that the fugitives relied on opportunistic use of livestock while in hiding. This behaviour probably reflects the practical difficulties of survival while absent from supervision. The detailed account of the alleged poisoning mixture indicates that the accusation extended beyond theft into acts considered more threatening to social order. The inclusion of such testimony may have been intended to establish a pattern of harmful conduct that justified stronger punishment. | |
141 | Robᵗ Eddy Marshall and Samˡ Taylor Planter Marea saith further that Dirick a Black man Job the Gunns Black man saith that he did know Robᵗ Wilson one of ye St Helena Compᵃ Negroes saith yt Jonathan Paxton a seaman saith Mary Oliver saith that Dirick did declare unto | Further testimony was given concerning statements attributed to Job and to others connected with him. Robert Eddy, the Marshal, and Samuel Taylor, a planter, stated that they had heard Gunn declare that Job had said that, if he wished to conceal himself, he would poison Gunn’s wife’s sister. It was also reported that poison had been placed in a sack lying ready for the dog belonging to Gunn’s wife. Marea gave additional evidence. She stated that Dirick, a slave belonging to Mr William Bowles, had come from the shore to her master’s house and told her that he had heard that Job was to be put to death for poisoning Gunn’s wife. She further said that, if any white man came to the house to seize her, she would take poison and kill herself rather than be taken and executed by order of the Governor. Marea also declared that Dirick had told her that he had poisoned his own master, Bowles, and had previously done the same to his former master, Captain Burton. Job stated that he had heard Dirick say that he had poisoned Bowles in April of that year. When asked why, Dirick had reportedly said that he had done it after being provoked, mentioning that Bowles had thrown a shoe at him from a window and had beaten him. Robert Wilson, one of the Company’s slaves, reported that Edward Bryan, a planter, had said that Job had given him poison mixed with fat and his own blood, claiming that if it were administered to his master’s horse or to his master’s wife it would kill immediately. Another witness similarly stated that Job had repeated that Dirick had poisoned Bowles and also Captain Burton’s wife. Jonathan Paxton, a seaman, stated that he had seen Dirick hand a paper to Marea. She had placed it on a bench, and when Paxton attempted to pick it up, she had snatched it away. He did not know its contents. Mary Oliver stated that Dirick had told her, while in prison, that Job had poisoned his dog and had placed something beneath her bed, although she did not know what it was. [...] Interpretations The accumulation of multiple witness statements shows a structured evidential process in which testimony from both free inhabitants and slaves was gathered to establish patterns of behaviour. This reflects the council’s role as a judicial body handling serious offences, including suspected poisoning. The involvement of the Marshal in giving evidence indicates that enforcement officers could also act as witnesses. This demonstrates overlap between executive and judicial functions in the island’s administration. References to imprisonment and anticipated execution show that poisoning was treated as a capital offence. The repeated mention of fear of death underlines the severity with which such acts were regarded within the legal framework. The circulation of poison and instructions for its use suggests that knowledge of harmful substances was considered a matter of security concern. The council’s attention to such details indicates an effort to control not only actions but also the means by which harm could be carried out. Speculations The repeated attribution of poisoning to Dirick across several testimonies suggests that his alleged actions were used to explain or reinforce accusations against Job. This may have served to connect individual offences into a broader pattern of dangerous behaviour requiring decisive response. Marea’s statement about intending to take poison rather than be captured indicates that the fear of punishment was immediate and personal. This suggests that the proceedings had already created an expectation of severe consequences, which influenced how those involved described their intentions and actions. | |
142 | Olivᵉr Bander saith that Job the Gunnᵉʳ Black Olivᵉr the present wife of Mr Phillips saith Tho said Carrington Black named Anthony Marea the Gunns Black woman saith that Peter Job the Gunns Black man Confesseth that he Upon the Consideration of what hath bin It appeareth plainly that the said Job | Additional testimony was presented concerning the actions and statements of Job and others. Oliver Bander stated that Job, the gunner’s slave, had told her that Dirick had said he had given Mrs Bowles poison in her food, which would kill her quickly. Oliver, now the wife of Mr Phillips, reported that Richard Carrington had told her that Job had given poison to Carrington’s slave Anthony with instructions to poison Carrington. Anthony was said to have refused to poison his mistress, describing her as a good woman, but had indicated that he would have poisoned Carrington himself if not for her. Anthony, the slave belonging to Carrington, admitted that he had been at Gunn’s house with other slaves and that Job had given him poison to administer to Richard Carrington. He stated that he had thrown it away after leaving the house. He also confirmed that he had seen the poison being prepared there by Gunn’s slaves. Marea stated that Peter, a slave belonging to Richard Gilling who had previously been punished for poisoning the woman mentioned earlier, had supplied poison to Anthony and to other slaves, mixed with [...] powder. Job admitted that he had poisoned his mistress, the former wife of Mr Phillips Gunn. He also stated that Dirick had poisoned his own mistress, Mrs Bowles, and her husband, Captain Burton. After consideration of the sworn testimony and confessions, it was determined that Job, Marea and Dirick were guilty of poisoning three individuals, namely Gunn’s former wife and Captain Burton, together with Mrs Bowles, who was still alive but in a very weak and dangerous condition. It was noted that she had remained in that state for the most part since April 1689. [...] Interpretations The reliance on confessions alongside corroborating testimony shows that admission of guilt was central to establishing culpability. Such confessions, especially when supported by multiple witnesses, carried decisive weight in judicial proceedings. The identification of poisoning as affecting specific named individuals demonstrates the legal framing of harm as an offence against identifiable persons, which allowed responsibility to be fixed and penalties assigned. The involvement of multiple slaves across different households indicates that offences were investigated not only as isolated acts but also as networks of participation. This reflects concern with controlling the spread of knowledge and practice that could threaten authority. The continued reference to Mrs Bowles’s condition over several months shows that long-term illness attributed to poisoning could be treated as part of the same offence, even where death had not yet occurred. This extended the scope of liability beyond immediate outcomes. Speculations The repeated mention of poison being prepared, distributed and passed between individuals suggests that the council perceived a wider circulation of harmful substances rather than a single isolated act. This may have influenced the decision to treat the matter collectively and to identify several individuals as jointly responsible. Anthony’s claim that he discarded the poison after receiving it indicates an attempt to distance himself from the offence while still acknowledging involvement. This distinction may have been relevant to how responsibility was assessed among those connected to the case. | |
143 | Therefore It is Ordered That the aforesaid Blacks Job and Dirick And Further It is Ordered That Marea the Gunns Black woman be chained Likewise that Richᵈ Carrum Black man Anthony Tho Allison Planter Complaines that Robin | A decision was made concerning the punishment of those found guilty of poisoning. Job and Dirick were sentenced to death, with execution fixed for 31 December 1689. Public notice was to be given requiring all inhabitants of the island, except the Gunn household and young children, to attend the execution. This was intended to serve as a warning against similar offences. Each inhabitant was also required to bring a sufficient number of slaves to assist in carrying out the execution, in accordance with an earlier council order dated 15 August 1680 and confirmed by Company instructions sent aboard the Loyall Merchant. That standing rule required inhabitants to contribute proportionally, with slaves of about 15 years of age being supplied to compensate the owners of the condemned individuals. Marea was ordered to be chained at the place of execution alongside Job and Dirick while they were put to death by burning. She was to remain there until the execution was complete. Afterwards, she was to receive 30 lashes on her naked body and be returned to prison in irons. She was to remain imprisoned until arrangements could be made for her removal from the island, from which she was banished. During her confinement, she was to receive 30 lashes every Saturday afternoon. Anthony, a slave belonging to Richard Carrum, was ordered to be whipped on his naked body on Saturday 3 January 1690 for concealing the preparation of the poison and for receiving it. He was also sentenced to banishment from the island. Until his removal, he was to remain imprisoned in irons and to be whipped in the same manner as Marea. Following these orders, Thomas Allison, a planter, lodged a complaint that Robin Dew Jackson, a servant, had broken into his house and stolen several items. Interpretations The requirement that all inhabitants attend the execution shows that punishment was used as a public instrument of deterrence. The gathering of the population transformed the execution into a formal display of authority intended to reinforce social control. The obligation placed on inhabitants to supply slaves for the execution reflects a system in which the costs of punishment were distributed across the community. Compensation through the provision of slaves indicates that condemned individuals were treated as valuable property whose loss required redress. The sentence of burning for Job and Dirick demonstrates that certain crimes, particularly poisoning, were treated as exceptionally serious and warranted extreme forms of capital punishment within the island’s legal framework. The use of irons, repeated whipping and banishment imposed on Marea and Anthony illustrates a graded system of penalties. This combined physical punishment, confinement and forced removal as methods of control short of execution. The standing order of 15 August 1680, confirmed by Company instructions, shows that local judicial practice operated within a broader framework set by the Company, with earlier regulations continuing to govern later decisions. Speculations The requirement that inhabitants contribute slaves of about 15 years of age as compensation suggests that the value of the executed individuals was calculated in labour terms. This arrangement probably aimed to maintain the economic balance between owners and the wider community after the loss of enslaved workers through execution. The decision to chain Marea at the place of execution before administering her punishment indicates that her role was intended to be visibly associated with the crime and its consequences. This likely served to reinforce the warning effect of the execution for those present. | |
144 | Capt Smith saith that the Allison Black named Phillip met the sd Robin when he run from his said Mr and asked him where he was going the said Robin answered that he was away then said Phillip I will goe along with you but doe ye come and stay at ye House untill my Master and Mistris are gon to bed, and I will give you some Meat, But Robin said the doggs will make a noise then Phillip said he would take them the said doggs into ye House then about 11 or 12 a Clock in the night the said Robin went and stood by the said House Window, and Phillip pulled downe the window Barr and shutter and broke a rayle or two of ye said Window, and then the said Phillip handed out to Robin a Bowle of Beans and six peeces of Meat with the Rumme to warme the Beans to Butter and some yams, soe they went both away some good distance from the House where they warmed the Beans to Butter and divided ye six peeces of Meat and the Butter and by that tyme it was almost day then the said Phillip said to Robin goe your way and I will shott ye door the said Robin went into Groundwoods Old house and the sd Phillip went unto his Masters house, but came not to him the said Robin Phillip the said Allison Black saith that he did not see ye sd Robin some dayes before his Masters house was broken up nor will he Confess that he did give the said Robin any thing out of his said Masters house But upon Consideration that the sd Allison house was broken open and the said goods stolen out of it and that in all likelyhood the said Allison Black Phillip was a principall actor in it being knowne to have bin guilty of severall thefts and frequent running away from his Master, and it appearing that the said Robin was then run from his Master and that he had part of the things that was stolen, And that the said Robin hath bin often guilty of thievery It is Ordered That Phillip the said Allison Black and [...] | Captain Smith reported that Allison’s slave, Phillip, had encountered Robin while he was absent from his master. Phillip asked where he was going, to which Robin replied that he was leaving. Phillip then suggested that Robin should wait at the house until his master and mistress had gone to bed, offering to give him food. Robin expressed concern that the dogs would make a noise, but Phillip replied that he would take the dogs inside. Later, around eleven or twelve o’clock at night, Robin went to the house and stood by the window. Phillip removed the window bar and shutter and broke one or two rails. He then handed out to Robin a bowl of beans, six pieces of meat, rum for warming the beans, butter and some yams. Both men then went some distance from the house, where they heated the beans with the butter and divided the meat and butter between them. By the time this was done, it was nearly daybreak. Phillip then told Robin to leave, saying that he would secure the door. Robin went to an old house at Groundwoods, while Phillip returned to his master’s house, though he did not go back to Robin afterwards. Phillip denied that he had seen Robin in the days before the house was broken into and refused to admit that he had given him anything from the house. After considering the matter, it was noted that Allison’s house had been forcibly entered and goods had been stolen. Phillip was considered probably to have been a principal participant, as he was known to have committed several thefts and to have frequently absented himself from his master. It was also established that Robin had been absent from his master at the time and had possessed some of the stolen goods, and that he had previously been involved in theft. A decision was then made that Phillip, Allison’s slave, and [...] Interpretations The account shows that testimony from a third party, here Captain Smith, could be used to reconstruct events even where the accused denied involvement. This reflects reliance on indirect evidence in determining responsibility. The breaking of the window and removal of goods demonstrates how theft from a plantation household was treated as a serious offence involving both trespass and property loss. Such acts were examined in detail to establish participation and intent. Phillip’s prior record of theft and absence from his master was taken into account in assessing his guilt. This indicates that patterns of behaviour could influence judicial judgement alongside specific evidence. The reference to Robin being absent from his master shows that unauthorised movement was itself significant and could contribute to suspicion in criminal matters. Speculations The description of Phillip arranging access to the house and controlling the dogs suggests that he used his position within the household to enable the theft. This indicates that insider access was a key factor in the commission of the offence. The division and consumption of the stolen food soon after the theft implies that the act was driven by immediate need or opportunity rather than longer-term gain. This behaviour may have influenced how the offence was perceived in terms of intent and severity. | |
145 | the said Robin have 30 lashes on their naked Bodys [...] [...] | A judgement was given concerning Phillip, the slave of Thomas Allison, and Robin Dew Jackson, a servant. Each was sentenced to receive 30 lashes on the naked body. Both were to be banished from the island at the first available opportunity. Until their removal, they were to remain confined in prison in chains and were to receive 30 lashes every Saturday afternoon. [...] Robᵗ Holden Interpretations The combination of corporal punishment, imprisonment in irons and eventual banishment reflects a structured penal approach in which offenders were first physically punished, then restrained, and finally removed from the community. This sequence shows how discipline and social exclusion operated together within the island’s legal system. The requirement that punishment continue weekly until removal indicates that sentences could extend over time rather than being confined to a single act. This prolonged enforcement maintained pressure on offenders while awaiting transport. Speculations The decision to delay banishment until the next available opportunity suggests that removal depended on the arrival of a suitable ship. This indicates that the island’s penal system was closely tied to maritime logistics and the movement of vessels. | |
146 | Island St Helena Monday Janʳʸ the 6ᵗʰ 1689 A List of all those of the French Nation that Capt Stephᵉ Borogor Stephᵉ Borogor Mary Jean Morin Now the Boys Vinsonour Englishmen said to be brought John Vornell | A list was recorded on 6 January 1690 at St Helena of individuals described as being of the French nation who had landed on that day from the ship Benjamin, commanded by Captain Leonard Browne. Those named were Captain Stephen Borogor, together with Stephen Borogor, Gabriel Borogor and Alexander Borogor, identified as his sons. Also listed were Mary, Lucy, Elizabeth, Anne and Magdalen, identified as his daughters. Further individuals included Jean Morin, Now the Boys, James Dovin, Michael Cobais, Sam Dofontaine, John le fleurs, Andre Jure, Phillip de Barancour, Jacque Charles and Vinsonour. A separate list was made of persons described as Englishmen who were said to have been brought by the same ship. These were John Vornell, Thomas Gartry, Henry Hogg, John Holden, John Cane, John Bonnell, Isaac Slaughter, Matthew Hill and Nicholas Ander, noted as a Dane. Interpretations The recording of national origin alongside names indicates administrative tracking of incoming populations. Such lists functioned to monitor the movement of foreign individuals onto the island, which was significant for security, labour management and governance. The grouping of individuals into family units, particularly in the case of the Borogor household, shows that migration could involve entire families rather than only individual labourers or sailors. This reflects the potential for settlement as well as transit. The distinction made between those identified as French and those described as Englishmen, even when one individual was noted as Danish, suggests that categorisation served practical administrative purposes rather than strict nationality. This classification likely related to legal status, allegiance or expected treatment under Company authority. | |
147 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on [...]day the Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Matthew C[ou][r][n][e][y] one of the Condem[n]d men declaring Hereupon a treaty with the said Courney was entred It is Agreed with the said Courney That the said Courney shall be paid for his said | A consultation was held at Fort James on 10 January 1690, attended by John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Matthew C[ou][r][n][e][y], one of the condemned men, declared his willingness to remove himself and his family, consisting of his wife and three children, to Bombay aboard the Benjamin, commanded by Captain Leonard Browne. This proposal followed recent instructions issued by the Lords Proprietors, which provided that persons in similar circumstances who agreed to relocate to Bombay would receive full payment for their land and plantations, based either on earlier valuations or on current assessment of their worth to the Company. A negotiation was entered into with Courney regarding the value of his property. Reference was made to an earlier appraisal conducted in 1688, when Sir John Bigbourne and others had been present, which had valued the estate at £50 0s 0d. The present condition of his house, land and plantation was then reviewed. These were found to consist largely of existing structures and some additional goods and chattels, which might not be advantageous to the Company in themselves but were useful in relation to his dwelling and plantation. His plantation was noted to lie adjacent to part of the Company’s main plantation. It also contained a significant quantity of crops, which, in a period of dryness and scarcity, were expected to provide valuable support for the maintenance of Courney and his household, described as consisting of 10 persons. Agreement was reached that Courney would be paid for his country house, land and plantations, together with all crops and provisions growing there. Payment was also to be made for his house in James Valley, described as well situated opposite the market house, consisting of [...] Interpretations The arrangement demonstrates a formal policy encouraging relocation to Bombay by offering financial compensation for property. This indicates an organised effort by the Company to redirect population and labour to another part of its territories. The use of a prior appraisal from 1688 alongside a current assessment shows that property valuation was treated as both a recorded and negotiable process. The Company retained discretion to reconsider earlier valuations in light of present conditions. The emphasis on the plantation’s proximity to the Company’s main plantation highlights strategic considerations in land acquisition. Contiguous landholdings could be consolidated to improve administrative control and agricultural efficiency. The inclusion of growing crops in the valuation reflects recognition of agricultural output as a form of immediate economic value. This was particularly significant in times of scarcity, when such produce contributed directly to subsistence and supply. Speculations The willingness to compensate Courney for both his land and its produce suggests that the Company aimed to secure his departure without resistance by offering terms that reflected not only fixed property but also short-term productive value. This approach may have been intended to ensure compliance among condemned individuals offered relocation. The reference to scarcity and the usefulness of the crops implies that the Company recognised the immediate benefit of acquiring productive land. The agreement may therefore have balanced the need to remove Courney with the advantage of bringing his plantation under Company control at a time when food resources were limited. | |
148 | [...] of four Roome, the sume of eighty pounds, There is [...] Sexton another of the Condemned men Whereupon the Appraisement made 1688 mention It is Agreed wᵗʰ the sd Sexton That the sd Sexton shall be paid for his house & land | Further terms were settled with Matthew C[ou][r][n][e][y] regarding payment for his property. His house in James Valley, described as consisting of four rooms, was included in the valuation, bringing the total sum to £80 0s 0d. Of this amount, £60 0s 0d was to be paid in cash at a rate of 6 shillings per dollar, and £20 0s 0d in goods from the Company’s store. He was required to execute a formal deed of conveyance transferring all his property, including land, houses and all crops and provisions growing thereon, to the Lords Proprietors. He was permitted to make use of the produce for the support of his family while the Benjamin remained in the road at Fort James, or until he and his family went on board. However, he was not allowed to sell or dispose of any of the produce to other persons or ships without permission. Upon fulfilling these conditions and providing an order specifying the payment of all his debts on the island, including those owed to the Lords Proprietors, he and his family were to be allowed to embark on the Benjamin for transport to Bombay. A similar request was then made by [...] Sexton, another condemned man, who wished to remove himself, his wife and five children to Bombay aboard the same ship. He sought payment for his land and plantation under the same Company order. The earlier valuation made in 1688 was reviewed and found to amount to £25 0s 0d. The current condition of his property was then considered. His plantation was found to have been somewhat improved, including the sowing of a considerable area with cotton. His country house was of lesser value, but he also possessed a principal house in Rappell Valley, situated near the market house, which was in good repair and was judged to be worth at least one-third more than its earlier valuation of £110 0s 0d. Sexton requested additional payment on the grounds that he had two sons in India and two daughters, stating that this would assist him in covering the cost of passage for his large family and in providing necessary supplies for the journey to Bombay. Agreement was reached that Sexton would receive £40 0s 0d for his country house, land and plantation, together with his house in Rappell Valley. Of this sum, £20 0s 0d was to be paid in cash at 6 shillings per dollar, and £20 0s 0d in goods from the Company’s store. He was likewise required to execute a conveyance transferring all the premises to the Company. Interpretations The requirement that payment be divided between cash and store goods shows how the Company managed limited currency supplies by supplementing monetary payment with goods. This reflects a controlled economic system in which the Company acted as both purchaser and supplier. The execution of a deed of conveyance formalised the transfer of property rights to the Lords Proprietors. This legal instrument ensured that land and assets passed securely into Company ownership as part of the relocation arrangement. The condition that produce could be used but not sold illustrates the distinction between subsistence rights and commercial rights. Temporary use was allowed for survival, while control over market exchange remained with the Company. The reassessment of Sexton’s property demonstrates that improvements, such as the planting of cotton, could affect valuation. This indicates that agricultural development was recognised as increasing the economic worth of land within the island’s administrative system. Speculations The allowance for Courney to use his crops while awaiting departure suggests that the Company aimed to prevent hardship that might delay or obstruct his embarkation. This provision likely ensured that he and his family remained provisioned without drawing on Company stores before leaving. The decision to grant Sexton a higher total payment than his earlier valuation, despite limited resources, indicates that the Company may have been motivated to secure his removal by offering terms sufficient to cover the costs of transporting a large family. This suggests that relocation to Bombay was being actively encouraged rather than merely permitted. | |
149 | [...] upon his performance of the abovesaid Contract [...] Fox another of the Condemned men desired that It is Ordered That the sd Fox have liberty to sell and dispose of Robᵗ Tompson another of the Condemned men desired It is Ordered That since the sd Tompson his house and Plantation The Kitchen or one as sold on the Island having bin | Further arrangements were made concerning the removal of additional condemned persons. Upon fulfilling the agreed terms and settling all debts on St Helena, authority was to be granted for Sexton, his wife and family to embark on the Benjamin for transport to Bombay, with all their goods to be taken on board under order of the Governor and Council to the Lords Proprietors. [...] Fox, another condemned man, requested permission for himself, his household and family to proceed to Bombay in the same ship and asked to be allowed to sell his house and plantation to the best advantage. Approval was given for him to dispose of his property, as it was judged unlikely to be of benefit to the Lords Proprietors. After settling all debts on the island and obtaining the necessary order from the Governor and Council, he was to receive permission to embark on the Benjamin for transportation to Bombay. Robert Thompson, also condemned, made a similar request for himself, his wife and children. Permission was likewise granted for him to sell his house and plantation freely, as these were considered of no advantage to the Lords Proprietors. Upon payment of all debts and receipt of the appropriate order, he was to be licensed to depart the island. Reference was then made to a matter previously determined by a Court Martial held on 28 March 1689. A kitchen, or item described as such, which had been taken by the Company, had been restored to the purchaser. In accordance with Company instructions, it was to be sent with the condemned persons to Bombay or Fort St George at the first available opportunity. [...] Interpretations The distinction made between cases where the Company purchased property and those where individuals were allowed to sell privately shows that land and assets were evaluated according to their usefulness to Company operations. Where no advantage was identified, private sale was permitted instead of compulsory acquisition. The requirement that debts be settled before departure demonstrates that relocation did not release individuals from financial obligations. The council ensured that creditors, including the Lords Proprietors, were satisfied before allowing removal from the island. The issuing of a licence to depart indicates that movement off the island was controlled through formal permission. This reflects a regulated system of mobility in which departure required administrative approval. The reference to a prior Court Martial decision shows that military judicial processes operated alongside civil authority, and that their outcomes could continue to affect property and administrative arrangements at a later date. Speculations The decision to allow Fox and Thompson to sell their property privately, rather than having it acquired by the Company, suggests that the council aimed to avoid taking on assets that would not yield sufficient value. This indicates a selective approach to property acquisition based on practical benefit. The inclusion of previously adjudicated property to be sent with the condemned men to Bombay or Fort St George implies that relocation was being used not only to remove individuals but also to transfer associated assets. This may have been intended to support their resettlement or to settle outstanding claims connected to their cases. | |
150 | [...] the good ship Benjamin being bound It is Ordered That the sd Kitchen be put on board the sd Thoᵐᵃ and Barbara Young being two of the youngest Whereupon It is Ordered That the sd two Orphans have liberty to goe to And then It was Agreed & Ordered That there be to the Value of sixteen pounds Expended Thomas Harper Planter Petitioned for Licence for It is Ordered That a Licence be granted as desired to the sd | Further orders were issued concerning the departure of persons and goods aboard the Benjamin, bound for Bombay. A kitchen previously referred to was to be placed on board the Benjamin, commanded by Captain Leonard Browne, for transport to Bombay. It was to be delivered there to the Governor or President, together with an account of all expenses incurred in relation to it. The Marshal was required to prepare this account and provide it to Captain Browne for delivery alongside the item. Thomas and Barbara Young, identified as two of the youngest orphan children of deceased parents, requested permission to travel to Bombay on the same ship. They also sought financial assistance from the estate belonging to the orphans to cover necessary provisions and the cost of their passage. Approval was granted for their departure, and Mr Morris, responsible for the administration of the orphan estate, was instructed to provide funds considered necessary for their needs. A sum of £16 0s 0d was authorised to be spent from the estate for baggage and accommodation during the journey. Thomas Harper, a planter, then petitioned for permission for his two daughters, Sarah and Elizabeth, to travel to India aboard the Benjamin. Permission was granted, with their father undertaking responsibility for arranging and paying for their transport. Interpretations The requirement that the kitchen be delivered with an accompanying account of expenses shows the importance placed on financial accountability in the handling of Company property. Goods transferred between locations were formally recorded and costed. The administration of the orphan estate demonstrates a system of guardianship in which appointed individuals managed funds on behalf of minors. Expenditure required official approval, ensuring that assets were used for the welfare of those entitled to them. The granting of licences for travel indicates that movement between Company territories was regulated. Even private individuals required formal permission to depart the island. The involvement of the Governor or President at Bombay in receiving goods reflects the administrative linkage between St Helena and other Company settlements, where authority was exercised through recognised offices. Speculations The allocation of £16 0s 0d from the orphan estate for travel expenses suggests that the council considered relocation to Bombay to be in the interests of the children’s future support. This indicates that movement within the Company’s network could be used as a means of managing dependants. The requirement for the Marshal to prepare a detailed account to accompany the kitchen implies that its transfer was not merely logistical but part of a formal financial process. This may have been intended to ensure that any costs incurred on St Helena were recognised and accounted for in Bombay. | |
151 | Lidia Harding an Orphan of Ricᵈ Harding It is Ordered That the said Lidia Harding have a Lycense to [...] | Lidia Harding, an orphan of Richard Harding, deceased, requested permission to leave the island for Bombay aboard the Benjamin. She stated that she would pay for her own passage. Permission was granted for her to travel to Bombay, on condition that she paid the cost of her transport directly to the ship’s commander. [...] Interpretations The granting of a licence to depart confirms that travel from the island remained subject to formal approval. Even where individuals could pay their own costs, permission from the Governor and Council was required. The requirement that payment be made directly to the commander shows that transport was arranged through private agreement with the ship’s master, rather than through a centralised Company system. This reflects the role of individual ships in facilitating movement within the Company’s network. | |
152 | Island St Helena Present Jn Blackmore Govr Jn Draper as Attorney to Anna the Relict The sd Bour[ne]y acknowledges the sd debt but It is Ordered That the sd Bour[ne]y before he goe off this Island Mathew Gr[ane]y Complains of Jn Draper The sd Draper doth not deny the sd debt but John Draper the sd Widd Croftons Attor[ney] deposes Math Bour[ne]y being sworne saith that he did heare | At a consultation held on Saturday 1 February 1690 at Fort James, John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard R[el]ingo, Ensign, considered several financial disputes. John Draper, acting as attorney for Anna, widow of Captain John Crofton, brought a claim against Mathew Bour[ne]y for a debt of [...]. Bour[ne]y acknowledged that the debt was owed but hesitated to make payment because the bond was not in his possession. An order was made that, before departing the island, he was to pay or arrange payment to Draper of £20 0s 0d. By agreement between both parties, £10 0s 0d was to be paid in silver and the remainder in the recognised currency or credit of the island. Mathew Gr[ane]y then brought a complaint against John Draper, stating that Draper owed him £2 0s 0d. Draper did not deny the debt and stated that payment would be made upon demand. In a related matter, Draper, acting on behalf of the widow Crofton, requested that Mathew Bour[ne]y and Thomas Harper be examined regarding their knowledge of a debt owed by Richard Parrum, a planter on the island. Bour[ne]y, upon oath, declared that he had heard Parrum acknowledge a debt of £16 0s 0d to Captain Crofton. He further stated that Parrum had assigned a bank paper, which Crofton was to take up in order to settle payments to Bour[ne]y, Thomas Harper, and another individual, [...], who had been present as a witness. Interpretations The reference to a bond shows that formal written obligations were central to enforcing debts. Bour[ne]y’s hesitation to pay without the bond indicates that possession of such a document served as legal proof and protection against duplicate claims. Payment partly in silver and partly in the “pay of the island” reflects a dual monetary system. Silver coin represented hard currency, while island pay functioned as a locally recognised medium of account or credit, controlled by the administration. The mention of a “bank paper” suggests the use of transferable financial instruments to settle obligations. Such papers allowed debts to be reassigned and redeemed by another party, indicating a developing system of credit circulation beyond direct cash exchange. The use of an attorney acting for a widow demonstrates how legal representation enabled individuals, particularly those managing estates, to pursue claims within the island’s judicial structure. Speculations The requirement that Bour[ne]y settle the debt before leaving the island indicates that departure was being used as leverage to enforce payment. This suggests that mobility was controlled in part to ensure that financial obligations were discharged locally before individuals could remove themselves from jurisdiction. | |
153 | Tho[mas] Parrum saith that he hath paid yo[ur] James [D]oor Complaines of Robt Tomps that yo[ur] [...] Bolten saith that he hath paid the sd debt It is Ordered That the sd Tomps doe pay the sd Bolten Dorothy [H]ill Complaines of the sd Tomps that he It is Ordered That the sd Tomps doe presently pay the sd debt Mathew [B]our[ne]y being indebted unto the Rt It is Ordered That the sd Bour[ne]y doe pay the sd debt Robt Tomps is indebted to the Rt Honble Comp[an]y for It is Ordered That the sd Tomps doe immediately pay the sd debt Wm Fox is indebted to the Rt Honble Comp[an]y for It is Ordered That the sd Fox doe pay the sd debt accordingly | Thomas Parrum stated that he had already paid two debts and could produce proof of this. James [D]oor brought a complaint against Robert Tomps, asserting that Tomps owed [...] Bolten a sum of 13s 3d. Bolten claimed that the debt had been settled before she departed for England. However, Tomps was unable to produce a receipt to prove payment. A direction was therefore given that Tomps was to pay Bolten the sum of £0 13s 3d before leaving the island. Dorothy [H]ill also brought a claim against Tomps for a debt of 6s 0d. The debt was admitted, and immediate payment was ordered. Mathew [B]our[ne]y was found to be indebted to the Lords Proprietors in the sum of £4 25s 10d. Payment of this debt was required accordingly. Robert Tomps was recorded as owing the Company £0 13s 8d for borrowed money. Immediate payment was ordered, with the enforcement tied to the authority of the island. Payment was then made. William Fox was likewise found to be indebted to the Company for borrowed money in the sum of £6 7s 0d. He was required to settle this debt. Interpretations The insistence on a receipt as proof of payment demonstrates the administrative reliance on written evidence in financial disputes. Without such documentation, verbal claims of settlement were not accepted. The repeated requirement that debts be paid before individuals left the island indicates that departure functioned as a point of enforcement. Financial obligations had to be cleared before permission to leave could be effectively exercised. The sums owed to the Lords Proprietors and to the Company show a distinction between private debts and obligations to governing authorities. These institutional debts were actively monitored and enforced through the council. The reference to money “borrowed” from the Company suggests that it operated as a source of credit. Repayment was enforced directly through administrative authority rather than through separate legal proceedings. Speculations The failure of Tomps to produce a receipt, despite the claim that payment had already been made, suggests that written proof was becoming essential in a system where individuals might otherwise leave the island before disputes were resolved. This emphasis on documentation may have been intended to reduce uncertainty in a mobile and transient population. | |
154 | Mathew Bour[ne]y, Robt Tomps, [Pe]ister And now they all being goeing to Bombay in the Whereupon It was thought fitt That the sd Bour[ne]y, Tomps, Borton and Fox | Further consideration was given at the same consultation to the position of Mathew Bour[ne]y, Robert Tomps, [Pe]ister Borton and William Fox. Each of these individuals had previously been placed under a sentence of indemnation for their earlier actions. As part of that process, each had submitted an inventory of their estates and had entered into bonds with sureties, guaranteeing that none of the property listed in those inventories would be concealed or removed until the further decision of the Lords Proprietors was known. As all four were now preparing to depart for Bombay aboard the Benjamin, together with their wives and families, they requested that their bonds be returned to them before leaving the island. It was determined that this request should be granted. An order was made that Bour[ne]y, Tomps, Borton and Fox were to have their bonds delivered back to them prior to departure. Interpretations The requirement that inventories be submitted alongside bonds with sureties formed a mechanism of control over property. By formally listing their estates and securing them through guarantors, these individuals were prevented from disposing of assets before the authorities had determined their final disposition. The return of the bonds indicates that the restriction on their property had been lifted at the point of departure. This suggests that the administrative purpose of the bonds had been fulfilled, either because sufficient security had been obtained or because removal from the island rendered further enforcement unnecessary. Speculations The decision to return the bonds at the moment of departure suggests that the council may have considered the risk of concealment or removal of property to have ended once these individuals were leaving under supervision. This implies that the bonds functioned primarily as a temporary safeguard during their presence on the island rather than as a continuing obligation beyond it. | |
155 | Island St Helena Present Jn Blackmore Govr Jn Mead Planter of the sd Island desired that he might The sd Govr & Councill demanded of the sd Mead for the But after some Consideration and Debate the It is Agreed to the sd Mead That the sd Mead should have the sd house in Chappell Likewise it is thought fitt that the house in Chappell And accordingly It is Ordered That Immediately an Advertisement be drawn signifying Jn [Bl]ack[mo]re | At a consultation held on Sunday 11 February 1690 at Fort James, John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Kelinge, Ensign, considered a request from John Mead, a planter on the island. Mead sought to purchase a house in Chappell Valley which had formerly belonged to Sexton but had since been acquired by the Governor and Council for the use and benefit of the Lords Proprietors. A price of £70 0s 0d was initially set, which Mead declined as too high. After discussion, he offered £18 0s 0d for the property. No other buyer came forward with a higher offer, and the proposal was accepted. Mead was granted the house in Chappell Valley in perpetuity, on condition that £18 0s 0d be paid immediately in silver, with a further £9 0s 0d to be paid in three quarterly instalments of £3 0s 0d each. The first payment was to fall due on 1 May, the second on 1 August, and the third on 1 November following the date of the agreement. Attention was then given to another property in Chappell Valley, formerly belonging to Nathan Bourney and now held by the Company. A decision was made that this house should be either sold or leased. An order was issued for a notice to be prepared immediately, announcing that on 12 July at 2 o’clock in the afternoon any person wishing to purchase the house might attend before the Governor and Council to submit offers for consideration. Interpretations The staged payment arrangement shows how property transactions were structured to allow acquisition without immediate full payment. By requiring an initial sum in silver and the remainder in scheduled instalments, the administration facilitated sale while securing future revenue. The reference to ownership “for ever” indicates the grant of a permanent property right. This demonstrates that freehold-style tenure could be created through sale by the governing authority. The use of a public advertisement and a set time for receiving offers reflects a formalised process for disposing of Company property. This suggests that sales were conducted in an open manner intended to attract competing bids and establish value. Speculations The acceptance of Mead’s offer at £18 0s 0d, far below the initial valuation of £70 0s 0d, suggests that the council prioritised securing a sale over maintaining a higher notional price. This may indicate limited demand for property or a desire to convert assets into liquid funds quickly. | |
156 | Island St Helena Capt Philip Lea Present Jn Blackmore Govr Jn Adroall Carpenter a Passenger in the ship The next Morning being Saturday the 15 instant Likewise the sd Adroall saith that Grace Bodwell did Jn Adroall being sworn saith that he had in a | At a consultation held on Monday 17 February 1690 at Fort James, in the presence of Captain Philip Lea, Captain James [Sh]r[ev]is, Lieutenant, Captain William [Do]rr[on], together with John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Kelinge, Ensign, an examination was conducted concerning John Adroall, a carpenter and passenger aboard the Charles of New York in New England, commanded by James Barrow, which had arrived from Madagascar with slaves. Adroall stated that he had come to Madagascar in the ship and had then sold himself to St Helena. On Friday 14 February, he went to the house of Richard Gurling, a planter who kept a licensed punch house. There he saw a woman named B[ow]dell, while Grace Bodwell was said to be upstairs in a chamber. Adroall went up to the chamber where Grace Bodwell was present and asked for punch. They remained together there until after nine o’clock at night. Grace Bodwell then asked Adroall to stay the night. He followed Gurling’s wife up to the chamber and lay down. He stated that he could not say whether Gurling’s wife and Bodwell remained there with him, noting that there was a large chest and a partition in the room. Gurling’s wife then left to go to bed. During the night, a sound was heard as if something heavy, like a sum of money, had fallen to the floor, followed by a scraping noise as though someone was gathering up what had fallen. On the following morning, Saturday 15 February, Adroall returned to the Charles and did not come ashore again until Sunday 16 February. At that time, in the presence of James Barrow, he reported that he had lost gold on the night of Friday 14 February, which he valued at 313 pieces of eight. He explained that he had not reported the loss earlier because Grace Bodwell had advised him to remain silent, warning that raising the matter might bring him into trouble. Adroall further stated that Grace Bodwell was aware of the amount of gold he possessed, and that he likewise knew what gold or treasure she held. Upon oath, he declared that he had kept the gold in a chest about his waist, consisting of 52 Spanish coins, which he valued at 313 pieces of eight, or [...]. Interpretations The description of a licensed punch house indicates that the sale of alcohol was regulated through formal permission. Such establishments were monitored spaces where interactions between residents and transient visitors, including seamen, were subject to oversight. The statement that Adroall “sold himself” to St Helena reflects a contractual form of bound labour. This arrangement functioned as a means by which individuals entered service on the island, often in exchange for passage or subsistence, rather than as permanent enslavement. The valuation in pieces of eight shows the use of widely recognised Spanish silver coin as a standard of account in maritime trade. This currency provided a common measure for transactions involving ships, sailors and colonial settlements. The taking of sworn testimony before the council demonstrates the judicial role exercised by the Governor and Council. Their authority extended to investigating disputes, recording evidence and establishing the basis for further legal action. Speculations The delay in reporting the loss, attributed to advice from Grace Bodwell, suggests that there may have been concern about the consequences of raising an accusation within a regulated environment such as a licensed house. This could indicate that complaints involving residents and visiting seamen were handled cautiously to avoid conflict or disruption. | |
157 | or about 22 ℔ ½ in weight that he brought into M[rs] Gurlings Mary Thomas wife of Richd Gurling being sworn saith More over the deponent saith that the sd Adroall Upon Consideration of what have bin said it is thought Whereupon It is Ordered That the sd Bodwell and Adroall be both A Consultation was held on Wensday the Upon further Examination of sd Bodwell and | John Adroall declared upon oath that he had brought into Mrs Gurling’s house on Friday 14 February gold weighing about 22½ pounds, which he had kept with him in his clothes while lodging there with Grace Bodwell. During that night, both his clothes and the gold were lost. Mary Thomas, wife of Richard Gurling, was examined under oath. She stated that on Friday 14 February Adroall came to her and asked to be accommodated. A bed was available in the chamber, and Adroall went upstairs where Grace Bodwell was present. They drank together, and Bodwell asked whether Adroall might lodge there for the night, which was agreed. Bodwell then offered him a place to sleep. Mary Thomas went to bed, but during the night she heard a noise as if a heavy object, like a sum of money, had fallen to the floor. She also heard a scraping sound, as though someone was gathering up what had fallen. She further stated that Adroall returned to the Charles on Saturday morning, 15 February, and did not report any loss to her or others at that time. Later, in the early hours of that same night, at about three o’clock in the morning, she heard Grace Bodwell leave the house and remain absent for about half an hour. Upon returning, Bodwell was asked who had been there and replied “it was”, though where Bodwell had gone or what had been done was not known to the witness. After considering this testimony, it was judged appropriate that further examination be made of both Bodwell and Adroall concerning the quantity of Spanish gold which had probably been lost and the circumstances of its disappearance. An order was therefore made that both individuals be committed to prison until further examination could be conducted. A subsequent consultation was held on Wednesday 19 February 1690, at which further inquiry was undertaken into how the gold or treasure previously in their possession had been lost. Interpretations The committal to prison pending further examination shows that detention was used as a procedural measure during investigation. This allowed the council to secure the presence of individuals while gathering additional evidence before reaching a judgement. The emphasis on sworn testimony indicates the formal evidentiary standards applied in such inquiries. Statements given under oath formed the basis for administrative and judicial decision-making. The reference to a large quantity of Spanish gold measured both by weight and in pieces of eight demonstrates the coexistence of different systems of valuation. Weight provided a physical measure, while coin equivalence translated that quantity into a recognised monetary value. Speculations The decision to imprison both Adroall and Bodwell, rather than treating one solely as a complainant, suggests that the council regarded the circumstances of the loss as uncertain or potentially involving both parties. This indicates that the investigation may have been directed as much at verifying the existence and handling of the gold as at identifying a single offender. | |
158 | Jnᵒ Adroall saith that he came over out of Grace Bodwell saith that he hath bin but Upon Consideration of what ye sd Adroall & Upon further Consideration It is Ordered that the sd Bodwell be searched to see what gold but in searching no more then one small piece but it was thought fitt that Richd Gurling & his wife Richd Gurling and Mary his wife being sworn say | At the continuation of the inquiry held on 19 February 1690, further statements were taken from John Adroall and Grace Bodwell concerning their backgrounds and the origin of the gold. Adroall declared that he had travelled from London under Captain Knapman to Jamaica, where he remained for about a year and a half. He then joined a sloop engaged in privateering, though the vessel proved unfit for the intended voyage. He subsequently travelled further, joining a Spanish vessel and crossing overland into the South Seas. There, he participated in the capture of a Spanish ship and later joined Captain Swan, commander of a frigate, taking part in further actions at sea, including the killing of slaves. The expedition eventually reached an island called Mindanao. After coming ashore, Adroall left the ship and was later involved in bringing a vessel to Madagascar, where seven or eight members of the crew remained, including himself and Grace Bodwell. Adroall admitted that while associated with these sea raiders, numerous prizes had been taken from Spanish and other ships, from which the treasure in question had been acquired. Bodwell stated that he had been away from England for about three years and had traded in various parts of India. He denied being a captain and claimed to have held between 700 and 800 in his possession over several years. After considering these confessions, it was judged that both Adroall and Bodwell had been engaged in piracy for a considerable period, and that any gold or treasure in their possession had probably been obtained through such means. A further order was made that Bodwell should be searched for gold or treasure. Upon examination, only a single small piece of gold was found, which he claimed as his own and stated had been kept in his sash. It was then considered necessary to examine Richard Gurling and his wife further, as Bodwell had lodged at their house, to determine whether any money had been left in their custody or whether they had knowledge of any other person holding property belonging to him. Richard Gurling and his wife Mary, being sworn, declared that Bodwell had taken some gold from a green sash and handed it to Mary Gurling in the presence of her maid, Bonavent. The gold was then passed to the maid to be kept for a time. Interpretations The classification of Adroall and Bodwell as pirates shows that the council exercised authority to identify and judge conduct occurring beyond the island, particularly where it affected property brought within its jurisdiction. This reflects the extension of local governance into maritime matters involving criminal activity. The order to search Bodwell demonstrates the use of physical examination as part of investigative procedure. Such searches formed a direct means of securing evidence where valuable goods could be concealed on the person. The sworn testimony of Gurling and his wife indicates that responsibility for handling suspected property could extend to those who received or held it. Their examination suggests that possession or temporary custody of goods connected to a suspected offence was subject to official scrutiny. Speculations The decision to investigate the origin of the gold rather than treating the matter solely as a theft suggests that the council was concerned with the legitimacy of the property itself. This indicates that determining whether the treasure had been acquired through piracy may have been as important as resolving its immediate loss. | |
159 | But for the present It is thought fitt That ye sd May the 22ᵈ 1689 The Govᵣ & Councill being together in Capt Philip It was Agreed That ye gold in a green shash found at both sides in To the truth hereof wee the sd Govᵣ & [...] | Further action followed the examination of John Adroall and Grace Bodwell. Both men were ordered to remain in prison and were placed in irons as pirates and robbers. On 22 May 1689, the Governor and Council, together with Captain Philip Loo, Captain James Thwaits and Captain William Do[rr]on, met to address the gold that had been recovered. The gold, which had been contained in a green sash and held by Mary, wife of Richard Gurling, having been given to her by Grace Bodwell while he was under confinement, was brought before the council. It was opened and weighed in their presence. A total of 112 pieces of gold of various kinds of coin were found. When weighed together, they amounted to 5 ounces, 12 pennyweights and 15 grains. It was decided that twelve of the smallest pieces should be removed in order to meet the cost of maintaining the prisoners during their confinement. These twelve pieces weighed 3 ounces, 4 pennyweights and 10 grains and were sold for 11 dollars, which was the highest price obtainable. The remaining 100 pieces, weighing 14 ounces, 7 pennyweights and 15 grains, were sealed and prepared to be sent to the Company in England aboard the Bonaventure, commanded by Captain Philip Loo. Instructions were given that Adroall and Bodwell were also to be taken on board the same ship and transported to England. Upon arrival, they were to be delivered to the Company together with the sealed gold, subject to the risks of death and the dangers of the sea. Captain Loo was required to provide a receipt to the Governor and Council for both the prisoners and the gold. The proceedings were confirmed by the signatures of the Governor, Council and the commanders of the ships on 22 May 1689. Interpretations The use of irons and continued imprisonment reflects a custodial measure applied to those identified as pirates. This demonstrates the council’s authority to detain individuals considered to have committed offences beyond the island but whose actions had direct implications for property brought within its jurisdiction. The weighing of gold in ounces, pennyweights and grains shows the use of standardised weight systems to establish value independently of coin type. This method ensured that mixed or foreign coinage could be assessed in a consistent manner. The allocation of part of the seized gold to cover the cost of imprisonment indicates that the expenses of detention were charged against the assets of those held. This reflects a practical approach to funding enforcement without drawing on public resources. The sealing and dispatch of the remaining gold to the Company in England demonstrates the hierarchical structure of authority. Final disposition of valuable or disputed property was reserved to the central authority rather than decided locally. The requirement that the ship’s commander provide a receipt establishes a formal chain of accountability. Responsibility for both prisoners and property was documented to ensure traceability across long-distance transport. Speculations The decision to send both the prisoners and the gold to England rather than resolving the matter entirely on the island suggests that the council may have regarded the case as exceeding its local jurisdiction. This indicates that piracy, particularly when involving significant treasure, was treated as a matter for higher authority within the Company’s governance system. | |
160 | Island St Helena Forasmuch as by the Confession upon Exami[n]a Therefore therefore to order and require yᵉ And yᵉ sd Loo also hereby required forthwith upon yᵉ [...] Island St Helena Bee it known to all whom these pr[s]ents shall come that Witnesses Philip Loo | Following the earlier examination and confinement of John Adroall and Grace Bodwell, both men having confessed under questioning, and their conduct having been confirmed by the statements of other ship commanders then present in the road, it was established that they had for several years engaged in piracy and robbery in the South Seas. On 25 May 1689, an order was issued requiring Captain Philip Loo, commander of the Bonaventure, to take both men on board as prisoners and convey them to England. Upon arrival, they were to be delivered to the Company of English Merchants trading to the East Indies, so that legal proceedings might be carried out against them, subject to the risks of death and the hazards of the sea. Captain Loo was also instructed to deliver to the Company a sealed paper containing 100 pieces of gold. This gold, secured under the Company’s seal, had been weighed and amounted to 14 ounces, 7 pennyweights and [...] grains. He was required to ensure that this was handed over without fail upon arrival in England. A further declaration was then made on board the Bonaventure before its departure for England. The Governor and Council recorded that they had formally delivered into the custody of Captain Loo both prisoners, Adroall and Bodwell, together with the sealed paper of gold belonging to the Company. The weight of this gold was again recorded as 14 ounces, 7 pennyweights and 15 grains. Captain Loo acknowledged receipt of both the prisoners and the gold and undertook to deliver them to the Company at its headquarters in England, known as the Court of Committees, upon the ship’s arrival, subject to the dangers of the voyage. This declaration was witnessed by James Thwaits and William Do[rr]on and was signed by Captain Philip Loo on 25 May 1689. Interpretations The formal transfer of prisoners to a ship’s commander demonstrates how maritime transport was integrated into judicial enforcement. Local authorities relied on outgoing vessels to move accused individuals to higher jurisdictions for trial. The reference to the Court of Committees identifies the governing body of the Company in England. This institution functioned as the central authority for legal and administrative decisions affecting its overseas territories. The sealing of the gold under the Company’s seal reflects a method of securing property in transit. This ensured that the contents remained intact and identifiable, preserving accountability from departure to delivery. The repeated recording of the gold’s weight in ounces, pennyweights and grains indicates the importance of precise measurement in verifying the quantity of valuable goods. This allowed any discrepancy upon arrival to be detected. The requirement for a written acknowledgment by the ship’s commander establishes a documented chain of custody. Responsibility for both persons and property was formally transferred and could be traced through written records. Speculations The decision to send both the prisoners and the gold directly to the Company in England suggests that the council intended to place the matter under central authority rather than resolve it locally. This may indicate that offences connected to piracy and the handling of significant treasure were treated as matters requiring adjudication at the highest level of Company governance. | |
161 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Fryday ye 8 day Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govᵣ Matthow Basott s[ai]d having bin Comitted for Con- The Marshall was Commanded to bring the sd Basott who Whereunto the sd Basott would make noe Answ[er] The Govᵣ & Councill Demanded an Answer of him After many words of perswasion and sometimes Coman- It was thought fitt peremptorily to Order That the sd Basott doe goo up to ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ [...] | At a consultation held on Friday 8 February 1690 at Fort James, John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Ke[l]mgo, Ensign, considered the case of Matthow Basott. Basott had been committed to custody for disregarding the orders of the Company. He had refused, when directed by the Governor, to go to the Company’s plantation and reside there as an assistant or bookkeeper to Captain Boir[e], as required by the Company’s instructions. The Marshal was instructed to bring Basott before the council. He was asked whether he would comply with the Company’s orders by going to the plantation and living there under Captain Boir[e]. No reply was given at first, and despite being prompted by the Governor, he remained silent in a manner judged to be contemptuous. After being asked three times to respond, Basott stated that he would go to the plantation if he chose, but asserted that he had been sent to the island as a soldier and not as a slave. Further attempts were made to persuade him, along with direct commands to obey, but he continued to resist. A firm order was then issued that he was to proceed to the Company’s plantation on the following day, Saturday 3 February 1690, and remain there until further direction was given. [...] Interpretations The charge of contempt shows that refusal to comply with Company instructions was treated as an offence against authority. Silence and refusal to answer were themselves regarded as forms of disobedience subject to sanction. The assignment to serve as an assistant or bookkeeper at the plantation illustrates how labour and administrative roles were allocated by the Company. Individuals could be directed into specific duties regardless of their original expectations. The involvement of the Marshal in bringing Basott before the council demonstrates the enforcement mechanism available to the administration. Orders were backed by officers responsible for securing compliance and presenting individuals for examination. Speculations Basott’s assertion that he had been sent as a soldier rather than a slave suggests that he viewed the reassignment as a loss of status or a breach of expectation. The insistence on his compliance indicates that the council prioritised operational needs at the plantation over such distinctions, implying that labour allocation was determined by administrative necessity rather than individual role. | |
162 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held att the Sessions Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govᵣ Mr Richᵈ Ke[l]mgo attᵒ Govᵣ Complaining of The sd Shorwin did not deny the fact but Whereupon It was Judged and Ordered That the sd Shorwin should pay as a fyne unto Mr Ke[l]mgo attᵒ Govᵣ Complaining of ye sd Shorwin The sd Shorwin saith that she did not give in Sergᵗ Hailes, and Jnᵒ Smith, then the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ | At a Court of Justice held at the Sessions House near Fort James on Monday 3 March 1690, John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Ke[l]mgo, acting for the Governor, brought forward several complaints concerning Brudoness, wife of Thomas Shorwin. She was charged with selling and retailing punch without a licence, in breach of the orders of the Lords Proprietors. This offence had already been established at a consultation held on 8 November 1689, and the earlier finding was read aloud in court. She did not deny the act and left the matter to the judgement of the court. A fine of 40 dollars was imposed, payable to the Lords Proprietors. A further accusation was brought against her for submitting a false account of the number of neat cattle grazing on the Company’s waste land, for which a yearly payment was due. It was alleged that by under-reporting the number, the Company’s revenue had been reduced. In response, she stated that she had not submitted the account herself. She explained that her husband, Thomas Shorwin, had provided the account before departing for England. She further stated that her husband had transferred all his cattle and estate to Mr Bagly and Mr Bace, planters, who stood as his security to the Company to ensure that the property would not be concealed but would remain available to satisfy a debt owed to the Company. She added that there was some dispute between her husband and the Company regarding that debt. Sergeant Hailes and John Smith, acting as Company rangers and having been appointed by the Governor to inspect and count cattle belonging to individuals suspected of under-reporting, gave evidence. They testified that at Tom’s plantation, where Shorwin held a house and land, they found between 50 and 70 head of neat cattle. They believed that these included animals bearing various marks, based partly on their own observations and partly on information provided by others. [...] Interpretations The fine imposed for selling punch without a licence demonstrates how regulated trade formed part of the Company’s revenue system. Licensing controlled who could sell goods and ensured that unauthorised commerce was penalised financially. The requirement to declare the number of cattle grazing on waste land shows that access to common resources was monetised. Annual payments were tied to the scale of use, making accurate reporting essential for maintaining Company income. The appointment of rangers to inspect cattle illustrates an administrative mechanism for verifying declarations. These officials acted as enforcement agents, gathering evidence to detect under-reporting and protect revenue. The transfer of property to named individuals as security indicates a formal method of guaranteeing debts. By placing assets under the control of third parties, the Company sought to ensure that property remained available to satisfy outstanding obligations. Speculations The reliance on both physical inspection and local information to estimate the number of cattle suggests that the council faced difficulty in obtaining precise figures. This combined approach indicates an attempt to manage the limitations of record-keeping and oversight in a dispersed agricultural setting. | |
163 | of some of ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Blacks that used to look Tho Shorwin saith that those Cattle wᶜʰ they saw Jnᵒ Smith (then the Compᵃ Ranger) was sworn who But the sd Mrs Shorwin insisted that ye whole stock But no other or further proofe could be made out Wherefore It is Ordered That some longer tyme be taken to gett fuller Mr Ke[l]mgo Attᵒ Govᵣ Complains of Jnᵒ Cannady The sd Cannady did not deny ye Complaint, but Sergᵗ Hailes and Jnᵒ Smith (then Rangers) who were Upon Consideration of what hath bin Evidenced It is Judged & Ordered That ye sd Jnᵒ Cannady be fined unto ye Rt Honᵇˡᵉ | Further evidence was heard at the same Court of Justice held on 3 March 1690 concerning the number of cattle attributed to the household of Thomas Shorwin. Testimony was given that some of the Company’s slaves, who were accustomed to tending cattle, identified many of the animals seen at the plantation as belonging to Shorwin. However, the account previously submitted listed only 42 head of cattle, excluding four horse calves. Thomas Shorwin maintained that not all the cattle observed were his or his wife’s, but that some belonged to other planters. John Smith, who had served as a Company ranger, gave evidence that he knew Shorwin had previously declared fewer cattle than he actually possessed before departing the island. Brudoness Shorwin continued to argue that the livestock present on and around the plantation did not all belong to her household, suggesting that some might be attributed to others. As no further proof could be established at that time, it was determined that additional time should be allowed for fuller evidence to be obtained. A separate complaint was then brought against John Cannady, a planter, for submitting a false account of the number of his cattle grazing on the Company’s waste land. Under Company orders, a payment of 12 pence per head was required for such grazing. Cannady had declared that he possessed seven score cattle, yet was found to have only 39 head of cattle and 13 calves. Cannady did not deny the charge but stated that he had permitted inspection of his land by any person wishing to verify his stock. Sergeant Hailes and John Smith, acting as rangers, testified that they had inspected Cannady’s grazing land and counted 39 head of cattle and 13 calves. They also reported that a slave belonging to Cannady had stated that additional cattle were held by him. After considering the evidence, judgement was given that Cannady had engaged in misreporting. A fine of £2 0s 0d was imposed, payable to the Lords Proprietors, in accordance with their established orders for such offences. Interpretations The use of Company slaves as sources of testimony indicates that individuals involved in daily management of livestock could contribute to enforcement processes. Their knowledge of ownership and markings formed part of the evidentiary framework used to assess declarations. The system of charging 12 pence per head for grazing on waste land demonstrates a structured method of monetising access to common resources. This created a direct financial link between the number of animals held and the revenue due to the governing authority. The imposition of a fixed fine for misreporting shows that penalties were standardised under the orders of the Lords Proprietors. Such uniform sanctions reinforced compliance by establishing predictable consequences for under-declaration. Speculations The decision to allow additional time for evidence in the case of Brudoness Shorwin, while immediately fining Cannady, suggests that the council differentiated between cases where ownership was disputed and those where the discrepancy was clear. This indicates a willingness to delay judgement where uncertainty existed, while enforcing penalties promptly where the facts were more straightforward. | |
164 | Mr Ke[l]mgo Attᵒ Govᵣ added to the Tho How Planter Complaining of Bridget The sd Shorwin Denyes the Action And How replyeth that ye sd Shorwin did make But the sd Shorwin Denyes the being soe Then Edwᵈ Walker souldier was sworn who saith Jnᵒ Foster also saith that Mr How did tell him After much discourse and Debate the Court And Adjourned untill two a Clock afternoon Then the sd How came into the Court, and openly Rich Griffin Planter Complaining of Jno Wilson Wilson Confesseth from the sd Griffin Cattle appraised | Further evidence was considered at the same Court of Justice held on 3 March 1690 regarding the number of cattle attributed to the household of Thomas Shorwin. Testimony was given that some of the Company’s slaves, who had been employed in tending cattle, identified many of the animals seen at the plantation as belonging to that household. The account previously submitted, however, listed only 42 head of cattle, excluding four horse calves. It was asserted by Thomas Shorwin that not all the cattle observed were his or his wife’s, but that some belonged to other planters. John Smith, formerly a Company ranger, stated upon oath that he knew that Shorwin had previously declared fewer cattle than he possessed before departing the island. Brudoness Shorwin continued to maintain that the livestock present on and around the plantation did not all belong to her household, and suggested that some might be attributed to others. As no further proof could then be obtained, additional time was allowed in order that fuller evidence might be produced. A separate complaint was then brought against John Cannady, a planter, for submitting a false account of the number of cattle grazing on the Company’s waste land. Under the Company’s orders, a payment of 12 pence per head was required for such grazing. Cannady had declared that he possessed seven score cattle, yet was found to have only 39 head of cattle and 13 calves. Cannady did not deny the charge, but stated that he had permitted inspection of his land by any person wishing to verify his stock. Sergeant Hailes and John Smith, acting as rangers, testified that they had inspected his grazing land and counted 39 head of cattle and 13 calves. They further reported that a slave belonging to Cannady had stated that additional cattle were held by him. Upon consideration of the evidence, it was determined that Cannady had engaged in misreporting. A fine of £2 0s 0d was imposed, payable to the Lords Proprietors, in accordance with their standing orders for such offences. Interpretations The reliance on testimony from Company slaves shows that those engaged in the daily management of livestock formed part of the evidentiary system. Their familiarity with cattle and ownership marks allowed them to contribute materially to the verification of reported numbers. The requirement to pay 12 pence per head for grazing on waste land reflects a structured fiscal system through which access to common resources was regulated and monetised. Revenue depended directly on accurate reporting of stock numbers. The imposition of a fixed penalty for misreporting demonstrates the use of standardised financial sanctions. This created a predictable enforcement framework and reinforced compliance with reporting obligations. Speculations The decision to defer judgement in the matter concerning Brudoness Shorwin, while imposing an immediate penalty on Cannady, indicates that the council distinguished between uncertain ownership and clear numerical discrepancy. This suggests that enforcement was applied more cautiously where property claims were contested, but more directly where under-reporting could be demonstrated with certainty. | |
165 | [...] the money, but ye sd Wilson did never sett ye sd Griffin Orlando Bagley and Price Planters being sworn Upon hearing of what hath bin said & determined That the sd Jno Wilson doe pay or cause to Rich Griffin Complaining of ye sd Jno Wilson The sd Jno Wilson doth not deny that he spake Which the defendant speaketh as of a Report Richᵈ Stacy Planter being sworn saith that he Judeth ye Relict of James Wakeford being sworn William Cripps planter being sworn saith that [...] | At the same proceedings, a dispute was examined between Richard Griffin and John Wilson concerning a sum of money. It was alleged that Wilson had not delivered a bill or paid money due, and that he had neither allowed Griffin to have the bill nor received the money in question for provisions over a period of two months. Orlando Bagley and Price, both planters, gave sworn evidence that they had appraised cattle belonging to Griffin in order to satisfy a debt of £8 0s 0d. In that appraisal, the cattle were valued at 22 shillings more than the amount required. It was further stated that Wilson had promised to pay this surplus to Griffin. After consideration of the evidence, it was directed that John Wilson should pay, or cause to be paid, to Richard Griffin the sum of £1 2s 0d, being 22 shillings, and also bear the costs from that amount. A further complaint was then brought by Griffin against Wilson in an action for damages. It was alleged that Wilson had stated that Griffin and George Swallow, both planters, had fraudulently killed a beast belonging to the Gronston orphans. Wilson did not deny making the statement, but asserted that he had repeated what James Wakeford had told him, namely that he had seen Griffin and Swallow kill a beast that belonged to the orphans. It was maintained by Wilson that he spoke this as a report rather than from his own knowledge. Richard Stacy, a planter, testified under oath that he had been present when Wakeford stated that the beast killed by Griffin and Swallow was not in fact the property of either of them. Judeth, widow of James Wakeford, gave evidence that her husband had been ill and that there had been disagreement between herself, Swallow, and Griffin. She stated that she had complied with their demands in all matters, and that her husband had said he saw them at the place in question, although she indicated reluctance for them to appear in court and suggested that they would be unable to answer the accusation, or words to that effect. William Cripps, a planter, also testified that Wilson had told him that Wakeford had said that Griffin and Swallow had killed a beast belonging to the Gronston orphans. [...] Interpretations The use of livestock appraisal to satisfy a debt shows that property could be converted into assessed value for settlement. The surplus beyond the debt, quantified at 22 shillings, was treated as a recoverable balance owed to the original owner. The action for damages based on spoken words reflects the legal recognition of reputational harm. Statements alleging fraudulent killing of livestock were treated as actionable where they could affect a person’s standing or expose them to liability. The distinction drawn between repeating a report and asserting personal knowledge indicates an awareness of differing levels of responsibility in testimony. Liability could depend on whether a statement was presented as direct knowledge or merely relayed from another source. Speculations The emphasis on whether Wilson spoke from report or personal knowledge suggests that the court was attempting to determine the boundary between permissible repetition of information and defamatory assertion. This distinction may have been important in limiting liability where information circulated informally within the community while still allowing redress where reputational damage could be demonstrated. | |
166 | Jnᵒ Worrall and Sam Taylor Planter Upon hearing of all that hath bin said and laid It is Ordered That the Plaintiffe and Defendant doe both Thomas Allison Planter Complaining of Geo The sd Coles doth not deny the Action, and confesseth It is Ordered That ye sd Coles doe immediately aske ye sd Allison The sd Allison Planter against Complaining of the The sd Coles denyed the Action, and said he never There being noe proofe of this Action agt ye Defendant That ye sd Allison doe pay ye Costs of ye suite The sd Allison Complaining of Richᵈ Barram Planter Tho [...] | Further testimony was received from John Worrall and Samuel Taylor, both planters, who stated upon oath that James Wakeford had told them that George Swallow and Richard Griffin had killed a beast belonging to the Gronston orphans. After considering all the evidence presented, it was determined that John Wilson had not positively asserted that Griffin and Swallow had killed the beast, but had only repeated what had been reported to him by another person. A decision was therefore made that both the plaintiff and the defendant should bear their own legal expenses and share the court charges between them. Thomas Allison, a planter, then brought an action for defamation against George Coles. It was alleged that Coles had called him a “fancifull dogg”. Coles did not deny making the statement and acknowledged that he had used those words. A ruling was made that Coles should immediately ask Allison’s forgiveness in open court and pay the costs of the suit, after which the complaint was considered satisfied. A further complaint was brought by Allison against Coles in an action for assault and battery, alleging that Coles had attacked and struck him on the highway. Coles denied both striking and threatening him. As no evidence was produced to support the claim, it was directed that Allison should pay the costs of that suit. Another complaint was then brought by Allison against Richard Barram, a planter, alleging assault and battery. It was stated that Barram had struck him on the shoulder and threatened further violence while Allison was employed as his labourer, during the course of work. [...] Interpretations The ruling that both parties should bear their own costs in the dispute between Griffin and Wilson indicates that where defamatory statements could not be proven as direct assertions, the court avoided assigning liability and instead distributed financial responsibility between both sides. The requirement that Coles publicly ask forgiveness in court demonstrates that reputational offences could be resolved through formal acknowledgement and apology rather than financial penalty alone. Public correction formed part of restoring social standing. The dismissal of the assault claim against Coles for lack of proof shows that physical offences required substantiated evidence. Without supporting testimony, the burden of costs fell upon the complainant. Speculations The distinction drawn between verbal insult, which required public apology, and alleged physical assault, which required stronger proof, suggests that the court treated damage to reputation and bodily harm under different evidentiary standards. This may reflect an attempt to maintain social order through visible reconciliation while reserving harsher judgement for clearly proven acts of violence. | |
167 | Tho sd Barram denyes the Action Edward Dam [...] and Richᵈ Stacy Planters It is Ordered That the sd Barram doe pay unto ye sd Allison Richᵈ Barram Complaining of ye sd Tho Allison The sd Allison denyed the Action The sd Barram could not prove what the sd Allison Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Barram doe pay the Costs of ye sd suite And Wᵐ Phillips Gunnᵉ Complaining of Richᵈ Harding The sd Harding saith that he hath delivered ye Richᵈ Collins and Samu [...] being sworn saith that one Jnᵒ Coles being sworne saith that Richᵈ Harding | Further evidence was heard in the action brought by Thomas Allison against Richard Barram for assault and battery. Barram denied the accusation. Edward Dam [...] and Richard Stacy, both planters, testified upon oath that Barram had, in their hearing, threatened to strike Allison while he was labouring on the highway, and that Barram had taken Allison by the shoulder and shaken him roughly. Upon consideration of this testimony, it was determined that Barram should compensate Allison with two cattle for the assault and threat made while Allison was performing his duty. An additional cow was imposed as a fine payable to the Lords Proprietors for the offence. Barram then brought a counter-action against Allison, claiming damages on the grounds that Allison had struck one of his slaves, causing a bruise which prevented the slave from carrying out his work for some time. Allison denied the allegation. As Barram was unable to produce sufficient proof, it was directed that he should pay the costs of the suit. A further case was then brought by William Phillips Gunnᵉ against Richard Harding, a planter, in an action concerning the failure to deliver a cow which had been purchased. It was alleged that Harding had sold the animal but had not delivered it, although payment had been received. Harding responded that the cow had been delivered according to the agreement. Richard Collins and Samu [...] testified that they had been present at Harding’s house when the plaintiff’s wife arrived, and that Harding later stated he would bring the cow to her house the following day. John Coles also gave sworn evidence that he and Harding had brought a cow and calf, which Harding stated had been sold to Phillips, to the place of [...] [...] Interpretations The award of compensation in cattle demonstrates that livestock functioned as a standard unit of value in settling disputes involving physical harm. Payment in kind reflected the economic structure of the island, where cattle represented both wealth and productive capacity. The additional fine payable to the Lords Proprietors indicates that certain offences were treated not only as private injuries but also as breaches of public order. This created a dual liability, combining compensation to the injured party with a penalty to authority. The dismissal of Barram’s claim for lack of proof reinforces the evidentiary standard required in such actions. Without corroborating testimony or clear evidence, claims involving injury to labour or property were not upheld. The dispute over the sale and delivery of cattle illustrates the importance of fulfilment of contractual agreements. The obligation extended beyond payment to the physical transfer of goods, and failure to complete delivery could give rise to legal action. Speculations The requirement that Barram provide both compensation and a separate fine suggests that the court treated violence against a labourer engaged in public work as an aggravating factor. This may indicate an effort to protect labour assigned to communal or infrastructural tasks, where disruption could affect wider operations on the island. | |
168 | of the sd Phillips Plantation, a little way from his Glatter Staring, sworn saith that the sd Phillips Upon the hearing of all that hath bin It doth appeare that ye Cow & Calfe was Richᵈ Harding Complaines of Hugh Bodly Planter The sd Bodly saith that he did Marry ye Relict Upon Consideration of ye sd Hardings Complaint | Further evidence was considered in the dispute between William Phillips Gunnᵉ and Richard Harding regarding the delivery of a cow and calf. It was stated that the animals had been brought to a place near the plantation belonging to Phillips, a short distance from his house. Harding was said to have called for someone to receive the cow and calf, as he intended to go to Mr Mother’s boat. A boy belonging to Phillips came out of the house, and Harding left his slave woman to assist the boy in driving the animals. Glatter Staring, aged about 14 years, testified that he was present in the plaintiff’s house and, upon hearing a call, went outside and saw Harding and Coles with the cow and calf. Another boy stood by a ditch. The animals were driven with the assistance of Harding’s slave woman into a pound. The cow ran toward other cattle, while the calf was tied. The boy remained there through much of the night, and the following morning took the calf away, but later ran off and lost it. After consideration of all that had been presented by both parties, it was concluded that the cow and calf had not been properly delivered in accordance with the agreement. The plaintiff was therefore not satisfied, and Harding was directed to make efforts to recover the cow. A further complaint was then brought by Richard Harding against Hugh Bodly, a planter, alleging that Bodly detained a male slave and occupied a house in Chapel Valley which had belonged to Harding’s father, now deceased. Harding claimed to be the heir to that house and to ten acres of land forming part of the inheritance. Bodly replied that he had married the widow of Harding’s father, who was Harding’s mother, and that she remained in possession of the house and land. He further stated that he had children by her, and that under the custom of England he held a right to occupy the property for the duration of his life. Upon consideration of the complaint relating to the slave, it was determined that any disputes concerning slaves should be decided by a jury. Interpretations The requirement that livestock be physically delivered and received demonstrates that completion of a sale depended on effective transfer of possession, not merely agreement or payment. Failure to ensure secure delivery left the transaction incomplete in law. The reference to a pound indicates a regulated enclosure used to secure animals. Its use in this context reflects an established method for controlling and transferring livestock within legal disputes. The claim by Bodly based on marriage to a widow reflects the application of English customary rights to property on the island. Such rights allowed a surviving husband to retain possession of property for life, even where inheritance was claimed by a child of the deceased. The decision that disputes concerning slaves should be determined by a jury shows that such matters were treated as significant property conflicts requiring formal adjudication. This indicates a structured legal process distinct from summary decisions by the council. Speculations The direction that Harding should attempt to recover the cow, rather than imposing immediate compensation, suggests that the court considered the loss to have resulted partly from incomplete handover rather than outright refusal. This may indicate a preference to restore the original property where possible before assigning financial liability. | |
169 | Blank page | ||
170 | Accordingly It is Ordered That the sd Teale be at full right Propriety for Robᵗ Paxton Planter Comming Drunk into It is Ordered That the sd Paxton be Committed to close prison and Mr Draper atto of Jno Harris for Complain The sd Barram denies the Action and saith that Tho Harper & Thomas Steward Planters being Elizabeth wife of Wᵐ Phillips Gunn being sworn [...] | In the matter concerning property held by Hugh Bodly, it was directed that Teale should retain full right and possession of the house and land until the rightful heir could be determined. A hearing was set for the first Monday of April 1690, at which time the matter was to be tried by a jury. Robert Paxton, a planter, then appeared in court in a state of intoxication. While seated in the court house, he was ordered to withdraw into the street, but refused and resisted the officer attempting to remove him. He engaged in excessive and profane swearing, showed contempt for authority, and insulted the court. After being placed in the stocks, he broke the lock and escaped. In response, it was directed that Paxton should be committed to close prison. He was required to pay the costs of his imprisonment, a fine of 1 shilling for profane swearing, £0 4s 0d as a fine payable to the Company, and 2 dollars to the officer whom he had struck. He was further required to enter into a recognisance for his good behaviour until the first Monday of July 1690, and to remain in prison until all these obligations had been fulfilled. A further action was brought by Mr Draper, acting as attorney for John Harris, against Richard Barram in a claim for a debt of £44 0s 0d. Barram denied the claim and stated that any sum owed had been to Captain Bostron, and that it had already been paid. Thomas Harper and Thomas Steward, both planters, testified upon oath that they had been aboard the London when Captain Bostron served as mate to Captain Samuel Hume. They stated that Bostron had sold goods to Barram amounting to £16 0s 0d, which Barram had acknowledged. Elizabeth, wife of William Phillips Gunn, also testified that she had heard it said that Barram, who had served as surgeon under Captain Bostron and had been taken prisoner, had paid £16 0s 0d to Bostron. [...] Interpretations The ordering of a jury trial in the dispute over property indicates that questions of inheritance and rightful ownership were treated as matters requiring formal adjudication beyond summary judgement by the council. The penalties imposed on Paxton illustrate the layered nature of punishment for disorderly conduct. Financial penalties, compensation to injured parties, imprisonment, and a recognisance for future behaviour were combined to enforce both immediate accountability and continued compliance. The recognisance for good behaviour functioned as a legal bond, obliging the individual to maintain acceptable conduct for a specified period or face further penalty. This extended the court’s control beyond the immediate offence. The testimony concerning transactions aboard a named ship demonstrates that commercial dealings conducted at sea were recognised as enforceable obligations within the island’s legal system. Evidence from witnesses present at such transactions was accepted in determining debts. Speculations The requirement that Paxton remain imprisoned until all fines and obligations were met suggests that enforcement relied on detention as a means of ensuring payment. This indicates that imprisonment functioned not only as punishment but also as a practical mechanism for securing compliance with financial penalties. | |
171 | Likewise she further saith that she did heare The sd Richᵈ Barram saith he hath not only paid Henry Kelsey, James Prior, and the Widdow Carter Upon hearing of what the severall persons hath It is Ordered That in regard the debt is Considerable and the The sd Mr Draper Complaines of Jnᵒ Carnady & Richᵈ It is Ordered That the sd Tryall of this Cause be suspended untill | Additional testimony was given in the action concerning the debt claimed by John Harris against Richard Barram. Elizabeth, wife of William Phillips Gunn, stated that she had also heard Captain Bostron declare that Barram had paid him £16 0s 0d, and that a slave had been given by Bostron to Barram in exchange for a black boy, for which Barram was to pay £20 0s 0d. Barram asserted that he had not only paid the £16 0s 0d already mentioned to Captain Bostron, but that he remained indebted in the further sum of £28 0s 0d. Henry Kelsey, James Prior, and the widow Carter testified that they had seen goods and several cattle sent on board the ship London to Captain Bostron, though they could not say for what purpose those items had been delivered. After consideration of all statements, it was understood that the goods sent aboard the London by Barram had been intended to satisfy an earlier debt of £16 0s 0d, with some additional value. It was therefore concluded that £28 0s 0d remained unpaid. Given that the debt was substantial and the matter of importance, it was directed that the case should be deferred until the next court session and then tried by a jury, unless the parties reached an agreement in the meantime. A further complaint was brought by Mr Draper against John Carnady and Richard Bourne, both planters, for withholding £3 0s 0d owed under a bond to Captain Bostron, now deceased. Carnady and Bourne had been jointly bound in this obligation. Bourne stated that he was indebted to Bostron and that, before Bostron departed for England, Garrick Bowden, a planter of the island, had given Carnady a bond as security. Carnady had then received £33 0s 0d from Bowden. Bowden had since absconded from the island and could not satisfy the debt, although it was asserted that he had left sufficient property behind to cover it. Responsibility for resolving the matter was therefore left to the discretion of Carnady and Bourne. It was directed that the trial of this case should be postponed until [...] Interpretations The use of goods and livestock to settle debts illustrates that obligations could be discharged through transfers in kind, not solely through money. This reflects a mixed system of payment in which valuation depended on agreement and appraisal. The reference to a joint bond indicates that multiple parties could be legally bound together for a single debt. Each remained responsible for repayment, regardless of subsequent arrangements involving third parties. The introduction of a separate bond by Garrick Bowden as security shows how layered financial guarantees were employed. Liability could be transferred or supported by additional parties, creating a chain of obligation that persisted even if one party absconded. The decision to defer the case to a jury highlights the distinction between straightforward claims and those involving complex or conflicting evidence. Matters of higher value or uncertainty were reserved for fuller examination under formal procedures. Speculations The conclusion that £28 0s 0d remained unpaid, despite evidence of prior payments and transfers, suggests that the council was attempting to reconcile multiple forms of settlement into a single accounting. This may indicate a need to standardise diverse transactions, including goods, livestock, and monetary payments, into a coherent valuation before judgement could be finalised. | |
172 | Richᵈ Barrum Planter Complaines of John Honnory saith that he did say that Richᵈ There being noe proofe that ye sd Honnory did It is Ordered That the sd Barrum doe pay the Cost of ye suite Geo Cook doth Complaines also of ye sd Honnory in Jnᵒ Honnory denyes the Action & desires that it Richᵈ C[...]ley of Richᵈ Barrum being sworn saith Upon hearing of what hath bin Evidence and Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Cook doe pay the Cost of suite Richᵈ Barrum Complaines against Jnᵒ Honnory The sd Honnory denyes the Action, and desired proofe Upon Considering the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ the Lords Proprs Orders about That this Cause stand Suspended untill the next [...] | A complaint was brought by Richard Barrum, a planter, against John Honnory, also a planter, alleging defamation. It was claimed that Honnory had said that Barrum and others were “knaves, rogues and rif of the rafe”. Honnory replied that he had stated that Barrum or others had sworn falsely, and that they were “knaves, rogues and rif of the rafe”. As insufficient proof was produced to show that Honnory had spoken the words in the manner alleged, Barrum was required to pay the costs of the suit. George Cook then brought a similar action for defamation against Honnory, alleging that he had said that Cook and others were “knaves, rogues and rif of the rafe”. Honnory denied the accusation and requested that it be proved. Richard C[...]ley, associated with Barrum, testified upon oath that Honnory had spoken those words not long before. As no further evidence was produced, it was determined that defamation against Cook had not been established, and Cook was required to pay the costs of the suit. A further action was brought by Barrum against Honnory concerning land, alleging that Honnory detained ten acres belonging to him, together with the fruits growing upon it. Honnory denied the claim and called for proof. Having regard to the orders of the Lords Proprietors relating to such matters, the case was deferred until the next court, where it was to be tried by a jury. In the meantime [...] Interpretations The requirement that unsuccessful plaintiffs bear the costs of suit reflects a procedural mechanism designed to deter weak or unproven claims. Financial liability was imposed where allegations could not be substantiated, reinforcing the need for credible evidence. The decision to refer the land dispute to a jury shows that contested questions of possession and inheritance were treated as matters requiring formal adjudication. Jury trial functioned as a structured means of resolving disputes where authority alone did not determine ownership. | |
173 | Mr William Clanton Complaining of Jnᵒ Draper Planter in an Action of Defamation for that ye sd Draper did say unto the sd Wilson that he was a Scot, and ye sd you’r King for a groat The sd Draper denyed the Action and desired that it might be proved Capt Job said saith that the sd Draper did say to ye sd Wilson that he was a Scot, and did sell his King for a groat Wᵐ Marsh Planter being sworne saith that ye sd Draper did say that Scotchmen did sell their King for a groat, and that ye sd Wilson was a Scot Serjᵗ Hales being sworne saith that ye sd Draper did say that Scotchmen did sell their King for a groat and that ye sd Wilson was a Scot Upon hearing of what have bin Evidence It is Ordered That the sd Draper doe publickely Confess his Offence, and Openly say that he is very sorry for his rash words in speaking so to Mr Wilson, (the sd Draper did also say ye he is sick of f[...] ) that he was asked the sd Wilson what or had done any damage by the sd Drapers words he answered No, and whether he was satisfyed with what was Ordered, and Draper had done, who answered yes And Mr Wilson againe Complaines of Richᵈ Barrum in an Action of the Case, in that ye sd Barrum did say a woman of loose of some bawd cries to whom Wilson that he ye sd Wilson should know Elizabeth the wife of Jnᵒ Harting to be his wife The sd Barrum denyes the Action and desired that it might be proved John Nichols saith that ye sd Wilson Barrum and himselfe were together drinking that Elizabeth ye sd wife of Jnᵒ Harting came into the Room, and that Barrum was said the Bargain was half a groat betwixt the sd Wilson and the sd Woman [...] | A complaint was brought by Mr William Clanton against John Draper, a planter, in an action for defamation. It was alleged that Draper had said to Mr Wilson that he was a Scot and had sold his king for a groat. Draper denied the allegation and requested proof. Captain Job testified that Draper had said to Wilson that he was a Scot and had sold his king for a groat. William Marsh, a planter, gave sworn evidence that Draper had stated that Scotchmen sold their king for a groat and that Wilson was a Scot. Sergeant Hales likewise testified that Draper had made the same statement, asserting both that Scotchmen sold their king for a groat and that Wilson was a Scot. After considering the evidence, it was directed that Draper should publicly acknowledge his offence and openly declare that he was sorry for his rash words in speaking to Mr Wilson. Draper also stated that he was sick of f[...]. Wilson was asked whether he had suffered any harm from Draper’s words and replied that he had not. He was then asked whether he was satisfied with what had been ordered and with Draper’s conduct, to which he answered that he was. A further complaint was then brought by Mr Wilson against Richard Barrum in an action concerning defamatory words. It was alleged that Barrum had spoken of a woman of loose conduct and had implied that Wilson should know Elizabeth, the wife of John Harting, to be his wife. Barrum denied the allegation and requested proof. John Nichols testified that he had been drinking together with Wilson and Barrum when Elizabeth, wife of John Harting, entered the room. He stated that Barrum then remarked that the bargain was half a groat between Wilson and the woman. [...] Interpretations The requirement that Draper make a public apology demonstrates that verbal offences could be resolved through formal acknowledgement of wrongdoing rather than financial penalty alone. Public retraction served to restore reputation and social standing within the community. The questioning of Wilson as to whether he had suffered harm and whether he was satisfied with the remedy shows that the court considered the injured party’s acceptance as part of the resolution. This indicates that settlement could depend on both judicial direction and personal satisfaction. The repeated reference to a “groat” reflects the use of small-denomination coinage as a measure of value in both literal and figurative speech. In this context, it formed part of language used to convey insult or moral accusation. | |
174 | Many words past betwixt the Plaintiffe and Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Wilson doe pay the Cost of the Israel Hales for it informed the Court that Whereupon the sd Hales was sworne as also The said Elizabeth at first denyed the fact, It is Ordered That shee pay one shilling for Cursing J B[...] | A complaint was brought by Mr William Clanton against John Draper, a planter, in an action for defamation. It was alleged that Draper had told Mr Wilson that he was a Scot and had sold his king for a groat. Draper denied the allegation and required that it be proved. Captain Job gave evidence that Draper had made that statement to Wilson. William Marsh, a planter, testified upon oath that Draper had declared that Scotchmen sold their king for a groat and that Wilson was a Scot. Sergeant Hales likewise confirmed under oath that Draper had spoken those same words. After consideration of the evidence, Draper was required to make a public acknowledgement of his offence and openly declare that he was sorry for his rash words spoken to Mr Wilson. Draper also stated that he was sick of f[...]. Wilson was asked whether he had suffered any harm from the words and replied that he had not. He was further asked whether he was satisfied with the order and with Draper’s conduct, and he answered that he was. A further complaint was then brought by Mr Wilson against Richard Barrum in an action concerning defamatory speech. It was alleged that Barrum had spoken of a woman of loose behaviour and had implied that Wilson should be taken to know Elizabeth, the wife of John Harting, as his own wife. Barrum denied the allegation and required proof. John Nichols testified that he had been drinking together with Wilson and Barrum when Elizabeth, wife of John Harting, entered the room. He stated that Barrum then remarked that there was a bargain of half a groat between Wilson and the woman. [...] Interpretations The requirement that Draper publicly acknowledge his offence shows that reputational harm could be formally repaired through compelled apology rather than monetary penalty. Such a remedy operated as a public restoration of status within the community and reinforced norms governing speech. The phrase “sold his king for a groat” carried a specific political implication in the context of the recent overthrow of James II in 1688 and the establishment of a new monarch. It suggested disloyalty to the Crown for trivial gain, thereby associating the target with treachery. Its use within the colony therefore had a heightened significance beyond ordinary insult, touching upon allegiance and trustworthiness, which helps explain the court’s insistence on a formal retraction. The questioning of Wilson as to whether he had suffered damage and whether he accepted the outcome indicates that satisfaction of the injured party formed part of the judicial resolution. The court’s decision was therefore shaped not only by proof but also by the restoration of personal standing. Speculations The decision to impose a public apology without financial penalty suggests that the court assessed the offence as serious in terms of honour and political reputation but not as causing measurable material loss. Requiring an open acknowledgement probably served to neutralise the social and political implications of the words while avoiding escalation into a more punitive sanction. | |
175 | Island St Helena Present Mr Blackmore Govʳ An Information hauing bin giuen that Jack ye And the said Mary Mathews, wᶜʰ saith Salisbury Capᵗ The sd Thomas Dixon was sworne who vpon his Oath Mary Mathews being sworne saith the same as the Being also written shee did not heare that the sd Oliuer To which ye sd Mathews replyeth, that one day shee and Sam Haslebur[y] being sworne saith, that he was with ye | At a consultation held at Fort James on 12 March 1690, before Mr John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Kelinge as ensign, information was presented concerning Jack, the son of black Oliver, deceased, who had been apprenticed to Mary Mathews, a widow. He was accused of serious misconduct, namely buggering a calf and attempting to ravish a young girl aged about eight or nine years. On that basis he had been committed to prison. Mary Mathews appeared together with Salisbury Cap[...], and John Dixon, who had lodged at her house. It was stated that they were to give evidence upon oath so that proceedings might be taken according to law. All parties appeared accordingly. Thomas Dixon was sworn and stated that he had neither seen nor heard that Jack Oliver had committed the offences alleged. Mary Mathews, also sworn, gave the same account and added that she had never charged Oliver with those acts. It was further recorded that she had not heard that Oliver had attempted to commit rape upon a maid belonging to Sutton Grasse, a planter, who lived with her. Mathews then described an incident in which she, Samuel Haslebur[y], and a soldier named Monka, who were lodging at her house, were returning home together. Upon hearing a cry, she directed Monka to run ahead and discover the cause. He returned and indicated the situation, and she then followed with Haslebur[y]. Monka told her that Oliver had been forcing a girl. When Mathews questioned the girl as to why she had cried out, the girl replied that Oliver had wanted her to fetch two pails of water and she would fetch only one, and that she had been playing with him. Samuel Haslebur[y], being sworn, stated that he had been with Mathews and Monka when they were coming down to her house [...] Interpretations The commitment to prison upon initial information, followed by the taking of sworn testimony, shows that allegations of serious sexual and moral offences were handled through a preliminary custodial stage before formal determination. This reflects a process in which suspicion alone could justify confinement pending examination. The reliance on multiple sworn witnesses drawn from those present at the location demonstrates the evidentiary standard required to sustain such charges. Testimony was expected to establish direct knowledge or credible report, and the absence of such evidence weakened the case against the accused. The reference to apprenticeship indicates a structured relationship of labour and control, in which a dependent individual was bound within a household under supervision. Responsibility for conduct may therefore have extended to the household head, which helps explain the central role of Mary Mathews in the proceedings. Speculations The rapid movement from accusation of extremely serious offences to testimony denying any knowledge suggests that the initial report may have arisen from rumour or misinterpretation of events. The council’s willingness to hear and record contradictory evidence indicates an attempt to stabilise the situation before imposing punishment. | |
176 | about a flight shot from it, and hee did heare ye Girle Then the sd Jack Oliuer was sent for Out of prison, But there being strong suspicion that he was It is Ordered That ye sd Oliuer bee still Continued in Prison, and Upon Jackson for Iraming his boones Drunk, and It is Ordered That in regard ye sd Jackson hath not bin Convicted of any J B[...] | Further evidence was given by Samuel Haslebur[y], who stated upon oath that he had been about a flight shot from the place when he heard the girl cry out. Mary Mathews then directed Monka to go down and see what had occurred, which he did, and Haslebur[y] followed with her. Upon arriving, Mathews asked Monka what the matter was, and he replied that Oliver would have his sore to the girl. Mathews then asked the girl why she had cried out, and the girl answered that Oliver would have carnal knowledge of her but that she would not permit it. Mathews then took the girl into a room and examined her, and on returning stated that no harm had been done. Jack Oliver was then brought out of prison and questioned concerning the offences alleged against him. He strongly denied them, admitting only that he served Mary Mathews. His manner was noted as not entirely modest, although it appeared to favour his innocence. As strong suspicion nevertheless remained, and the alleged crime was of a very serious nature, it was directed that Oliver should remain in prison and that formal process should be issued against him. He was to be brought before the next Court of Justice and tried by a jury, where he might present his defence. A separate matter concerned a person named Jackson, who had been committed to prison for becoming drunk and speaking words that vilified others. Upon appearing before the council, he acknowledged his offence, appeared penitent, and asked for pardon. As he had not been convicted of any serious offence, it was directed that he should pay a fine of five shillings for his misconduct [...] Interpretations The decision to continue Oliver in custody while ordering that he be tried by a jury demonstrates the procedural distinction between suspicion and conviction. Detention was maintained where the alleged offence was grave, even in the absence of conclusive proof, ensuring that the accused remained under authority until formal judgement could be made. The reference to issuing process indicates the commencement of formal legal proceedings. This step transformed the matter from preliminary examination into a structured prosecution, governed by established judicial procedure and culminating in trial before a jury. The examination of the girl by Mary Mathews reflects the informal evidentiary practices that could operate alongside formal testimony. Physical inspection by a household authority was treated as relevant to determining whether harm had been done, and was reported as part of the evidential record. Speculations The decision to proceed to a jury trial despite conflicting testimony suggests that the council considered the nature of the accusation, involving both sexual assault and bestiality, too serious to dismiss on uncertain evidence. Referral to a jury probably served to transfer responsibility for judgement in a highly sensitive case to a broader body, thereby reducing the risk of dispute over the outcome. | |
177 | Island St Helena The Govʳ and Councell, hauing forecaus[ed] Consider[atio]n Accordingly a Consultation was Held on Thursday Present Mr Blackmore Govʳ Grace Coulson widdow was first Examined, and a Lease | The governor and council, having taken into consideration that several persons on St Helena were indebted to the Lords Proprietors for rents of houses and land, for slaves previously sold to them, and for revenues arising in the East India trade, noted that a full and accurate account of these debts was not available. The relevant accounts remained in the possession of Captain B[oo]t[...], or a late accountant, who had refused to deliver them. He later stated that he had sent his books and accounts on the last returning ship. In light of this uncertainty, it was considered necessary that a warrant should be issued to summon all persons indebted for rents of houses, land, and slaves, while accounts relating to revenues would be taken at another time. These individuals were required to appear with their respective accounts and receipts for payments made to Captain Hutton, accountant, so that their arrears could be determined and the accounts properly adjusted before the departure of the accounts from the island. Accordingly, a consultation was held at Fort James on 20 March 1690 before Mr John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Kelinge as ensign. Grace Coulson, a widow, was examined first. She produced a lease dated 25 March 1688, under her hand and seal, by which she had bound herself to pay £1 0s 0d per year for the rent of a house and 30 acres of land in the country, together with a house in Chapel Valley town. When asked what she had paid of the rent, two years being nearly expired, she replied that she had paid nothing and declared that she would pay nothing. She added that she had already paid too much, referring to revenue. In evident distress, she departed, saying that the authorities might do as they wished and turn her and her children out of doors, that she was suffering daily, and that they might as well hang her as they had her husband. Interpretations The issuance of a warrant to summon all debtors demonstrates a coordinated administrative response to incomplete financial records. In the absence of the accountant’s books, the burden of proof was transferred to individual tenants and purchasers, requiring them to produce receipts and accounts to establish what had been paid and what remained due. The reference to rents for land, houses, and slaves shows that the Lords Proprietors exercised direct control over property and labour through contractual obligations. Annual rents and purchase payments formed part of a structured revenue system, linking occupation and ownership to continuing financial liability. The lease under hand and seal indicates a formal legal instrument binding the tenant to fixed annual payments. Such documentation provided the basis for enforcement, allowing the council to compel payment or take further action where obligations were not met. Speculations The decision to call in all debtors at once suggests that the absence of the accountant’s records created a risk of widespread uncertainty or dispute over obligations. By reconstructing accounts directly from the inhabitants, the council probably aimed to prevent loss of revenue and to reassert control over financial administration before further departures from the island complicated recovery. | |
178 | Mary Gowson Widᵒ Appeared and producing two Mr Smith who had hired a Black Boy named Likewise the sd Smith desired that he might It is Ordered That ye sd Smith shall haue the sd Black boy Tho Hawes Planter who hyrd a black Boy Tho Goodwin appeared who is bound by Bond Which he promiseth to pay ye rest of ye sd Orphans Rent | Mary Gowson, a widow, appeared and produced two leases under her hand and seal. One lease concerned twenty acres of land and a house in Chapel Valley town at a rent of £1 0s 0d per year, together with a house beneath that property formerly belonging to Richard Dodd, let at a half-yearly rent of 5s 0d. It was found that one year’s rent remained due to the Lords Proprietors, amounting to £4 0s 0d. When payment was demanded, she produced a receipt from Captain Hutton for £6 0s 0d and undertook to pay the remaining £0 17s 11d shortly. Mr Smith, who had hired a black boy named Cammango from the council for one year at a rent of £3 10s 0d, was required to make payment. He produced a receipt from Captain Hutton for £2 14s 4d and promised to pay the remaining £0 19s 4d within a short time if possible. He then requested permission to hire the same boy for a further year. This was granted, and he was allowed to retain Cammango for another year from 2 April 1689 at the same annual rate of £3 10s 0d, subject to conditions to be drawn up. Thomas Hawes, a planter who had hired a black boy named Thomps from the Company on 25 March 1689 for one year at a rent of £3 10s 0d, payable in two parts, was required to make payment of what was due. He complied accordingly. Thomas Goodwin appeared as a party bound by bond for payment for a black man purchased from the Company on behalf of Thomas Whitty, an orphan, at a price of £10 10s 0d. Upon demand for payment, he produced a receipt from Captain Hutton for £10 13s 10d and stated that this sum, together with £0 3s 4d, discharged the whole amount, leaving £0 0s 0d outstanding. He further promised to pay the remaining rent due to the orphan between that time and May next. Interpretations The production of leases under hand and seal shows that rental obligations for land and property were formalised through written contracts. These instruments defined both the extent of property held and the annual payments owed, enabling the council to verify liabilities in the absence of central account records. The use of receipts issued by the accountant as proof of payment demonstrates that financial accountability relied heavily on documentary evidence held by individuals. In the absence of official ledgers, such receipts became essential for reconstructing accounts and determining arrears. The hiring of slaves on fixed annual terms illustrates a structured system of labour allocation controlled by the governing authority. Payments for such hiring were treated in the same manner as rents, indicating that labour was administered as a revenue-generating asset of the proprietors. The reference to a bond entered into on behalf of an orphan indicates that third parties could assume financial responsibility for property transactions. This mechanism ensured that obligations connected to estates, including those of minors, continued to be enforced through legally binding guarantees. Speculations The willingness to renew the hiring of the same individual immediately after partial payment suggests that continuity of labour was prioritised over strict settlement of debts. Allowing the arrangement to continue probably ensured ongoing revenue while avoiding disruption to agricultural or domestic work dependent on that labour. | |
179 | brought over to pay for Whitty is 09:17:11 Tho: Goodwin is Indebted for a black It further the sd Goodwin is by Lease for one yeare Rest due for Rent — 02:05:00 Richᵈ Stacy Planter Appeared who had hyrd a little The sd Stacy owes for a Black Woman bought Mᵣ Smout appeared and upon perusall of his Lease Also producing another Lease Concerning The sd Smout being Demanded a Totall is — 47:00:00 Rest due to ye Honᵇˡ Compᵃ is — 35:03:05 | Thomas Goodwin was recorded as having brought over a sum of £9 17s 11d towards payment for Whitty. He was further noted as indebted for a black boy purchased from the Company for his own use at £15 0s 0d, which he promised to pay with all possible speed. It was also found that Goodwin stood bound by lease dated 29 September 1688 for the rent of a house in Chapel Valley and ten acres of land in the country at £4 0s 0d per year. A further year’s rent of £4 0s 0d was also due. Additional rent, including a charge noted at £6 15s 0d, was entered, against which payments made to Captain Hutton amounting to £4 10s 0d and £2 5s 0d were set, leaving a remaining balance for rent of £2 5s 0d. It was stated that Thomas Hawes declared that this sum remained owing by Goodwin to the Company, which Goodwin again promised to discharge as soon as he was able. Richard Stacy, a planter, appeared and was found to have hired a small black boy named Thomps from the Company at an annual rate of £2 10s 0d, which had been paid as confirmed by a receipt under Captain Hutton’s hand. Stacy was also indebted for a black woman purchased from the Company at £5 0s 0d. When payment was demanded, he admitted that nothing had yet been paid but undertook to make every effort to discharge the debt upon the arrival of the first ships, or sooner if possible. Mr Smout appeared, and upon examination of his lease relating to property formerly held by a widow, it was found that he was bound to pay rent for thirty acres of land and a dwelling house in the town, together with the labour of a black man, a black girl, and six cows belonging to the Company, at a total annual rent of £26 0s 0d. A further lease showed that he was also engaged to pay £5 0s 0d for the rent of twenty acres of land and Company woodland by 25 March. Additional arrears were identified, including a deficiency relating to two black cows and calves assessed at £10 10s 0d per year. Three years’ arrears were noted as of 29 March 1689. A bond under Smout’s hand and seal for £5 10s 0d was also recorded. When the total liability was calculated, it amounted to £47 0s 0d. A receipt under Captain Hutton’s hand for £11 16s 6d was produced, leaving a remaining balance due to the Company of £35 3s 5d. Interpretations The detailed breakdown of debts across leases, purchases, and bonds demonstrates a layered system of financial obligation in which individuals could simultaneously hold multiple liabilities to the Company. These included rents for land and property, payments for the purchase of slaves, and obligations secured by bond, all of which were accounted for together when determining total indebtedness. The inclusion of labour, livestock, and land within lease terms indicates that economic value was assigned not only to fixed property but also to productive assets. Rent therefore functioned as a composite charge reflecting the use of land, labour, and capital resources controlled by the Company. The use of bonds under hand and seal provided an enforceable guarantee for payment, particularly where sums were substantial or extended over time. This mechanism allowed the Company to secure debts against future performance, reinforcing its capacity to recover outstanding sums. Speculations The accumulation of several years of arrears in Smout’s case suggests that enforcement of payment may have been irregular prior to this review, perhaps due to reliance on the absent accountant’s records. The present effort to calculate a consolidated total probably aimed to reassert control over long-standing debts and to establish a clear baseline for future collection. | |
180 | Note that when ye Lease by Lease was Expired Another was made by Mᵣ Kessale to take the John Seaford Planter is Indebted for the hyre The said debt being demanded, the said Seaford Edwᵈ Bloff Appeared and one Lease of his was Total Debt is — 73:10:00 Which said debt being demanded, The Totalled Remaining to pay is — 42:06:06 Which sumes the sd Bloff doth seriously promise to James Dixon Appeared as Debtor to John Sheraton His 40s Rent being demanded, he said a Recᵗ | It was noted that when the lease for the houses and thirty acres of land at the back had expired, the tenant had left that property, but had retained possession of the slaves and cattle, which were to compensate for wood. A further arrangement had been attempted by Mr Kessale to take twenty acres of land in Stompston wood into the Lords Proprietors’ hands, but this was refused on account of the existing lease and the small extent of the land. John Seaford, a planter, was found to be indebted for the hire of a black boy named Robin belonging to the Company, for a term of four years at £2 0s 0d per year. He produced a receipt under Captain Hutton’s hand for £3 10s 0d. When the remaining balance was demanded, he promised to pay as soon as he was able. Edward Bloff appeared, and one of his leases was examined. Under this lease he was bound to pay £1 0s 0d per year for the rent of a house and twenty acres of land, commencing on 29 September 1686. By 29 March 1690, three years’ rent had become due. A further lease for the same purpose required the annual hire of two cows at £2 0s 0d per year, and an additional charge brought the annual rent to £2 10s 0d, of which one year and a half was calculated. A further sum of £3 0s 0d was due for one cow belonging to the Company, as shown by a receipt from James Cumming. The total debt was calculated at £73 10s 0d. Mr Kelinge testified that he held a bond from Bloff for £66 6s 6d, and a receipt under Captain Hutton’s hand for £25 5s 6d was produced. After these sums were taken into account, the remaining balance due was £42 6s 6d. Bloff gave a firm undertaking to pay this amount as soon as possible. James Dixon appeared as a debtor to John Sheraton, deceased. He stated that he held a lease for a house in Chapel Valley town and twenty-seven acres of land in the country at a rent of £2 0s 0d for six months. When this rent was demanded, he produced a receipt under Captain Hutton’s hand. However, for the rent of the house and ten acres of land, a further sum of £0 8s 10d remained due for two months. Interpretations The continuation of possession of slaves and cattle after the expiry of a land lease indicates that different categories of property and obligation could be separated. Control over labour and livestock could persist independently of land tenure, suggesting that these assets were treated as distinct forms of value within the Company’s system. The repeated reliance on receipts issued by the accountant highlights the decentralised nature of financial verification. In the absence of central records, proof of payment depended on documents held by individuals, which were then scrutinised collectively to reconstruct the Company’s accounts. The use of bonds alongside leases demonstrates a layered approach to financial enforcement. While leases established ongoing obligations, bonds provided additional security for repayment, particularly where debts accumulated over several years or involved substantial sums. Speculations The refusal to accept the proposed transfer of the twenty acres at Stompston wood, despite apparent interest, suggests that existing contractual arrangements constrained the council’s ability to reorganise land use. Maintaining the validity of prior leases probably took precedence over short-term adjustments, indicating a concern to preserve legal continuity in property arrangements. | |
181 | was in part of the sd Goods due for Revenues from the Richᵈ Griffin appeared, and by bond is Indebted Summa Totall is — 12:00:00 The Debts being demanded the sd Griffin Totall paid — 07:06:01 Remaines due — 04:13:11 Which the said Griffin promiseth faithfully to pay Information being given that Tho Howard, They the sd Howards, Goodwin & Coles did Acknowledge Upon Consideration that ye informed persons did freely It is Ordered That the sd Howards, in behalf of himselfe and ye | It was recorded that part of the goods previously mentioned had been due as revenue from the widow Bolton before her departure for England. Richard Griffin appeared and was found, by bond, to be indebted to the Company for his passage from England to St Helena in the sum of £10 0s 0d. He was also liable under a lease dated 25 March 1689 for four years’ rent for ten acres of land, amounting to £2 0s 0d. His total debt was therefore £12 0s 0d. When payment was demanded, Griffin produced a receipt from Captain Hutton for £5 11s 10d. Mr Kelinge testified that he had also received from Griffin 214 rope boyles at a rate of 16s 0d per 100, amounting to £1 14s 5d. The total paid was thus £7 6s 1d, leaving a remaining balance of £4 13s 11d. Griffin undertook to discharge this balance in beef when required. Information was then given that Thomas Howard, John Goodwin, and John Coles had recently killed a fat cow and had failed to bring in their proper proportion of tithes to the court, as required in acknowledgement of the Lords Proprietors’ authority and royal rights on the island. They were summoned to appear, which they did, and were charged with contempt of that authority. They admitted the offence and sought pardon, stating that the tithe from the cow was of very small value and that the cider to be made from it would not exceed four or five gallons. Taking into account that they had freely acknowledged their offence and that the tithe was small, it was directed that Howard, on behalf of himself and the others, should deliver half a ton of cider to the fort on the following Saturday. They were also required to pay the officer for serving the warrant for their appearance and were warned not to offend again in the same manner. Interpretations The requirement that Griffin repay part of his debt in beef demonstrates that obligations to the Company could be satisfied in kind as well as in money. This reflects a flexible system of payment suited to a local economy where agricultural produce functioned alongside currency as a medium of exchange. The obligation to deliver tithes from slaughtered cattle shows that the Lords Proprietors exercised a form of fiscal and symbolic authority over production. Such payments operated not only as revenue but also as a formal acknowledgement of proprietary rights over the island and its resources. The conversion of an omitted tithe into a compensatory delivery of cider indicates that the court could adjust penalties pragmatically. Rather than enforcing strict equivalence, it imposed a substitute that both recognised the offence and ensured a tangible return to the authorities. Speculations The acceptance of cider in place of the original tithe suggests that the council prioritised immediate and practical compensation over strict adherence to the original form of the obligation. This approach probably allowed minor breaches to be resolved quickly while still reinforcing the expectation that all production remained subject to proprietary claims. | |
182 | Boris Deales Planter Appeared who by Summa Totalis — 19:05:00 This Debt being demanded, the sd Deales Which pays the above said nineteen pound fifteen Richᵈ Curling Planter Petitioned that he might It is Agreed That ye sd Curling shall have the sd 30 Acres of Whereas now Edwᵈ Cook formerly a Gunner at It is Ordered & Agreed That the said Cooke shall be Gunner to ye Garrison | Boris Deales, a planter, appeared and was found to be bound by articles of agreement to the Company for the purchase of a black man from the governor and council. Under a prior agreement recorded on 22 January, he was also liable for £1 0s 0d in consideration of forbearance. His total obligation was calculated at £19 5s 0d. When payment was demanded, Deales stated that he had not received a receipt for £10 13s 0d, and that a boat sold during shipping time had been valued by Mr Kelinge at £9 0s 0d. These sums together amounted to £20 13s 0d, which exceeded the amount due. It was therefore accepted that the debt of £19 5s 0d had been satisfied, and that a further £0 18s 0d had been paid towards his last year’s revenues. Richard Curling, a planter, then petitioned to be granted thirty acres of land formerly belonging to Gabriel Cornwall, one of the Cornwall brothers who had recently broken prison and fled the island. It was agreed that Curling should hold the land for ten months, from the present date until 29 January 1690, paying a rent of £0 5s 0d per acre together with any arrears of revenue. A lease was to be drawn accordingly. Edward Cook, formerly a gunner at the garrison, then sought appointment to the post vacated by Rogers Trott, who had run away in one of the last ships. It was agreed that Cook should be appointed gunner from that date. He was to receive the same allowance previously given to Trott, namely £0 12s 0d for a period of three months each year, in addition to a salary of £0 18s 0d per month. He was required to take his turns in the stores and to attend at the fort at least three days each week, or more often if required in extraordinary circumstances. He was excused from regular watch duty except in cases of alarm. Interpretations The reference to payment for “forbearance” indicates a charge imposed for allowing delayed settlement of a debt. This reflects a financial mechanism by which the Company could both accommodate and profit from deferred payment, effectively incorporating interest-like compensation into its agreements. The acceptance of a boat, appraised in value, as part of Deales’s settlement demonstrates that debts could be discharged through assessed assets rather than cash alone. This highlights a system in which valuation by recognised officials substituted for monetary exchange. The grant of land formerly held by a fugitive shows that property rights were contingent upon continued presence and compliance. Abandonment or flight resulted in the reallocation of land by the governing authority, reinforcing its control over tenure. The terms of Cook’s appointment reveal the structured nature of garrison service. Fixed allowances, monthly wages, defined duties, and exemptions from certain obligations indicate a formalised system of military labour within the settlement. Speculations The rapid reassignment of land previously held by a fugitive suggests that the council sought to prevent productive land from remaining idle. By granting it on a short-term lease, flexibility was retained while ensuring that revenue and cultivation were maintained. The detailed conditions attached to Cook’s appointment, including attendance requirements and exemption from routine watch duty, suggest that the position of gunner was considered technically specialised. These terms probably aimed to ensure that his skills were reserved for critical tasks rather than routine service. | |
183 | Sam Taylor Planter Desyred that he might It is Agreed and Ordered That the said Taylor shall Rent the said house from Information being given that one Charles Page It is Ordered That for the preventing of all Imbezzlement of Jᵒ Blackmore | Samuel Taylor, a planter, requested possession of a house in Chappell Valley town that had formerly belonged to Nathaniel Councey. Approval was granted for him to lease the house for one year, beginning on 25 March 1690 and ending on 25 March 1691. Rent was fixed at six dollars payable every three quarter months, and formal articles of agreement were to be drawn to record the terms. Information was then received that Charles Page, a man from the good ship Dorothy, had been left on the island in a sick condition at the house of Thomas Howard, a planter. He was reported to be very weak and probably near death, and to have in his possession goods and chattels of some value at Howard’s house, including a watch, gold buttons, rings, and [...] To prevent any loss or misappropriation of these belongings, it was directed that a warrant be issued immediately to Edmund Blanter and Thomas Goodwin, described as gunner and mate, requiring them to go to Howard’s house where Page lay ill. They were to take a full inventory of all goods, chattels, and clothing belonging to Page on the island, whether at that house or elsewhere, and to present a signed inventory to the council. This was intended to ensure that, whether Page survived or died, neither he nor his relations would suffer loss, and that the costs incurred during his stay on the island could be properly met. Interpretations The requirement that Taylor’s lease be formalised through written articles of agreement reflects the administrative practice of documenting tenancy arrangements to secure both revenue and enforceable obligations. Such instruments ensured that rent schedules and durations were clearly defined and legally recognised. The order to inventory Page’s belongings illustrates a protective intervention by the council in cases of illness involving transient individuals. By placing goods under supervised record, the authorities acted to safeguard property rights while also preserving a fund from which local expenses could be recovered. The involvement of appointed officials to carry out the inventory demonstrates the use of delegated authority in administrative procedures. Their certification of the inventory provided an official record that could be relied upon in any subsequent claim or dispute. Speculations The immediate move to secure Page’s possessions suggests that the council anticipated potential disputes over ownership or liability, particularly given his status as a visiting seaman. By formalising the inventory before his condition worsened, it was probably intended to prevent both informal appropriation and later disagreement over what had been present. | |
184 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the 27ᵗʰ Day Present Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Notice being given that Charles Page who lay The Accompt Drawing nigh that ye Inhabitants It is Ordered That a Proclamation be forth with Published The quarterly Court of Justices to be on ye 1ᵗʰ of It is Ordered That a Warrant be Issued for the summoning a Jury and Josᵉ Register Senior Comander of the French Vessel | A consultation was held at Fort James on 27 March 1690, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. Notice was received that Charles Page, who had been lying sick at the house of Thomas Howard, had died. Instructions were therefore issued to Edmund Blanter and Thomas Goodwin, planters, to ensure that he was buried in a proper manner. It was further directed that his goods and chattels should not be removed until letters of administration had been granted, and that the property should then be sold at a public sale. As the time approached for the inhabitants of the island to submit accounts of all their white servants, slaves, lands, and cattle, it was observed that this duty had been neglected. A proclamation was therefore ordered to be issued immediately, requiring all inhabitants to provide their returns on 1 April next. The quarterly court of justice was due to be held on 1 April, at which several cases were to be heard and tried. Some were to be determined by jury, including matters relating to the settlement of land inheritance, while others concerned serious felonies. A warrant was therefore ordered to be issued for the summoning of a jury to attend the court on that date. Joseph Register, senior commander of a French vessel, then requested that provisions be supplied for himself and his household, which consisted of ten persons in addition to eight servants. The items requested from the Company store included brandy, sugar, bread, and flour. The request was considered in light of his active efforts in planting vines and establishing vineyards, with the aim of producing wine as a staple commodity for the benefit and advantage of the island. Interpretations The requirement that Page’s goods remain untouched until letters of administration were granted reflects the application of probate procedure. Authority over a deceased person’s estate was formally vested in an appointed administrator, ensuring that property could be lawfully distributed and debts settled under recognised legal oversight. The demand that inhabitants submit returns of people, land, and livestock demonstrates a system of periodic accounting that underpinned taxation, labour control, and resource management. Such returns enabled the council to maintain oversight of the island’s population and productive assets. The summoning of a jury for cases involving inheritance and felony indicates the incorporation of English legal forms within the island’s judicial system. Trial by jury functioned as a mechanism for legitimising decisions in matters of property and serious crime. The provision of supplies from the Company store to Register highlights the use of material support as an incentive for economic development. By allocating resources to an individual engaged in viticulture, the council sought to encourage the establishment of a new and potentially valuable form of production. Speculations The decision to preserve Page’s estate intact until formal administration could be granted suggests a concern to prevent disputes between creditors, local inhabitants, and any distant relatives. Establishing a controlled process for disposal of his goods probably aimed to protect both private claims and the Company’s interest in recovering outstanding charges. The encouragement given to Register through the allocation of provisions indicates that viticulture was being actively promoted as a strategic development. This support was probably intended to reduce reliance on imported goods by fostering a local product that could supply both the island and passing ships. | |
185 | Rt Honᵇˡ Compᵃ of Merchants Adventurers upon Consultation the Upon very serious Consideration of all these It is Agreed and Ordered That from Thursday inclusive the 14ᵗʰ of April Brandy — 1½ Gallon Upon delivery whereof the said Capt Persons is Jnᵒ Blackmore Govʳ Whereas it hath pleased the Rt Honᵇˡ Compᵃ Governors | Further consideration was given to the request for provisions made by the French commander, referred to as Captain Persons. Reference was made to the instructions issued by the Company of Merchants Adventurers concerning St Helena, together with a copy of instructions brought by Henry [...] Boyman in the ship commanded by Captain Leonard Browne. Upon examination, no clear or explicit authority was found for granting such allowances, nor was any specification given as to their nature or extent, whether for the French nation or otherwise. Despite this absence of direct instruction, Captain Persons pressed his request strongly, stating that without some small supply neither he nor his family could subsist. He further claimed that what he sought had been promised to him by the St Helena Company in England. After careful deliberation, and in order to support and encourage those who had undertaken or proposed industrious efforts that might contribute to the honour and profit of the island, agreement was reached to grant a temporary allowance. From Thursday 14 April 1690, being the seventh day after his arrival, and continuing for three months, there was to be issued monthly from the Company stores the following provisions: 1½ gallons of brandy, 52 lb of sugar, 20 lb of bread, and 20 lb of flour. For each delivery, Captain Persons was required to provide a receipt. This arrangement was made subject to the approval of the Company in England, to whom notice was to be sent at the first opportunity. In the meantime, Captain Persons was required to enter into a formal obligation that, if the Company did not approve the allowance, he would repay the value of the provisions or otherwise answer for them. John Blackmore, governor, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Keeling recorded this decision. It was further acknowledged that the governor and council had granted these provisions at Captain Persons’s request, to be issued monthly until further order. Interpretations The requirement that the allowance be made “with submission” to the Company in England indicates that the island council exercised delegated authority subject to later review. Local decisions could be implemented immediately but remained provisional until confirmed by the central governing body. The obligation imposed on Captain Persons to repay the value of the provisions if disapproved demonstrates the use of conditional credit. Goods were advanced on trust, secured by a binding promise that converted the allowance into a recoverable debt if not ratified. The insistence on written receipts for each delivery reflects a system of accountable storekeeping. Documentation ensured that all withdrawals from Company stores could be verified and reconciled against both local records and the Company’s oversight. Speculations The decision to grant provisions despite uncertain authority suggests that the council prioritised maintaining relations with a potentially useful foreign commander. By framing the allowance as temporary and conditional, support could be extended without fully committing Company resources, balancing immediate need against the risk of later disapproval. | |
186 | order hereafter Mentioned Vizᵗ one Gallon and halfe Memᵒ Copie of this Councill from | Captain Persons formally acknowledged the allowance that had been granted to him from the Company stores. He recorded that the provisions issued monthly consisted of one and a half gallons of brandy, three pounds of sugar, twenty-eight pounds of bread, and twenty-eight pounds of flour. These quantities had been granted subject to the approval or disapproval of the Company. He bound himself, together with his heirs, executors, and assigns, that if the Company did not approve the allowance, the full value of the provisions would be repaid. Repayment was to be made either out of his future wages in the Company’s service or by any other means that the Company might direct. A memorandum was then made that a copy of the council proceedings, covering the period from 7 November 1689 to 27 March 1690, had been sent to the Company in the good ship Resolution, commanded by Captain William Sharp. That vessel departed from St Helena on Saturday 26 April 1690. Interpretations The obligation entered into by Captain Persons extended beyond his own person to his heirs, executors, and assigns, indicating that the liability was legally binding upon his estate. This ensured that repayment could be enforced even if he did not remain in service or survive to settle the debt himself. The provision that repayment could be deducted from his “growing pay” reflects a structured system of wage attachment. Future earnings within Company service were treated as a recoverable source for debts, allowing the administration to secure advances against anticipated income. The transmission of council proceedings to the Company in England demonstrates the regular reporting mechanism by which local governance was subject to oversight. Such records enabled the Company to review decisions, including financial commitments, and to confirm or overturn them as required. | |
187 | Island St Helena Present [G]n [B]lackmore Govʳ Margaret the Relict of Jnᵒ Draper Planter late But Mary Giffen doth declare that the said Mary the said The said Executrix and Executor were both The said Executrix and Executor have now produced an Which Will and Inventory being thus It is | A consultation was held at Fort James on Friday 7 April 1690, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. Margaret, the widow of John Draper, a planter recently deceased, presented his will for probate. Upon examination, it appeared that Draper had intended his wife Margaret, his daughter, and his son James to serve jointly as executrix and executor of his will. He further intended that they should share equally in his personal estate. However, no clear provision had been made regarding the disposition of his lands, nor had the will explicitly confirmed the roles of his wife and daughter in that respect. Thomas Cook and John Burgess, planters, testified under oath that Draper had declared before his death that he intended his wife to act as executrix. Mary Giffen then stated that Draper’s daughter, being about sixteen years of age, had expressed that she could not legally serve as executrix and was unwilling to undertake that responsibility. She had therefore chosen to relinquish her role, leaving Margaret and James, Draper’s only son, to act jointly as executrix and executor, in accordance with Draper’s intention. Margaret and James were sworn, affirming that the will presented was Draper’s final testament. John Mills and John Burgess, planters and witnesses to the document, were also sworn and confirmed that they had been present when Draper wrote, declared, and delivered the will as his last testament. Margaret and James then produced a full inventory of Draper’s goods and chattels, together with a record of debts owed by him and debts owed to him. This inventory was sworn and subscribed by both. Upon the will and inventory being duly proved, it was [...] Interpretations The probate process required both the verification of the will by witnesses and the swearing of the executors, demonstrating the formal legal procedure by which testamentary authority was recognised. This ensured that the administration of the estate rested on validated documentation and testimony. The production of an inventory detailing goods, chattels, and debts reflects a structured approach to estate administration. Such inventories enabled the settlement of liabilities and the orderly distribution of assets under supervision of the council. The withdrawal of the daughter from executorship on account of her age indicates that capacity to hold such a role was subject to legal or customary limitations. This illustrates how eligibility for administrative responsibility was regulated within the colony’s legal framework. Speculations The acceptance of the daughter’s withdrawal and the confirmation of the widow and son as joint executors suggests that the council prioritised practical administration of the estate over strict adherence to the original wording of the will. This adjustment probably aimed to ensure that the estate could be managed effectively without legal uncertainty arising from the daughter’s position. | |
188 | It is Ordered That the said Originall Will and Inventory be But it Appearing by the said Inventory that And Likewise it Appearing that the said Draper is It is Ordered That the said Executrix and Executor doe [...] | ||
189 | Island St Helena Present [G]n Blackmore Govʳ Wm Bodes, Alexander Kirkpatrick Tho Frien Upon the Consideration of wᶜʰ said Fact great Neglect It is Ordered That all ye said souldiers doe Immediately this present [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 8 April 1690, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. William Bodes, Alexander Kirkpatrick, Thomas Frien, Walter Clapton, George Wright, and Joseph Davis, all soldiers, had been assigned to watch posts at Flagstaff Hill, Mutton’s Mount, and Prosperous Bay. Their duty had been to give warning upon the approach of any ship nearing the island. When the ship Williamson came near the road before Fort James, no alarm had been raised by any of them. They were immediately removed from their posts and committed to prison. This failure was judged to be a serious neglect and a gross act of carelessness, which might have led to dangerous consequences had the approaching vessel been an enemy. In order to prevent similar failures in future, it was directed that all these soldiers should, on that same day when the guard was relieved, ride the wood or attend at their homes for a period of two hours each, at their hobbles. They were further removed from duty at the lookout posts and were not to be reinstated there until further order. [...] Interpretations The assignment of soldiers to fixed lookout points demonstrates the structured system of coastal surveillance used to protect the island. These positions formed an early warning network, essential for defence against hostile ships or unexpected arrivals. The immediate imprisonment of the soldiers reflects the enforcement of military discipline through summary detention. Such measures emphasised the seriousness attached to vigilance and the expectation of strict compliance with assigned duties. The removal of the soldiers from their posts and the imposition of alternative duties indicates a disciplinary response that combined punishment with reassignment. This allowed the council to maintain order while ensuring that essential functions continued to be fulfilled by more reliable personnel. Speculations The severity of the response suggests that the council regarded the failure to raise an alarm as a critical breach of security. The fact that the punishment included both confinement and removal from strategic posts probably reflects a concern that similar negligence could expose the island to surprise attack or unauthorised landing. | |
190 | Island St Helena Present [G]n Blackmore Govʳ Whereas in the Consultation held ye 8 Instant It is Ordered That ye sd Edwards and Edmond Blanchard and Goodwin Junʳ Accordingly Letters of Administration were Alexander Kirkpatrick sd he having Concluded It is Ordered That since ye sd Kirkpatrick hath bin soe [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Saturday 12 April 1690, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. Reference was made to a prior consultation held on 8 April, at which Captain Edward Edwards, Edmund Blanchard, and Thomas Goodwin junior had been directed to take an inventory of the goods and chattels of Charles Page, late surgeon of the good ship Dorothea, who had been lying sick at the house of [...] Howndales, a planter, in order to prevent any embezzlement. After Page’s death, that inventory had been completed and subscribed by those officers together with Howndales. Following this, it was directed that Edwards, Blanchard, and Goodwin junior should be granted letters of administration. They were required to take a full and exact inventory of all Page’s goods and chattels and to present it under oath to the governor and council. They were further instructed to identify all debts owed by Page on the island and any debts owed to him, and to pursue recovery of those debts where possible. Payment of any liabilities was to be made from the value of his goods and chattels so far as they would extend. Any surplus remaining after settlement was to be transmitted to the Company in England, to be disposed of for the benefit of Page’s relations. Letters of administration were accordingly issued to Edward Edwards and Thomas Goodwin, who were sworn to perform the trust faithfully. Alexander Kirkpatrick then requested permission to depart for England in the good ship Resolution. This request was refused on the grounds that he had behaved in a disorderly manner on the island and had not yet completed the full term of his service to the Company. [...] Interpretations The granting of letters of administration placed Edwards, Blanchard, and Goodwin in formal legal control of Page’s estate. This authority enabled them to collect assets, settle debts, and account for any remaining property under supervision of the council. The requirement to account for both debts owed by and to the deceased demonstrates a comprehensive approach to estate settlement. Liability and entitlement were treated together, ensuring that creditors could be paid and outstanding claims recovered before any distribution. The instruction to remit any surplus to the Company for transmission to relatives reflects the Company’s role as intermediary in probate matters for individuals without immediate local kin. This function extended its authority into the management of personal estates beyond purely commercial concerns. The refusal of permission for Kirkpatrick to leave the island indicates that movement was subject to administrative control tied to service obligations. Completion of contracted service was treated as a prerequisite for departure. Speculations The decision to entrust administration to multiple individuals suggests a desire to ensure accountability through shared responsibility. By requiring joint oversight, the council probably aimed to reduce the risk of mismanagement or private appropriation of the deceased’s property. | |
191 | [...] [...] Staccy Planter of Low Bay Whereupon it is Ordered That the said Stace be Comitted to prison [...] Island St Helena The Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃᶜ having by their Therefore It is Ordered with submission to the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Masters That the said Johnson have for the use of himself and family Brandy . . . 2 Gallons Which provisions and quantities of them are wholly submitted unto [...] | A complaint was brought concerning [...] Stacy, a planter of Low Bay, who was accused by [...] his daughter of threatening to kill her and of using abusive, profane, and disorderly language. This allegation was supported by the testimony of James Reinton. On consideration of the matter, it was directed that Stacy be committed to prison and kept in irons until further order. Attention was then given to the case of Joshua Johnson. In accordance with instructions from the Company, and in recognition of his conduct in service, it was noted that he had faithfully applied himself to his duties despite suffering many losses and misfortunes. He had been industrious in carrying out his responsibilities and had frequently been absent from his home while procuring provisions in the Company’s service. It was further considered that provision should be made to enable him to maintain his family and relations. With this in mind, and subject to the approval of the Company, it was directed that Johnson should receive a regular allowance from the Company stores. For the support of himself and his household, there was to be issued monthly such quantities of provisions as were deemed sufficient, specified as two gallons of brandy, eight pounds of sugar, fifty pounds of bread, and fifty pounds of flour. The granting and continuation of these provisions remained subject to the discretion of the governor and council, who retained authority to adjust or withdraw them as they saw fit. [...] Interpretations The commitment of Stacy to prison in irons demonstrates the use of custodial punishment for threats and abusive conduct, indicating that verbal offences accompanied by intimidation could be treated as serious breaches of order warranting physical restraint. The allowance granted to Johnson reflects a system of compensation that combined monetary or official recognition with provision in kind. Such support functioned both as reward for service and as a means of sustaining individuals whose duties limited their ability to provide independently. The reservation of discretion to the governor and council over the continuation of Johnson’s allowance shows that such provisions were not fixed entitlements but conditional grants. This enabled ongoing assessment of service and need, maintaining administrative control over distribution of resources. Speculations The decision to grant Johnson a substantial monthly allowance suggests that his role in procuring provisions was considered essential to the island’s supply system. By ensuring his household was supported, the council probably intended to secure his continued availability for duties that required extended absence from his own affairs. | |
192 | Island St Helena Present [G]n Blackmore Govʳ Edwᵈ Edwards and Tho Goodwin Administrators for It is Ordered That ye said Administrators doe on Wensday ye 23ᵗʰ Further It is Ordered That on Saturday ye 3ᵈ day of May in the forenoon And that all ye said Pages Debts doe then appear to [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Saturday 19 April 1690, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. Edward Edwards and Thomas Goodwin, acting as administrators for John and Charles Page, deceased, presented an inventory of the goods and chattels held in their custody. This inventory was submitted under oath, together with various papers and accounts showing claims made by several persons for debts owed to them by Page. It was directed that the administrators should, on Wednesday 23 April, sell all the goods and chattels of the deceased at a public auction held at the market house. To ensure proper notice, they were required to publish the sale by posting notices in the usual places so that all potential buyers would be informed of the time and location. Further direction was given that on Saturday 3 May in the forenoon, the administrators should return to the governor and council at Fort James with a full account of the proceeds from the sale. All creditors of Page were required to appear at that time to present and verify their claims, so that the debts might be examined and settled in an orderly manner. [...] Interpretations The use of a public auction at the market house indicates a formalised method for converting a deceased person’s estate into cash. This ensured transparency in valuation and maximised the return available for satisfying debts. The requirement to give public notice by posting papers demonstrates an established administrative practice for informing the community of legal and commercial actions. This procedure supported open participation and reduced the risk of disputes over the conduct of the sale. The obligation placed on creditors to appear and prove their claims reflects a structured process of debt verification. Only claims presented and examined within this framework would be recognised, allowing the administrators to distribute proceeds according to validated liabilities. Speculations The scheduling of a fixed date for both the sale and the subsequent settlement of claims suggests an intention to conclude the administration efficiently. By concentrating these steps within a short period, the council probably aimed to prevent prolonged uncertainty over the estate and to expedite the transfer of any remaining value to the Company or the deceased’s relations. | |
193 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on the 30ᵗʰ of Aprill Present [G]n Blackmore Govʳ Tho Howard a planter complaines of Jnᵒ Green[troo] It is Ordered That ye said Jnᵒ Green[troo] be Comitted close prisoner untill Edw Blofe being fallen very sick in Prison It is Ordered That ye sd Blofe be sett at liberty for the present and James Dufus Sould having bin Convicted for causing It is Ordered That the said Dufus shall this day whilst the Garrison [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 30 April 1690, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. Thomas Howard, a planter, brought a complaint against John Green[...] , an orphan aged about fourteen years. It was alleged that Green[...] had shot a black boy belonging to Howard, from which wound the boy had died. It was directed that Green[...] be committed to close prison until further consideration, and that Howard should prosecute him for murder at the next sessions. Edward Blofe, having become very sick while in prison, was ordered to be released temporarily. He was required to go and reside in the country with his father in law Richard [...], and to conduct himself in an orderly manner during that time. James Dufus, a soldier, had been convicted of causing a false alarm during the night while he was on sentry duty. It was found that he had left his post to go into a house in the town, and upon returning had fired his musket at persons passing at some distance who had neither approached nor threatened him. This act had caused an unnecessary alarm in the garrison and the town. As punishment, it was directed that on that same day, being muster day when the garrison was assembled under arms, Dufus should be made to ride the wooden horse for two hours with [...] attached to each foot. [...] Interpretations The commitment of Green[...] to close prison pending trial for murder shows that even a minor could be subjected to formal criminal prosecution for a capital offence. Detention before trial ensured both custody and preparation for proceedings at the sessions. The temporary release of Blofe on account of illness illustrates a discretionary practice in which imprisonment could be relaxed for humanitarian reasons. Such relief remained conditional upon supervision and good behaviour, indicating continued legal control. The punishment of riding the wooden horse reflects a disciplinary method used within military contexts. It functioned as a public and physically uncomfortable penalty intended to deter breaches of duty and reinforce obedience among soldiers. Speculations The decision to stage Dufus’s punishment on muster day, when the garrison was assembled, suggests that the penalty was intended as a visible example to others. By making the punishment public, the authorities probably aimed to reinforce discipline and prevent further instances of negligent or disorderly conduct on sentry duty. | |
194 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Saturday Present Gn Blackmore Edwᵈ Edmonds and Tho Goodwin Admʳ to: The demands of Allowed by the Govʳ Tho Howsdales 15..12..05 13..10..00 Totall demanded is 30..09..09 Totall 26..10..00 35..06..00 | A consultation was held at Fort James on Saturday 3 May 1690, with John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Keeling present. Edward Edmonds and Thomas Goodwin, acting as administrators for the goods and chattels of Charles Page, who had died intestate, presented several accounts of debts and demands incurred by Page during his lifetime, together with the expenses of his funeral. These accounts were examined, and the several claims were discussed. Where the claims were found to agree with the demands made, they were allowed in the following manner. Thomas Howsdales claimed £15 12s 5d, of which £13 10s 0d was allowed. Attn Gordey claimed £2 0s 0d, of which £1 10s 0d was allowed. Giles Goodwin claimed £0 6s 0d, which was allowed in full. William Molling claimed £0 12s 0d, of which £0 6s 0d was allowed. William Clifton claimed £0 6s 0d, which was allowed in full. James Duffe claimed £0 17s 6d, of which £0 12s 0d was allowed. Funeral expenses of £3 15s 0d were allowed in full. Robert [...] claimed £0 18s 0d for crying Page’s goods at the public sale, of which £0 6s 0d was allowed. Other expenses of £0 5s 0d were allowed in full. The administrators’ charge, calculated on £35 6s 2d at 5 per cent, amounted to £1 5s 10d, but £5 0s 0d was entered. The clerk’s fees of £1 0s 0d were allowed in full. The total of demands amounted to £30 9s 9d, while the total sum allowed was £26 10s 0d. A remainder of £8 10s 0d was noted against a total of £35 6s 0d. Interpretations The scrutiny and partial reduction of several claims demonstrates that the council exercised discretionary authority in auditing debts against an estate. Creditors were not automatically satisfied in full, but were subject to evaluation and adjustment according to what was judged reasonable or provable. The inclusion of a fee for “crying” the goods at public sale reflects the formal role of an auctioneer in estate liquidation. This function ensured that the sale was publicly conducted and widely announced, forming part of the recognised procedure for disposing of assets. The calculation of an administrative charge as a percentage of the estate’s value indicates a structured method for compensating those responsible for managing probate. Such a mechanism linked remuneration directly to the scale of the estate under administration. Speculations The reduction of several claims, particularly larger ones, suggests that the council aimed to preserve sufficient funds within the estate to meet all recognised obligations. By limiting payments where possible, the administrators were probably enabled to balance competing claims without exhausting the available assets. | |
195 | It is Ordered That ye sd Admʳ have Immediately a Warrᵗ forth That ye sd whole Accoᵗ may be perfected & Compleated Givick the relict of James Wakefoid planter It is Ordered That ye sd Deed of Gift be recorded in the Councill | It was directed that the administrators should immediately obtain a warrant to pay the several sums that had been allowed by the governor and council. Receipts were to be taken from each person receiving payment. Once this had been completed, the administrators were required to submit a full and exact account of the entire administration, together with the receipts from all those paid and a receipt from themselves for the sum allowed to them in compensation for their care and labour. This complete account was to be prepared so that both it and the remaining estate could be transmitted to the Company at the first opportunity, for the benefit of Charles Page’s widow or his nearest relations. Givick, the widow of James Wakefoid, a planter deceased, then produced a deed of gift dated [...] April 1689, executed under her hand and seal. By this instrument she had granted to her children, born of her marriage to James Wakefoid, all the land and cattle then in her possession that had belonged to her husband at the time of his death. In the same document she had appointed Giles Swallow, a planter on the island, as trustee of that land and cattle for the benefit of the children, relinquishing all her own right and interest in the property. Giles Swallow declared his acceptance of this trust and undertook to perform it faithfully for the advantage of the children. It was directed that the deed of gift should be entered into the council book and preserved there, so that it might be consulted whenever necessary. Interpretations The requirement that the administrators obtain receipts for every payment and submit a complete account reflects a formal system of financial accountability. Each transaction was to be documented and verified, ensuring that the administration of the estate could be reviewed and audited before transmission to the Company. The transmission of both the account and the remaining estate to the Company demonstrates its role as the final authority in probate matters involving persons without immediate local settlement. The Company functioned as custodian of the estate for the benefit of distant heirs. The deed of gift, executed under hand and seal and recorded in the council book, shows the importance of formal written instruments in transferring property rights. Registration in the official record ensured that the transfer was publicly recognised and legally enforceable. The appointment of a trustee to hold land and cattle for minor children illustrates the use of fiduciary arrangements to manage property on behalf of those not yet able to control it themselves. The trustee’s acceptance of the role created a binding obligation to act in the children’s interest. Speculations The insistence on recording the deed of gift in the council book suggests that the authorities anticipated potential disputes over the inheritance. By placing the document within the official record, they probably intended to secure the children’s claim against any later challenge and to ensure that the trustee’s authority could be clearly demonstrated. | |
196 | Jnᵒ H[uc]klor of ye sd Island planter who has The sd H[uc]klor replied that he had bin at It is Agreed to and wᵗʰ ye sd H[uc]klor That he pay or cause to be paid unto ye Rt [...] | John H[...] of the island, a planter who remained in possession of Loft or Parton house and its plantation, was summoned to appear and answer for neglecting to maintain that property. The house and fences were reported to be no longer in as good repair as when he had previously sold them to the Lords Proprietors before departing for Bombay in the Benjamin. Their condition was described as much decayed and in need of prompt repair. In response, H[...] stated that he had already incurred considerable expense in clearing the plantation and in rebuilding most of the fences. He added that he had derived little or no benefit from the property and had not recovered his costs. He therefore requested that some allowance be made in respect of these expenditures, while offering that, if permitted to continue in possession, he would maintain the property in future and contribute reasonable sums towards its repair. An agreement was reached with his consent. He was required to pay, or cause to be paid, to the Company’s storekeeper for the use of the Lords Proprietors the sum of £50 0s 0d within about four months, this payment being intended to make good the repairs of the house and fences belonging to the plantation. [...] Interpretations The summons issued to H[...] demonstrates the enforcement of maintenance obligations attached to property formerly sold to the Lords Proprietors. Even after transfer of ownership, the occupier remained accountable for preserving the estate’s productive and structural condition. The requirement that payment be made to the Company’s storekeeper indicates the use of centralised financial administration. Funds for repair were channelled through official custodians, ensuring that such payments entered the Company’s accounting system and could be directed to estate maintenance. The agreed payment of £50 0s 0d in lieu of immediate repair shows that financial compensation could be substituted for direct labour or maintenance. This reflects a flexible administrative approach in which obligations might be discharged either through physical upkeep or monetary contribution. Speculations The decision to accept a fixed payment rather than enforce immediate repair suggests that the authorities probably preferred a predictable financial settlement over uncertain or delayed maintenance. By securing £50 0s 0d within a defined period, they ensured resources would be available to undertake repairs under their own direction if necessary. | |
197 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Continned on Thursday Present Gn Blackmore Govʳ Jnᵒ Smith saith Complaines of Jonathan The sd Hickham doth owne that his wife Sarah the wife of Francis Bridges being sworne The sd Coles saith that his former marry some years The Defendant said that he had not anything else Gn² | A Court of Justice was continued on Thursday 8 May 1690 at the Captain’s house, Moore Fort James, with John Blackmore as governor, Joshua Johnson as deputy governor, and Richard Keeling present. John Smith brought an action of slander against Jonathan Hickham, a planter. It was alleged that Hickham or his wife had reported to several persons that Mary Barber, now Smith’s wife, had killed one of the Company’s calves. Hickham acknowledged that his wife had spoken words to that effect, stating that Mary Barber, now Smith’s wife, had killed one of the Company’s calves some four years earlier. However, it was maintained that this had not been asserted as a direct accusation but had been repeated as something heard by report. Sarah, the wife of Francis Bridges, gave evidence on behalf of the defendant. She stated that about six years earlier she had been at the house of John Coles, a planter, where she had heard Giles, Coles’s son, say in the presence of his sister that Mary Barber, then the wife of John Coles, had been told, “I will make you pay for the calf of the Company which you killed.” She further stated that, on another occasion while returning from the fort with [...] Coles’s daughter, she had heard that Giles Coles had reproached his sister Barber with killing one of the Company’s calves. It was also said that this animal was a calf belonging to Annie Cole, which had come into the Company’s possession. John Coles declared that his former wife, some years earlier, had killed a calf belonging to him, and that compensation for the damage had been made by his father. No further evidence was produced by the defendant. A request was made that the matter should proceed to trial before a Court of Justice, which was accordingly granted. Interpretations The distinction drawn between a direct accusation and the repetition of a report reflects an important legal boundary in actions of slander. Liability depended not only on the content of the words but on whether they were asserted as fact or merely relayed as hearsay, affecting whether the speaker could be held responsible. The involvement of multiple witnesses recounting statements made several years earlier demonstrates the reliance on oral testimony in establishing reputational harm. Memory, reputation, and community knowledge formed key evidentiary elements in such proceedings. The reference to compensation previously made for the killing of a calf indicates that disputes over livestock could be resolved through restitution rather than criminal sanction. This suggests a system in which property damage was often addressed through financial or material settlement. Speculations The insistence by the defendant on proceeding to formal trial, despite limited supporting evidence, suggests that a definitive judgement was sought to settle the reputational dispute. A court decision would probably have been intended to establish publicly whether the allegation held any weight, thereby resolving ongoing uncertainty within the community. | |
198 | Jnᵒ Smith againe Complaines of ye sd The sd Hickham saith the Action tow said Mary the wife of ye sd Smith saith that Grace Leach planter being sworne saith Upon Consideration of all that hath bin It is Ordered That ye sd Hickham doe pay unto ye sd Smith | John Smith brought a further complaint against Jonathan Hickham in an action for damages, alleging that Hickham had detained two of his turkeys after they had been demanded, and that he had in total lost four turkeys. Hickham answered that he had found two of Smith’s turkeys among his own flock. He stated that he had called to Smith’s wife to come and take them away. He also explained that he had at first believed the two birds to be his own, which had strayed and then returned. Mary, the wife of John Smith, testified that she had gone to Hickham’s house and demanded the turkeys. Hickham’s wife had refused to deliver them, even after Mary had shown that the birds bore the same mark as the rest of Smith’s flock. Grace Leach, a planter, gave evidence that she had been present when John, the son of John Coles, demanded the same two turkeys from Hickham’s wife, who again refused to deliver them. After Coles’s son had left, Hickham’s wife had brought the turkeys over the plantation wall. However, as no one was present to receive them, the birds had returned to Hickham’s house and rejoined his flock. After consideration of the evidence and Hickham’s admission that Smith’s turkeys had been among his own, together with the refusal to deliver them when demanded and the fact that Smith had not recovered them, it was directed that Hickham should pay Smith three dollars and the costs of the suit. Interpretations The emphasis placed on the “mark” of the turkeys shows the importance of recognised identifying marks in establishing ownership of livestock. Such marks functioned as practical legal evidence in disputes over movable property. The finding that liability arose from failure to deliver the animals after demand, despite eventual attempted return, indicates that possession carried a duty to restore identifiable property promptly. Delay or refusal converted a dispute over ownership into a compensable wrong. The award of damages in dollars rather than return of the animals suggests that restitution in money could substitute for recovery of property where the goods were no longer in the claimant’s possession. This reflects a flexible approach to remedy in local courts. | |
199 | Henry Coles planter Complaines of ye sd The sd Hickham Denyes the Action but Tho ye son of ye sd Hen: Coles being sworne saith Grace Leach planter being sworne saith that Upon Consideration of what hath bin said It is Ordered That ye sd Hickham do pay unto ye sd Coles Rich Harding planter Complaines of [...] The sd Allison doth not deny the Action but [...] | Henry Coles, a planter, brought a complaint against Jonathan Hickham in an action for damages, alleging that Hickham had detained several of his turkeys after they had been demanded. Hickham denied the claim. He stated that Thomas, the son of Henry Coles, had come to him and demanded some turkeys, claiming them to belong to his father. Hickham replied that he did not know that any of Coles’s turkeys were among his own. He added that, upon later finding turkeys in his possession, he had attempted to return them, but that Coles had refused to accept them. Thomas, the son of Henry Coles, being sworn, testified that he had gone to Hickham and demanded four turkeys belonging to his father, which were then among Hickham’s flock. He stated that Hickham had refused to deliver them, asserting that they were his own. Grace Leach, a planter, also gave evidence. She stated that she had been present when Thomas Coles demanded four turkeys from Hickham, and that Hickham had refused to deliver them. After consideration of the evidence, it was directed that Hickham should pay Henry Coles twenty shillings as compensation for refusing to deliver the turkeys when demanded. Richard Harding, a planter, then brought a complaint in an action of defamation against [...] Blanton, alleging that Allison’s wife had reported that Harding’s wife was a “whore”. Allison did not deny that such words had been spoken, but explained that there had been many quarrels and uncharitable exchanges between Harding’s wife and his own wife. He added that he had suffered loss of bread and liquor that had been made by Harding’s wife. [...] Interpretations The repeated disputes concerning turkeys demonstrate how small livestock functioned as valuable property subject to formal legal protection. Even relatively minor losses could give rise to structured litigation, indicating the economic importance of such assets. The court’s willingness to award a fixed monetary sum, rather than compel return of the animals, reflects a practical approach to dispute resolution. Compensation substituted for recovery where possession had become uncertain or contentious. The defamation complaint shows that verbal accusations concerning sexual conduct were treated as actionable injuries to reputation. Such allegations carried social and legal weight, particularly within a small community where personal standing was closely tied to economic and social relations. Speculations The differing outcomes in the two turkey disputes, with Hickham’s claim of attempted return accepted in one case but not the other, suggest that the court weighed credibility and conduct in each instance rather than applying a rigid rule. This approach probably aimed to distinguish between genuine mistake and deliberate refusal, thereby tailoring the penalty to the circumstances of each case. | |
200 | Anno. Coles widd: being sworne on behalfe Mary Show wife of Owen Squires on ye behalfe Mary the wife of Jno ffisk planter on ye behalfe Upon Consideration of ye whole business Whereupon they chose Tho Box and Jno That Allison should pay ye Cost of suite Rich Barham planter Complaines of | Anne Coles, a widow, gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. She stated that Margaret, the wife of Thomas Allison, had said that Anne, the wife of Richard Harding, was a “whore”, and had claimed to have proved her so, asserting that this knowledge came from her actions. Mary Show, the wife of Owen Squires, testified for the defence. She stated that Barbara Young, who had lately gone to Bombay, had confessed to her that she and Harding’s wife had gone into Allison’s house, entered a chamber, and received bread from a black boy belonging to Allison, taken from a chest in that chamber. Mary, the wife of John Fisk, a planter, also testified for the defence. She stated that the same black woman had declared to her that Harding’s wife had gone into Allison’s chamber and had taken bread and brandy from Allison’s wife’s chest kept there. After consideration of the whole matter and its circumstances, both parties were asked whether they would submit their dispute to the judgement of two honest neighbours. Both agreed. Thomas Box and John Cardosworth, planters, were chosen to determine the matter between them. Although there was some delay before their decision was delivered, they eventually presented their arbitration to the court. It was determined that Allison should pay the costs of the suit, and that Harding should pay Allison one dollar, to which all parties agreed. Richard Barham, a planter, then brought a complaint against Samuel Taylor in an action of assault and battery. It was alleged that Katherine, Taylor’s wife, together with Blackhector, described as a little widow and her mother, had on 6 April last thrown stones at Barham, by which he had been struck and injured on the head in one or two places. [...] Interpretations The resort to arbitration by mutual consent illustrates an accepted alternative to formal judgement within the court. By appointing local planters as arbiters, disputes could be resolved through community authority, with the court acting to formalise and record the outcome. The outcome of the arbitration, combining an award of costs with a small compensatory payment, shows that reputational disputes could be settled through negotiated balance rather than a strict finding for one side. This reflects a pragmatic approach aimed at restoring social equilibrium. The reliance on testimony recounting statements made by others demonstrates the admissibility of indirect evidence in assessing both defamation and underlying conduct. Such testimony could influence outcomes even where direct proof was limited. Speculations The decision to refer the dispute to arbitration, rather than proceed to a full judicial determination, suggests that the court sought to reduce ongoing conflict between the parties. By encouraging a settlement through mutually chosen arbiters, the authorities probably aimed to prevent further escalation within a small and closely connected community. | |
201 | saith that the sd Taylor did not deny ye Action but Geo Gravo planter being sworne on the Upon Consideration that although ye sd It is Ordered That ye sd Taylor do pay unto ye sd Barham Then the Court Adjourned untill Jno Johnson | Samuel Taylor answered the complaint by stating that he did not deny the incident, but explained that Richard Barham had come into his house and had behaved in a rude and abusive manner. It was said that Taylor had been obliged to order him to leave, but that Barham had refused. Taylor’s mother in law had then taken Barham by the arms and told him to go. In response, Barham had called her a “drunken slut”. Taylor’s wife, being distressed at hearing her mother so insulted, had taken up a small stone and thrown it at Barham. George Gravo, a planter, gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. He stated that he had heard many heated words exchanged between Barham and Taylor’s mother in law, and that Taylor’s wife, together with [...] of cattle, had thrown stones at Barham, by which his head had been injured. After considering the circumstances, it was recognised that Barham had been the principal cause of the quarrel. Nevertheless, it was also determined that he had suffered harm in an unlawful manner at the hands of Taylor’s household. It was therefore directed that Taylor should pay Barham one dollar, together with the costs of the suit. The court was then adjourned until Tuesday 5 May 1690 at nine o’clock in the forenoon. John Johnson Interpretations The judgement reflects a balancing approach in cases of assault, where provocation by the injured party did not remove liability for physical harm inflicted in response. Responsibility was therefore divided, with damages awarded despite acknowledgement of the plaintiff’s role in causing the dispute. The award of a modest monetary sum alongside costs indicates that minor assaults were treated as compensable wrongs rather than serious criminal offences. The court’s response focused on restoring order and compensating injury rather than imposing severe punishment. The formal adjournment to a specified date and hour demonstrates the structured scheduling of judicial proceedings. This reflects an organised system of court sittings, ensuring that multiple cases could be managed in sequence. Speculations The relatively small award of one dollar suggests that the court deliberately moderated the penalty to reflect Barham’s initial misconduct. By recognising provocation while still imposing liability, the judgement probably aimed to discourage both disorderly behaviour and retaliatory violence without escalating the conflict further. | |
202 | Island St Helena At a Court of Judicature held by Adjournmᵗ Jn Blackmore Rich Harding planter complains of Where the Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ Instructions at The Jury were (their whole names Henry Coles - And they were all Sworne Then the last will & Testament of Rich Harding After [...] | A Court of Judicature was held by adjournment on Tuesday 8 May 1690 at the Council house room, Fort James, with John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Keeling present. Richard Harding, a planter, brought an action against Hugh Body, also a planter, in a case concerning a horse at Kentish Valley. It was alleged that Body had taken possession there in relation to property formerly belonging to Harding’s father, now deceased. This complaint had previously been brought before the court on 8 March. Reference was made to the Company’s instructions that all trials at law were to be determined by a jury. A jury was accordingly impanelled for two indictments brought against John Oliver, a fogleman, for burglary and for rape. The jurors, whose full names were recorded, were Henry Coles, William Bowmane, Orlando Bagley, Joseph Cardosworth, John Carmay, Thomas Ollis, Thomas Box, William Graye, Richard Gurling, Thomas Swallow, William Brice, and Edwin Wills. Each of them was sworn. The last will and testament of Richard Harding, deceased, was then produced in court. At the request of the jury, the document was delivered to them so that they might examine it privately. [...] Interpretations The reference to Company instructions requiring jury trials demonstrates the formal imposition of English legal procedure within the island’s judicial system. The use of an impanelled jury ensured that factual determinations were made collectively by local inhabitants rather than solely by the council. The inclusion of a fogleman among those indicted indicates the application of criminal law to military personnel as well as civilians. This reflects the integration of civil and military jurisdiction under the authority of the governor and council. The jury’s request to examine a will independently shows that documentary evidence could be subjected to collective scrutiny. This suggests that written instruments were treated as central to resolving disputes over property and inheritance. Speculations The decision to allow the jury to review the will privately suggests that the court sought to ensure an informed verdict in a complex property dispute. By granting time for detailed examination, the authorities probably aimed to reduce uncertainty and prevent later challenge to the judgement. | |
203 | Afterwards the sd Hardings son proved that he Jn Johnson saith that he formerly knowne that The Defendant thereupon Defend that this Eli Ffeilder being sworne saith that he did Will Worrall [...] or Evidence being pro- The Jury withdraw accordingly with the sd That ye sd Hugh Boddy shall keep the sd house Then the Jury was dismissed Jn Worrall complaining of Jonathan Hick- But the sd Hickham doth not deny the Action The sd Hickhams wife [...] shee | Further evidence was given in the matter concerning Richard Harding and Hugh Boddy. Harding’s son proved that his father’s horses had been lost and that the house and land in question formed part of his inheritance. John Johnson stated that he had formerly known that Boddy had held a life interest in rents through his marriage to [...] Blanton, who had been Harding’s mother. By that marriage, Boddy had enjoyed possession of the house, land, and cattle during his lifetime. It was also stated that a child had been born of that marriage, although it had lived no more than three or four hours. Boddy maintained in his defence that the horse claimed by Harding was his own. Eli Ffeilder, being sworn, testified that while [...] Blanton, who had married Harding’s mother, was in possession of the house, a child had been born but had survived only a short time. No further evidence was produced on either side. The jury then withdrew, taking with them the will of the deceased Richard Harding. After some time they returned and delivered their verdict in favour of the defendant. It was determined that Hugh Boddy should retain possession of the house in Capstan Valley and the thirty acres of land there for the duration of his natural life. The jury was then dismissed. John Worrall next brought an action of trover against Jonathan Hickham, alleging that Hickham had converted several turkeys belonging to him to his own use. It was also suggested that Hickham’s wife had complained of having lost some turkeys. Hickham did not deny the claim outright but asserted that he had never converted any of Worrall’s goods to his own use. Hickham’s wife stated that she suspected Charles, the son of Worrall, of having stolen the birds. She therefore went to Worrall’s house and demanded to know from her son whether he had seen them. She maintained that the turkeys in question were her own, and that she had asserted this both at Hickham’s house and at Worrall’s [...]. [...] Interpretations The verdict granting Boddy possession of the property for life reflects the recognition of a life estate arising from marriage. Such an arrangement allowed a surviving spouse to retain use of land and associated assets during their lifetime, even where inheritance rights passed to another heir. The reliance on the will, together with oral testimony regarding family relationships and prior possession, demonstrates how inheritance disputes were resolved through a combination of documentary and customary evidence. The jury’s role was to reconcile these elements in determining rightful possession. The action of trover indicates a legal remedy concerned with wrongful conversion of movable goods. Rather than focusing solely on ownership, the action addressed the improper appropriation of property, allowing compensation where goods could not be recovered. Speculations The jury’s decision to uphold Boddy’s lifetime possession, despite Harding’s claim as heir, suggests that the stability of existing occupation was prioritised. By confirming Boddy’s right to remain during his lifetime, the court probably sought to avoid immediate displacement while preserving the eventual inheritance for Harding’s line. | |
204 | Wm Coles aged about 17 yeares saith that Then the sd Hickham Complaines of ye sd The sd Worrall Denyes the Accusation Tho Coles singleman being sworne on ye behalfe The Court Considering that both the Actions Who being approved, and after some tyme Tho Howsdale planter who entred into | A Court of Judicature continued on Tuesday 8 May 1690 at Fort James. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Keeling were present. William Coles, about seventeen years of age, gave evidence. He said he had seen a black boy of Hickham from whom Charles, the son of John Worrall, took a turkey. Hickham then brought his own complaint. He said Charles had killed some of his turkeys. Worrall denied it. Thomas Coles was sworn. He said Charles had told him he killed three of Hickham’s turkeys. The court saw that both claims were small. Still, there was trouble between the neighbours. It was put to them that they might end it by arbitration. They agreed. John Legrace and John Henman were chosen. They were planters. The court approved them. After some time, they gave their decision. Worrall was to pay Hickham two dollars and the costs. Hickham was to pay Worrall two dollars. Both men said they were satisfied. Thomas Howsdale then appeared. He had entered into a recognisance on 26 April 1689 with two sureties. It was for one year of good behaviour. The year had passed. He asked to be discharged. Interpretations Arbitration was used for small disputes. It saved the court’s time. The court still watched the process and recorded the result. Both men were made to pay. Fault was treated as shared. The aim was to end the quarrel, not to declare a victor. The recognisance bound a man to good behaviour. Sureties stood for him. When the time was done, the bond could be discharged. Speculations The equal payments suggest a wish to finish the matter cleanly. The arbitrators probably meant to stop the dispute at once. This kept peace between neighbours. | |
205 | It is Ordered That ye sd Howsdale beeing upon Oath be The persons Appointed in the Consultation [...] this day bring in their Accts of all the [...] Then Proclamation was Made And the Court Dismissed Untill a Jno Johnson | Thomas Howsdale was sworn and discharged from his recognisance. The discharge was made by proclamation, spoken three times. Those appointed in the consultation of Monday 2 April 1689 then appeared. They had been set to observe the marks on the hides of all cattle killed on the island. This was to ensure that each person killed only cattle that belonged to them and that no inhabitant suffered loss. They brought in their accounts for all [...] of cattle presented to them since 2 April. Each entry showed the owner’s mark. The accounts were read aloud in court and left there on record. Proclamation was then made. The court was dismissed until a further summons. John Johnson Interpretations The discharge of Howsdale by proclamation shows that release from a recognisance was made public. The repeated proclamation ensured that the community was informed and that the obligation was formally ended. The inspection and recording of hide marks formed a system of control over livestock. It allowed the authorities to track ownership after slaughter and to prevent disputes or theft. The reading and lodging of the accounts in court placed them within official record. This created a reference that could be used in later disputes or enquiries. | |
206 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Wednesday the Present [...] Blackmore Go Jos: Hartosworth and Rich Leach Planters It is Ordered That ye sd Hartosworth and Leach doe It is further Ordered That Tho G[r]eaves and Tho Alley Planters Likewise It is Ordered That Owen O[n]ian and Christopher Quinn [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Wednesday 7 May 1690. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Keeling were present. Joseph Hartosworth and Richard Leach, planters, appeared. They had served as churchwardens for the past two years. They delivered their accounts of the money received from arrears of tithes due for the repair of the church. The accounts were examined. It was found that the total sum to be collected was £35 19s 0d. Of this, only £22 5s 0d had been received. It was directed that Hartosworth and Leach should at once pay the sum [...] unto [...]. This money was to be used for the church. It was to reimburse what had already been spent on the church and steeple. Any remaining money was to be used as needed, by order, for further work. It was further directed that Thomas Greaves and Thomas Alley, planters, should take over as churchwardens for the year 1690. They had been chosen as two of four nominated by the inhabitants. Hartosworth and Leach were to deliver to them the utensils of the church and their accounts of arrears. This was so it might be known who remained in arrears and how much each person owed. After this was done, Hartosworth and Leach were discharged from their office. It was also directed that Owen O[...]ian and Christopher Quinn, planters, being two of four nominated by the inhabitants, should serve as overseers of the highways for the year 1690. [...] Interpretations Churchwardens were responsible for collecting tithes and managing funds for repairs. Their accounts were subject to inspection. This ensured that money raised from the inhabitants was used for its intended purpose. The transfer of accounts and records to new churchwardens shows continuity in office. It allowed arrears to be tracked and enforced across successive office holders. The appointment of overseers of the highways reflects organised labour for maintaining roads. Such roles imposed duties on selected inhabitants to manage public infrastructure. Speculations The shortfall between the sum due and the sum collected suggests difficulty in enforcing payment of tithes. The transfer of arrears to new churchwardens probably aimed to renew collection efforts and recover what remained unpaid. | |
207 | [...] Groon[t]roo Orphan Aged ab[ou]t 14 yeares who This day the said Groontroo was Examin[e]d Further the sd Groontroo saith that he had Many Depositions were asked the sd Groon- Tho Howsdalo who was the Owner of Upon Consideration of all that the said | [...] Groon[...]roo, an orphan aged about fourteen years, had lived for many years with Thomas Howsdalo [...]. He had wounded a black boy belonging to Howsdalo on the [...] day of April last. The boy died shortly afterwards from that wound. Groon[...]roo had been committed to prison and had remained there ever since. On this day he was examined. He stated that he had been going to shoot at [...]. The black boy came into the way. He called to him to move aside. Before he was aware, the gun, which was charged with small shot, went off and struck the boy in the side. He further said that there had been no quarrel between them. He had not intended to harm him. The act had happened by accident. He expressed regret that it had so occurred. Several depositions were taken. From these, no circumstance could be found to show any intent to injure the boy. Thomas Howsdalo, the owner of the boy, stated that he had never observed any disagreement between them. He believed the act had not been done out of malice, but was chance medley. He therefore would not prosecute Groon[...]roo as a felon. He asked only that some part of Groon[...]roo’s stock should be given as a small satisfaction for the loss. Groon[...]roo agreed to this. Upon consideration of Groon[...]roo’s confession and Howsdalo’s statement, it did not appear that Groon[...]roo had intended to kill the boy. Interpretations The classification of the act as “chance medley” shows a recognised legal distinction between intentional killing and accidental death. Where no malice could be shown, the offence could be treated differently from felony. The refusal by Howsdalo to prosecute as a felon reflects the role of the injured party in initiating serious criminal proceedings. Without such prosecution, the matter could be resolved through compensation rather than capital trial. The reference to payment from Groon[...]roo’s “stock” indicates that even a minor might hold or be assigned property. Such property could be used to satisfy claims for loss or damage. Speculations The agreement to accept compensation instead of pursuing a felony charge suggests an effort to avoid the severe consequences of a capital prosecution. In a small community, this approach probably balanced the loss suffered with the desire to avoid executing or severely punishing a young orphan. | |
208 | [...] that it was only an Accident wᶜʰ did happen It is Ordered That the said Groontroo be dismissed out [...] Jos Johnson [...] | It was found that the act had been an accident. Groon[...]roo was willing to make satisfaction to Thomas Howsdalo for the loss of the boy. It was directed that Groon[...]roo should be released from prison for the present. He was required to appear with Howsdalo on Saturday 15 May 1690, being the day appointed for the Court of Orphans. At that time it was to be determined what sum should be allowed from Groon[...]roo’s stock and estate to Howsdalo as compensation for the loss of the boy. [...] Jos Johnson Interpretations The referral of the matter to the Court of Orphans shows that compensation involving a minor’s property fell under a specialised jurisdiction. This court managed the estates of orphans and determined how their assets could be used. The release from prison pending further hearing reflects a distinction between criminal custody and civil liability. Once intent to commit a felony was not established, detention could be relaxed while financial restitution was arranged. The requirement that both parties appear together indicates a structured process for settling claims. The court retained authority to fix the amount of compensation rather than leaving it solely to private agreement. Speculations The decision to defer the final settlement to the Court of Orphans suggests that the authorities sought to protect the orphan’s estate while still addressing Howsdalo’s loss. By placing the matter before that court, they probably aimed to ensure that any payment was proportionate and formally sanctioned. | |
209 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Monday Present [...] Blackmore Govr Jnᵒ Smith told ye sd that he might After much debate about ye price It is agreed wᵗʰ the said Smith That he ye sd Smith shall have ye sd Black Tho Howsdalo & Jnᵒ Boyce who were Therefore It is Ordered That ye sd Tho Howsdalo & Jnᵒ Boyce doe And that Edwᵈ Edmonds Planter doe for | A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 19 May 1690. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helinge were present. John Smith requested permission to buy a young black girl belonging to the plantation Company. She was aged about nine years. After discussion over the price, agreement was reached. He was allowed to purchase her for £10 0s 0d. A bill of sale was to be issued to him. Thomas Howsdalo and John Boyce had been named as two executors of the estate of Mr Groon[...]roo, deceased, on the island. They had undertaken the trust but now delivered their accounts. These were examined closely. They were found to be intricate and confused. The estate itself appeared in disorder. No final decision could be made at that time. It was therefore directed that Howsdalo and Boyce should not leave the island until they had given a full and clear account of their management of the estate. Howsdalo also undertook to account for the orphans’ stock of cattle for the present year. Edward Edmonds, planter, was appointed to keep the book of accounts for the orphans during that year. He was to receive all cash arising from the estate, whether from rent, interest, or any other source. He was to record these in the orphans’ account book and give an account whenever required by the governor and council. Interpretations The sale of a child described as Company property shows that slaves were treated as transferable assets. The issuing of a bill of sale formalised ownership and provided legal proof of title. The requirement that executors remain on the island until their accounts were settled reflects strict oversight of estate administration. Executors were held personally accountable for managing assets and could be restrained from departure until their duties were fulfilled. The appointment of a separate individual to maintain the orphans’ accounts shows institutional control over vulnerable estates. Centralising receipts and records under supervision of the council reduced the risk of mismanagement or loss. Speculations The refusal to allow Howsdalo and Boyce to depart suggests concern that the confusion in the accounts concealed errors or misuse. Preventing their departure probably ensured that responsibility could be enforced until the estate was properly resolved. | |
210 | Jnᵒ Kennedy & Richᵈ Leach two suretyes for Likewise they did present a Bill of Charges Which Demand being Examined was judged Therefore It is Ordered That ye sd Kennedy & Leach have £15 . 00 . 00 Richᵈ Garling Planter put in a demand of Which Demand was judged reasonable and ye sd Therefore It is Ordered That ye sd Garling be Contented wᵗʰ £7 . 08 . 00 being Also It is Ordered That ye sd Garling doe deliver up his Accts And the sd Kennedy and Leach haveing | John Kennedy and Richard Leach, acting as two sureties for the estate of Castell Borrall, delivered their account of that estate. It was read, examined, and corrected. They also presented a bill of charges for expenses they had incurred in managing Borrall’s estate since his departure from the island. This claim was reviewed and judged excessive. It was therefore directed that Kennedy and Leach should receive £15 0s 0d from Borrall’s estate for their travel and care. Richard Garling, planter, submitted a claim of £13 8s 0d against the same estate. This related to goods he had supplied for the Governor’s service, which were owed by Borrall. These goods had later been taken from him in ground. Only £7 8s 0d was recognised as due in sterling. This claim was considered reasonable. It was directed that Garling should accept £7 8s 0d from Borrall’s estate in part satisfaction of his demand. It was also directed that Garling should deliver up his accounts and account book relating to Borrall’s estate, which were in his possession. He was further required to return one guinea and the labour of a black boy named Tom, which had been owed by Borrall for that service. Garling was permitted to reimburse himself from the estate for what remained due, after allowance of the recognised debt. Kennedy and Leach, having delivered their accounts of Borrall’s estate, continued in the management of it [...] Interpretations Sureties acted as financial guarantors for an estate. Their obligation required them to account for its management and could include personal responsibility for its administration after the principal’s departure. The reduction of the claimed expenses shows that the council exercised oversight over administrative costs. Payments from an estate were subject to approval, ensuring that charges were proportionate. The requirement that Garling surrender account books indicates that financial records were treated as part of the estate itself. Control over these documents allowed the authorities to verify claims and maintain continuity of administration. The inclusion of labour, in the form of a named black boy, within the accounting of debts shows that labour obligations were treated as quantifiable assets. Such obligations could be transferred, valued, and settled alongside monetary claims. Speculations The partial acceptance of Garling’s claim suggests that the council sought to balance fairness with protection of the estate’s limited resources. By allowing only part of the demand, they probably aimed to preserve funds for other creditors while still recognising a valid obligation. | |
211 | and Councell for the Maintenance of the sd Borralls It is Ordered That the sd Kennedy & Leach have [...] Jos Johnson [...] | John Kennedy and Richard Leach, having continued in the management of Castell Borrall’s estate, did so under the direction of the Governor and Council. The estate was to be applied to the maintenance of Borrall’s two children and to the payment of his debts. They requested the return of the bonds they had previously given to the Company as security for Gabriel Borrall’s estate, at the time when sentence of condemnation had been passed against him. It was directed that Kennedy and Leach should have their bonds returned. This was done accordingly. [...] Jos Johnson Interpretations The use of bonds as security shows that the administration of an estate could be formally guaranteed. Sureties were required to bind themselves financially to ensure proper management. The return of the bonds indicates that the authorities were satisfied with the handling of the estate. Once obligations had been met or secured, the sureties were released from further liability. The direction that the estate be used for both maintenance of children and payment of debts reflects an ordered priority of claims. Provision for dependants was balanced against the need to satisfy creditors under supervision of the council. Speculations The release of the bonds at this stage suggests that sufficient confidence had been restored in the management of the estate. The council probably judged that the risk of loss or misapplication had diminished, making continued security unnecessary. | |
212 | [...] Joharah a Black slave of There An Advertisement was printed & Island St Helena Present Jn Blackmore Govr The Marshall having Guarded to bring | Joharah, a black slave belonging to Thomas Browning of the island, had earlier been committed to prison on strong suspicion of stealing and killing many cattle belonging to servants and to several inhabitants. For these crimes he should have been brought to trial. Before this could be done, he had suffered a broken leg. From that time he lay concealed for a period. Later, information was given to the Governor by a person who requested that Joharah should be brought to trial. Efforts were then made to secure him again. He was taken into custody and brought before the court. He was committed to prison in preparation for trial. An advertisement was printed and published in the usual places. It declared that any person who had accusations against Joharah should come forward and be heard. A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 20 May 1690. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helinge were present. The marshal brought Joharah, a slave of Thomas Browning, into prison under guard. He was then called before the court. He was questioned about cattle that he was accused of killing, belonging to various private persons, and about driving animals away. Joharah denied killing any cattle except those belonging to his master. Interpretations The use of public advertisement shows a formal method for gathering accusations. It allowed all inhabitants to bring forward claims before trial. This ensured that the case could proceed with full evidence. The recommittal of Joharah demonstrates continued legal authority over a suspect even after interruption. Physical incapacity and concealment did not remove the obligation to face trial. The questioning about cattle belonging to multiple owners indicates that livestock formed a key economic resource. Offences against it were treated as serious matters affecting the wider community. Speculations The decision to publish an advertisement suggests that the authorities suspected multiple victims. By inviting claims publicly, they probably aimed to consolidate evidence into a single proceeding rather than pursue separate complaints. | |
213 | Then was Called in one Robin a Black boy Anno 1690 The Examination and Confession of a black The sd black saith that whilst he lived wᵗʰ his master Joharah killed ye sd Beast a Browning that he knew [...] | Robin, a black boy belonging to Ing Grey and one of the cattle herds, was then brought in. He had earlier driven cattle with Joharah at Shovring house and in the common woods, along with other slaves of Thomas Browning. He stated that Joharah had employed him to drive cattle and that this had been done openly. An examination and confession of this boy, formerly servant to Thomas Browning and now servant to Captain Browne, had been taken on 10 May 1690. He said that while he lived with his master at Shovring Wood he had, for a considerable time, assisted Joharah, a slave of Browning, in killing cattle belonging to the inhabitants. He had helped to bring the animals to Shovring house, where they were slaughtered. He further stated that Joharah would sometimes go out and give orders for cattle to be killed. When he was absent, Joharah would kill cattle and drive them to the east end of the bay. From there they were taken to the slaughter place in the wood behind Shovring house. The boy would then help to slaughter them. He said that Joharah had killed cattle belonging to various inhabitants, including those of Mr Charlesworth and the Clancys. He stated that he himself had helped to kill at least eight cattle belonging to inhabitants, though he did not know all their owners. He also described other killings. Some cattle belonging to Thomas Browning had been killed in Swallow pasture. Cattle of Mr Lowe and Mr Browne had been killed by command of Captain Clarke. Two or three cattle belonging to inhabitants had also been killed, including one of Mr Currie and one of Mr Marks. He stated that when cattle were killed, one or two were sometimes kept for themselves. The rest were taken to Browning’s dwelling house. [...] Interpretations The use of testimony from a slave shows that evidence could be taken from subordinate labourers when investigating offences. Such testimony could form the basis of prosecution even in serious cases. The detailed account of locations, including Shovring house, the bay, and slaughter woods, indicates that the inquiry aimed to establish a pattern of organised activity rather than a single act. This reflects an effort to prove repeated offences. The mention of multiple named owners shows that cattle were widely held and individually recognised. Loss of livestock affected many parties and required coordinated investigation. Speculations The emphasis on repeated acts and multiple victims suggests that the authorities were building a case of systematic theft rather than isolated wrongdoing. By collecting a full narrative from Robin, they probably intended to demonstrate a continuing practice that justified severe punishment. | |
214 | [...] Cattle Joharah would sometimes keep And further when they killed young one Then ye sd Robin was Examined again But Joharah Denyed all Jos Charlesworth Planter saith that sometimes since he lost a Red Cow that Also a Black boy being now taken wᵗʰ | [...] When cattle were killed, Joharah would sometimes keep one or two and carry them into [...]. At times he threatened the boy and ordered him not to tell anyone that cattle had been killed. He said that if it became known, they would both be hanged. Robin further stated that they killed a black cow belonging to Allison. It was taken from a [...] hole near Jonathan Bay. They also killed a spotted cow belonging to Mr Nicho[...] which they fetched from [...] his ground, about two shots from [...] B[...] of Mr Nichol[...]. He said that when Allison’s cow was killed, she had a calf, and that Nichol[...]’s cow had two. He added that when young cattle were taken, Joharah ordered him to fetch calves and drive cattle to the hill, often near nightfall. The slaughter itself took place at night. In the morning, wood was gathered and the beef was carried through the yard into the house, where it was prepared. Robin was examined again. In many particulars he confirmed his earlier statement. In some matters he appeared uncertain or had forgotten. Joharah denied all accusations. Joseph Charlesworth, planter, stated that he had lost a red cow. It had gone into Joharah’s ground among the Shovring cattle. Robin had told him that Joharah and Browning had killed that cow. Another black boy, taken with Joharah, gave evidence. He said he knew Joharah and had himself helped in the killing. Interpretations The threats described by Robin show coercion within the labour hierarchy. Silence was enforced by fear of severe punishment, including execution. This indicates how authority operated informally among slaves alongside formal legal structures. The repeated reference to specific cattle, locations, and owners demonstrates an evidentiary method based on accumulation of detail. Individual acts were linked into a pattern to establish ongoing criminal conduct. The use of multiple testimonies, including those of slaves and planters, reflects a layered evidentiary process. Statements were compared, confirmed, or challenged in order to assess credibility. Speculations The emphasis on threats and secrecy suggests that the authorities aimed to show not only repeated theft but deliberate concealment. This probably strengthened the case for treating the acts as serious and organised offences rather than isolated incidents. | |
215 | Upon Consideration of what is Contained It is not thought sufficient Proof to find ye It is Ordered That ye sd Joharah have his life spared & It is Ordered That ye aforesd Black man Joharah having That in the meane time the sd Black doe And that ye sd Joharah shall not goe | Upon consideration of Robin’s examination and confession, and what was said of Joharah killing Charlesworth’s cow and other cattle, no further evidence was produced. The proof was not enough to find Joharah guilty of felony. Many circumstances pointed against him. He might be judged a notorious thief and to have killed several cattle. Clear proof was missing. It was directed that his life be spared. He was to be returned to Thorwin. He was to receive twenty five lashes on his naked body at the flagstaff. After that he was to be returned. It was further directed that he be banished from the island. He was to be sent away on the first ships that arrived. Until then he was not to go to Jamestown wood, nor to Thorwin’s plantation there, nor to any other plantation or house on the island. He was to remain at Thorwin’s house and plantation near Robert Dyarney’s house at the lower end of Friars Valley. He was to remain there under the Governor’s command. He was not to go beyond those bounds. If he did, he was to be taken back to prison and kept there until he was sent off the island. Interpretations The decision shows that conviction for felony required clear proof. Suspicion and repeated testimony were not enough without firm evidence. The sentence combines whipping and banishment. This shows a system that could punish and remove without using capital punishment. The limits placed on Joharah show a controlled form of restraint. He was not free, but he was not held in prison. Authority was maintained through defined bounds and threat of return to custody. Speculations The order suggests a compromise. The authorities believed Joharah dangerous but could not prove a capital crime. They probably chose punishment and removal to protect the island while staying within legal limits. | |
216 | That ye sd Thorwins with two sufficient Further that if ye aforesd Black And that ye sd Joharahs breaking of prison It is Ordered That the said Black be recompensed his And that ye sd Thorwins with John Roc[...] J. Blackmore | It was directed that Thorwin, with two sufficient sureties, should enter at once into a bond of £50 0s 0d. By this bond he was to ensure that Joharah would be sent off the island at the first opportunity, together with one head of cattle. All parts of the order were to be strictly performed. It was further directed that if Joharah should be hidden or concealed so that he was not sent off the island as required, then the bond would be forfeited, together with the stated sum of £15 0s 0d. Joharah’s earlier breaking of prison and concealment from justice was also taken into account. It was directed that he should undergo the punishment already set. He was then to be returned to Thorwin, which was carried out. Thorwin, together with John Roc[...], entered into a further bond of £40 0s 0d. This was to ensure that all parts of the order were fulfilled. J. Blackmore Interpretations The use of bonds with named sums shows a system of financial enforcement. Compliance with orders was secured by placing monetary risk on responsible parties. The requirement of sureties indicates that enforcement relied on community backing. Others were made accountable for ensuring that obligations were carried out. The inclusion of forfeiture for concealment reflects concern over evasion. The order anticipated resistance and set clear penalties to prevent it. Speculations The layered bonds suggest a lack of full trust in compliance. By increasing the financial stakes and requiring multiple guarantors, the authorities probably aimed to ensure that Joharah would be removed without delay or obstruction. | |
217 | Island St Helena Present Jn Blackmore In pursuance of ye late Honble Compᵗ Order It is Ordered That copies of ye Letter of Attorney Mr Edmunds and Tho Gordon Dem[...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday 3 June 1690. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helinge were present. The recent order of the Honourable Company concerning Mrs Bolton’s accounts was taken up. Further steps were made to adjust and settle them. Mrs Bolton, who had been appointed administratrix to George Shoton, deceased, appeared. Shoton had been left as attorney for Bolton. She brought various papers. These were examined and [...] proved. Two inventories of goods left on the island were produced. These were part of the effects belonging to Bolton. Reference was also made to goods delivered to her relation by the Honourable Company and sent out to her. The sums claimed as due to her had been received accordingly. It was directed that copies be taken of the letter of attorney from Bolton to Shoton, and of the three inventories or accounts. These copies were to be kept on the island. The originals were to be sent to England. The whole account was to be carefully drawn up, stated, and adjusted. It was then to be sent to the Honourable Company by the first conveyance, together with all related papers. Edward Edmonds and Thomas Gordon, acting for the estate of Charles Page, delivered an account. The estate amounted to £53 10s 4d. Payments and disbursements made under warrant came to £26 10s 0d. A balance remained of £0 14s 4d. Interpretations The requirement to copy and retain records while sending originals to England shows a dual system of record keeping. Local authorities preserved working copies, while the Company exercised ultimate oversight through original documents. The role of an attorney acting for an absent party indicates formal delegation of authority. This allowed property and accounts to be managed across distance within a structured legal framework. The formal statement and adjustment of accounts reflects administrative control over estates. Financial claims were verified and standardised before being reported to the Company. Speculations The insistence on sending original documents suggests concern over accuracy and trust. By requiring originals in England, the Company probably sought to verify local decisions and prevent disputes over property or debt. | |
218 | It is Ordered That ye sd Administrators doe settle And that ye sd Accts whole and intire Sam Hales and Peter Edsbury It is Ordered That ye sd Accts be fairly settled and that J. Blackmore Memᵈ Copy of this Councell from | It was directed that the administrators should settle the account of Charles Page’s estate. They were then to pay to Ensign Helinge, the storekeeper, the remaining sum of £0 14s 4d. It was further directed that the whole account be sent in full to the Honourable Company. It was to be placed in their packet and carried by the good ship Cesar. A bag of papers and letters was also sent aboard the same ship. Samuel Hales and Peter Edsbury then presented an account of the goods and chattels of Dillon Claverell, deceased. This included all property that had belonged to him and had come into their hands. The account was examined. It appeared that most of Claverell’s goods had been brought into their possession, yet they were not able to satisfy the value of them, offering instead what might arise from their growing bay. It was directed that this account be properly settled and that full satisfaction be made to the Honourable Company. J. Blackmore A memorandum recorded that a copy of these council proceedings, covering the period from 4 April 1690 to 20 May 1690, was sent to the Honourable Company. It was carried in the good ship Cesar, commanded by Captain Edward Wright. The ship sailed from the island of St Helena on Monday 8 June 1690. Interpretations The payment of a remaining balance to the storekeeper shows that estate funds were used to settle obligations to Company officers. This reflects integration of private estates into Company financial structures. The transmission of full accounts and papers by ship indicates a formal reporting system. Local decisions were subject to review by the Company in England through documentary submission. The requirement that those holding another man’s goods make satisfaction demonstrates fiduciary responsibility. Persons in possession of estate property were expected to account for its value, even if payment had to be deferred or made from future proceeds. Speculations The acceptance of payment from “growing bay” suggests that liquid funds were scarce. The authorities probably allowed settlement from future production to secure eventual recovery rather than force immediate payment that could not be made. | |
219 | Island St Helena Present Jn Blackmore Govr Publick Notice having bin given to Accordingly 33 were Exposed to sale Mon Barrio - 18 - - - 23:06:00 - Wm Price Woman Joreno - 27 - - - 15:03:00 - Jn Rich youth Biagon - 18 - - - 15:00:00 - Mr Rich[...][...] Girles Mary - 11 - - - 12:03:00 - Rich Stacoy Boy Rodger - 8 - - - 09:00:00 - Sam Mar[...] 147:10:00 | A consultation was held at Fort James on Saturday 26 June 1690. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helinge were present. Public notice had been given that slaves belonging to the Company were to be sold. Captain Robinson had been asked to select those considered the strongest, most useful, and best suited for labour. He brought them to the fort. Thirty three were offered for sale. Among them were the following: Mon Barrio, aged 18, was sold for £23 6s 0d to William Price. The total recorded for these sales was £147 10s 0d. Interpretations The organised sale of slaves by the Company shows that labour was treated as a managed asset. Selection by an officer before sale reflects an attempt to maximise value by presenting those judged most productive. The recording of names, ages, prices, and purchasers indicates a formal market structure. Each transaction created a documented transfer of property rights. Variation in price demonstrates valuation based on age, strength, and perceived usefulness. Younger children and older individuals were valued differently from those in prime working age. Speculations The prior selection of “drudges” and “hardy” individuals suggests that the sale was structured to meet labour demand. The authorities probably aimed to supply planters with workers suited to intensive work while securing higher returns for the Company. | |
220 | Which Reformation Summon is to be pace Complaints was made by Evidence of It is Ordered [...] Therefore It is Ordered | A further order was recorded concerning the enforcement of earlier agreements. A summons had been set for four o’clock [...]. Reference was made to prior contracts and obligations that had not yet been fully discharged. It was noted that those responsible had not cleared their payments. Measures were taken to compel those thought best able to pay to perform what had been agreed. A complaint was then raised, supported by evidence, relating to Shorwin’s servant. It was alleged that a black slave named Dick, formerly belonging to Shorwin, had not settled matters concerning a black child connected to Shorwin’s household. The circumstances were unclear, and the matter appeared to have been treated as accidental. It was directed that the slave should make satisfaction to Shorwin for the loss or claim concerning the child. It was also noted that some form of obligation or engagement had earlier been given in respect of a recovered slave belonging to Shorwin, and that this had now been considered in the present case. It was further directed that the slave should be sent off the island without delay. Payment or compensation relating to him was to be collected or shared as required. He was never to return to the island. It was also directed that no person should harbour or receive him. No one was to allow him to land at any place on the island or to remain on any plantation under any pretence. If he appeared, he was to be secured and put aboard ship for removal. [...] Interpretations The use of summons and enforcement orders shows that contractual obligations were actively pursued. Payment was not left to voluntary compliance but was compelled through authority. The requirement that compensation be made for a slave or child indicates that human property formed part of enforceable claims. Loss or dispute over such property could be settled through ordered restitution. The banishment and prohibition on harbouring reflects a system of exclusion. Individuals could be removed and barred from return, with the community required to enforce that exclusion. Speculations The decision to expel the slave suggests that the authorities considered him a continuing source of dispute or disorder. Removal from the island probably served as a practical solution to prevent further conflict where resolution within the community had proved difficult. | |
221 | Whereas many inferior Officers and It is therefore for preventing and rectifying of all ye sd It is Ordered Which Order is to be made publique and to be The Juraton [?] Blanton Complaines of The said Eliz desires that ye Prosecution The Juraton said that the sd Eliz Brother in law | Many inferior officers in the service of the St Helena Company had contracted debts with the inhabitants of the island. This had been declared often by several inhabitants. For many of these debts, the debtors had given written bills, promising payment from their future wages. In some cases, no such bills had been given. Poor management of their affairs had also contributed to these debts. To prevent further disorder and to settle what was already due, it was directed that all persons who claimed money from inferior officers or soldiers should bring their bills and written accounts. This was to be done on Wednesday 9 July 1690 by eight o’clock in the forenoon at the Sessions House near Fort James. There the debts were to be examined and adjusted so that each person might be satisfied in due time. This order was to be made public. It was to be read weekly and fixed in several places so that all might know of it. A complaint was then brought by Juraton Blanton against [...] his wife for incontinency and disorderly conduct with William Clifton, a soldier. Elizabeth requested that the prosecution should be delayed. It was also stated that Elizabeth’s brother in law had complained about wages owed to her for work she had done at various times for his sister in law, and about her continuing association with Clifton. Interpretations The requirement to present written bills shows reliance on documentary credit. Promises to pay from future wages created a system of deferred payment tied to Company employment. The public summons to bring debts for examination reflects central oversight of private obligations. The authorities intervened to regulate credit and to prevent disorder arising from unpaid debts. The weekly reading and posting of the order demonstrates how information was circulated. Public notice ensured compliance and reinforced authority across the community. The complaint of incontinency shows that moral conduct was subject to formal scrutiny. Such cases could be brought before the authorities alongside financial disputes. Speculations The decision to gather all debts for review at a fixed time suggests that unpaid wages and informal credit had become widespread. The authorities probably sought to prevent instability by imposing a structured settlement process and limiting further uncontrolled borrowing. | |
222 | together some times in ye night and sometimes Further the sd Juraton declared his sister to The sd Juraton did voluntarily Swear The sd Elizabeth ye wife of ye sd Juraton did The sd Juraton Eliz wife of sd Mart[...][...] Further ye sd Swallow produced a letter | Further evidence was given concerning the conduct of Elizabeth and William Clifton. They had been seen together at night and also in the daytime. They were observed embracing and kissing one another as if they were man and wife. Clifton was also reported to have struck his own wife, hitting her on the face and at times on the shoulder or head. Many complaints had been made of this behaviour. Juraton Blanton gave additional testimony. He described repeated acts of indecent conduct and improper behaviour between them on several occasions. He also stated that his sister had threatened to harm her husband [...]. Blanton swore that one night he had gone to the house of Swallow in company with a man named James Barrow [...]. They entered a chamber where they believed someone was in bed. There was no light. Elizabeth denied that anything improper had occurred and stated that Clifton was a seaman. Elizabeth, wife of the complainant, then gave her own evidence. She swore that on the previous Wednesday night, at about ten o’clock, she went to her own house and then to Swallow’s house in Chapel Valley. She intended to take a bundle to William Clifton. There she found Clifton lying on a bed with Elizabeth Swallow beside him. She struck Clifton’s wife on the bed and forced them apart. Further testimony was given by Elizabeth and Margaret [...]. They stated that they saw Clifton and Swallow fighting. Swallow struck Clifton as he rose from the ground after having been thrown. Swallow then produced a letter. It had been written by Elizabeth Swallow and addressed to Clifton. It contained expressions of affection and strong feeling, written by her as a married woman and sent to him while her husband was living. Interpretations The proceedings show that sexual conduct and domestic behaviour were subject to formal investigation. Allegations of incontinence were treated as matters affecting public order and moral discipline. The use of sworn testimony from multiple witnesses demonstrates a structured evidentiary process. Statements were taken from both complainants and accused parties to establish the facts. The production of a letter as evidence indicates that written communication could be used to prove intent or relationship. Such documents carried weight in assessing personal conduct. Speculations The detailed gathering of testimony and the use of a personal letter suggest that the authorities aimed to establish a clear pattern of behaviour rather than rely on a single accusation. This probably strengthened the case for intervention in what was both a domestic and a public concern. | |
223 | Likewise Judeth ye wife of Tho Gartry said Upon ye Examinations Consideration of ye proofs It is Judged and Concluded Likewise It is Ordered The aforesd Eliz Swallow desyring that It was Answered | Judeth, the wife of Thomas Gartry, gave further evidence. She affirmed that some years earlier she had heard Elizabeth Swallow confess that a young child she then had was fathered by one Ralph Spryson. Spryson had since run away from the island in the Collioe James. Upon examination of the evidence and consideration of the circumstances, a judgement was reached. Elizabeth Swallow was found to have long held a bad reputation. She was now judged to be openly guilty of incontinence, especially in relation to William Clifton. It was also accepted, from her own confession, that she had borne a child by a man other than her husband. It was therefore concluded that she deserved exemplary punishment, to be determined later. It was directed that William Clifton be committed to close prison for the present. Elizabeth Swallow then requested that she and her husband should separate and no longer live together. She stated that she was willing to accept a reasonable maintenance, and her husband expressed willingness to provide it. It was answered that they might agree between themselves to separate. If they did so, and set down their agreement in writing before the Council, it could be formally recorded. If they could not agree on the amount of maintenance, the Governor and Council would determine it upon their request. Interpretations The finding of “ill name and fame” shows that reputation functioned as a form of evidence. Past conduct could be used to support present judgement in cases of moral offence. The commitment of Clifton to close prison indicates preventive detention. This was used to control behaviour before final punishment was decided. The allowance for formal separation by agreement reflects a quasi-legal mechanism for regulating marriage. The Council acted as an authority to record and, if necessary, enforce maintenance arrangements. Speculations The option given for mutual separation suggests that the authorities preferred a negotiated resolution where possible. By allowing the parties to settle terms themselves, the Council probably aimed to reduce conflict while still retaining power to impose a decision if agreement failed. | |
224 | Accordingly the sd Swallow and his wife, Whose names are hereunto subscribed vizt Tho Swallow The above written declaration was signed Jn Blackmore Govr After a little tyme the sd Court being declared It is Ordered S. Cummings | Thomas Swallow and Elizabeth Swallow then submitted a written declaration. It recorded that they had lived together as husband and wife for many years. They now agreed, by mutual consent, to separate and live apart. This separation was to continue until they should later agree to live together again. They undertook to make any such future agreement known to the Council of the island. The declaration was dated 20 June 1690. It was signed by Thomas Swallow and Elizabeth Swallow. It was also witnessed and delivered in the presence of John Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Ke[...], a member of Council. After some time, the Council considered the question of maintenance for Elizabeth. No agreement had been reached between the parties concerning what Thomas Swallow should allow her. It was therefore directed that Thomas Swallow should provide for her maintenance. He was to keep and support her properly. It was also arranged that William Clifton should contribute towards her upkeep. A weekly payment was to be made for this purpose, valued according to the island rate. S. Cummings Interpretations The written agreement shows that marital separation could be formalised through mutual consent and recorded by the Council. This created a recognised arrangement without dissolving the marriage. The involvement of the Council in setting maintenance demonstrates its role in regulating domestic obligations. Where private agreement failed, the authorities imposed terms to ensure support. The requirement that a third party contribute to maintenance reflects accountability for misconduct. Financial responsibility could be extended beyond the husband where another person was involved in the circumstances leading to separation. Speculations The decision to require Clifton to contribute suggests that the Council treated his relationship with Elizabeth as materially affecting her support. This probably served both as compensation and as a deterrent against similar conduct. | |
225 | Island St Helena Present Jn Blackmore Govr Jane ye wife of Thomas Smout Blan[...] Which request shee now renews with much Upon Consideration of ye reasons by sd It is Concluded and Ordered | A consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday 3 July 1690. John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Ke[...] were present. Jane, the wife of Thomas Smout, appeared. Her husband had gone to England about a year and a half earlier. She had previously asked to surrender a lease of land in Jamestown. She renewed this request with urgency. She stated that she was now about 28 years old [...]. She described herself as weak, sickly, and unable to manage the land and plantation. She said her condition was poor and that she could not pay the rent. She also did not know if her husband would ever return to the island. The Council considered her reasons. It was found that little rent had been paid since the land was taken. About £40 0s 0d was due to Fort James for rent of the land, as well as for slaves and cattle hired by the Smout household. There was no expectation that she could pay the debt. There was also no prospect that the land would be improved or maintained under her control. An opportunity now existed to reassign the land and its buildings, which had been neglected. It was therefore concluded that, to prevent further loss to the Company, she should give up the land. She was directed to make a formal surrender in writing under her hand. Interpretations The surrender of a lease shows that landholding depended on active use and payment of rent. Failure to maintain obligations allowed the Company to reclaim property. The inclusion of rent for land, slaves, and cattle reflects a combined system of resource leasing. Labour and livestock were treated as integral parts of productive landholding. The Council’s decision demonstrates administrative control over land allocation. Property could be reassigned when it ceased to yield value or revenue. Speculations The emphasis on unpaid rent and lack of improvement suggests that the land was viewed primarily as an economic asset. The authorities probably acted to reallocate it quickly in order to restore productivity and income. | |
226 | and Seale of ye sd Smout and two [...] thereunto And ye sd Charl[...]worth and Nichol do signe The sd Jane Smout did further request And also that shee might afterwards be per- It is Agreed and accordingly Ordered | It was further directed that the surrender be made in writing under Jane Smout’s hand and seal, and also under the hands and seals of two witnesses. Notice of this was to be given to the Governor and Council. She was required to obtain two sureties. These sureties were to enter into a bond of £50 0s 0d. The bond was to indemnify the Governor and Council against any claim or damage that might arise if Thomas Smout returned, or if any other person acting for him should claim rights in the land under the former lease. Jane Smout then nominated Joseph Charl[...]worth and John Nichol, both planters, as her sureties. The bond was executed by them. It was signed, sealed, and delivered in open court. They undertook to indemnify the Governor and Council as required. Jane Smout also requested maintenance for herself during her husband’s absence. She asked permission to dispose of some of the slaves and cattle that had belonged to him, so that she might support herself. She further requested leave to assign the land to another person who would provide her with relief and support. It was agreed that she should have liberty to transfer the lease of the land at Fort James. The rent due to the Company was to be reserved. The arrangement was to run for one year. It was also directed that two slaves belonging to the Company, then in her husband’s possession, valued at £2 0s 0d per year, should be restored at the end of that year. Joseph Charl[...]worth and John Nichol entered into a further bond of £100 0s 0d. This bond was to ensure that the slaves would be returned to the Company at the end of the term. Interpretations The requirement of indemnity bonds shows how the Council managed legal risk. By securing guarantees from third parties, it protected itself against future claims arising from disputed property rights. The ability to transfer a lease under supervision reflects conditional property rights. Occupation depended on compliance with rent and approval by authority, rather than absolute ownership. The inclusion of Company-owned slaves within the lease arrangement demonstrates that labour assets were tied to land tenure. Their return was enforced through financial security. Speculations The granting of limited rights to transfer the lease suggests an attempt to balance relief with control. The authorities probably allowed Jane Smout to secure support while ensuring that the land and labour remained within the Company’s regulated system. | |
227 | Whereupon ye sd Jane Smoult as alsoe ye sd Evidence given to this Honble Court Tho: George Shorwin did confess to ye sd The sd Elizabeth being demanded whether shee It is Agreed & accordingly Ordered Alsoe ye sd George Shorwin is to pay or cause to J. Sm[...]ing | Jane Smout, together with Joseph Charl[...]worth and John Nichol, agreed to the articles already set out. The bonds were signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of witnesses. Further evidence was then given before the Court concerning the wife of the planter Shorwin. Statements were made by Elizabeth Swallow and several others. They declared that the woman was of bad reputation and that insulting words had been spoken about her. Elizabeth Swallow was reported to have called her a [...]. Ann George spoke and asked that justice be done. She stated that a fine of £2 0s 0d per year was attached as rent for the house and land. Thomas George Shorwin confirmed this before the Court. He stated that he had not fully understood the yearly lease, but that it was intended to run for seven years. Elizabeth was then asked whether she would acknowledge a marriage. She refused to do so and stated plainly that she would not. It was agreed and directed that George Shorwin should hold a lease of the house and land. The rent was to be paid yearly to the Company at Fort James. The term was to commence from 1 September 1689. Payment was to be made in full each year, according to the usual conditions applied to such leases. It was also directed that George Shorwin should pay £60 0s 0d to the Company. This sum covered the fine for his lease, amounting to three years’ occupation, together with the cost of a servant purchased from the Company, and part of the rent already due for the land. J. Sm[...]ing Interpretations The requirement to pay a fine for a lease shows that entry into landholding involved an upfront payment as well as continuing rent. This created both immediate revenue and ongoing obligation to the Company. The setting of a fixed annual rent demonstrates a standardised leasing system. Land was held under defined terms, with payment enforced through the Company’s administrative structure. The questioning of marital status in connection with property indicates that personal relationships could affect legal standing. Recognition or denial of marriage could influence rights to occupation and liability. Speculations The imposition of a substantial fine alongside rent suggests that the Company aimed to secure both commitment and revenue from tenants. By requiring a significant payment at the outset, it probably ensured that only those able to sustain the holding would take on the lease. | |
228 | Island St Helena At a Court of Justice Held on Monday Present Mr Blackmore Go: Mr Rich[ar]d Rolm[...] Att[or] for one [...] The sd Mr Coulson did not deny ye sd debt but Upon Consideration of ye sd Mr Coulson having It is Ordered That a Judgmt be entered for ye sd Debt Mr Goslinge O[...] to the Court Grace Nell sole Complainant of John M[...] | A Court of Justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on Monday 7 July 1690. John Blackmore and Joshua Johnson were present. Richard Rolm[...] appeared as attorney for one [...] of the Company. An action of debt was brought on behalf of the Company for £16 0s 0d. This sum was due for two years’ rent, reckoned from 25 March last past, for thirty acres of land and two houses held under lease at Fort James. Mr Coulson did not deny the debt. She stated that she had no money but would pay in goods. Upon consideration that she had already had the benefit of the £16 0s 0d and refused to pay in money according to the contract, judgement was entered for the debt. Execution was to be levied upon her estate. Mr Goslinge appeared as witness to the proceedings. Grace Nell then brought an action of defamation against John M[...], a planter. It was alleged that he had reported that she knew whether Naomi, the daughter of Hector Grace, was a [...] or not. The report included that he had seen her with her breeches down and Naomi with her clothes removed. Interpretations The enforcement of payment in money rather than goods shows strict adherence to contractual terms. The Court upheld the original agreement and did not allow substitution without consent. The order to levy execution on an estate reflects a formal mechanism for debt recovery. Property could be seized to satisfy obligations owed to the Company. The defamation case demonstrates that reputation was protected through legal action. Allegations concerning sexual conduct could be treated as actionable harm requiring judicial review. Speculations The refusal to accept goods in place of money suggests concern over standardised value. The authorities probably aimed to maintain stable accounting by requiring payment in recognised currency rather than variable goods. | |
229 | The said Marsh answered and said that Eliza ye wife of Wm Sutton being sworn The sd Sutton Grace being called upon Jn Colgraves Planter being sworn on ye The sd Grace denyeth that ever he did soe Upon Consideration of all that hath bin spoken It is Ordered That ye sd Marsh do pay ye sd Nell the sum of Jn Colgraves Planter complaining of Sutton Grace The sd Grace doth not deny ye action but | William Marsh answered that Sutton Grace, father of Naomi, had told him that if he wished to know her chastity, he might see it for himself, with his breeches down and Naomi’s body clothes raised. Elizabeth, wife of William Sutton, gave evidence. She stated that she had heard a seaman say that Grace Nell had reported that Naomi Grace was not a maid. Sutton Grace was then called upon to answer whether he had spoken such words to Marsh. John Colgraves, a planter, gave evidence on behalf of Elizabeth. He stated that Marsh had told him that Naomi Grace would not marry as a maid, and that Grace himself had said so. Sutton Grace denied ever saying this. Upon consideration of all that had been said, the slander alleged by Marsh against Nell was not proved by sufficient witness. It was therefore directed that Marsh should pay to Nell £10 0s 0d in damages, together with the costs of suit. John Colgraves then brought an action of battery against Sutton Grace. It was alleged that Elizabeth, Grace’s wife, had struck Margaret, the wife of Colgraves, breaking her head and causing severe bruising. Grace did not deny that a quarrel had taken place between the women. He stated that no blow had been given by his wife, although some dispute had arisen between them. Interpretations The requirement for proof by witness shows that verbal testimony was central to establishing defamation. Claims unsupported by credible evidence were dismissed, even where damaging statements had circulated. The award of monetary damages reflects a structured remedy for injury to reputation. Compensation served both to acknowledge harm and to deter further defamatory speech. The treatment of battery as a separate civil action indicates that physical harm between individuals was addressed through formal complaint. Even disputes between women were subject to judicial scrutiny. Speculations The decision to award damages against Marsh suggests that the Court aimed to discourage the spread of unverified accusations. By imposing a substantial penalty, the authorities probably sought to reinforce restraint in speech within a small and closely connected community. | |
230 | Tho: Manning Chirurgeon saith yt hee Upon Consideration of what hath bin said After some little tyme ye sd Box and Eliz: Roads complaines of Edw Booker The sd Booker doth not deny ye Action but Rich: Gurling and others his wife doth say | Thomas Manning, a surgeon, gave evidence. He stated that he had gone to the house of John Colgraves, where William Marsh, a coulter, was drinking. He said that Margaret, Colgraves’s wife, had spoken abusively to Marsh. He also stated that Elizabeth, the wife of Sutton Grace, had thrown Margaret to the ground, causing her to be hurt and bruised. The Court considered the matter and the nature of the quarrel. As it concerned two women, both parties were asked whether they would refer their dispute to arbitration. They agreed. Thomas Box and John Corler, both planters, were chosen to decide the matter. After a short time, Box and Corler returned to the Court. They declared that Sutton Grace should pay Colgraves the value of one dollar. The parties were asked if they were satisfied with this award. Both agreed that they were. Elizabeth Roads then brought an action against Edward Booker. She claimed that when the ship Shrewsbury was last in the road, her husband, who was mate of that ship, had sent her certain drugs obtained in India. These had been entrusted to Booker for delivery, but he had not given them to her. Booker did not deny that he had received drugs from the mate of the Shrewsbury. He stated that he did not recall that they were intended for Elizabeth Roads. Richard Gurling and others gave evidence. It was said that they had heard the mate of the ship James, Captain Abraham Roberts commanding, declare that when he had been mate of the Shrewsbury on its return voyage, he had sent drugs by one Fletcher to be delivered to Elizabeth Roads. Interpretations The use of arbitration shows a flexible method of dispute resolution. The Court allowed parties to settle minor conflicts through selected neighbours rather than formal judgement. The recording of satisfaction by both parties indicates that arbitration awards gained force through consent. Agreement gave the decision its authority. The dispute over delivery of goods reflects reliance on informal transport networks. Goods were entrusted to intermediaries without formal contracts, creating scope for dispute. Speculations The Court’s readiness to refer the quarrel to arbitration suggests an effort to reduce formal litigation in minor disputes. This probably preserved judicial resources while maintaining order through community mediation. | |
231 | Further it is proved affirmed that ye sd Shrews Upon hearing of what hath bin said by both The sd Roads and Booker went forth of Jn Smith renews his Complaint against Jn Smith planter being sworn on ye Sarah ye wife of Pray Godger being sworn | It was further affirmed that the mate of the Shrewsbury had, of his own accord, declared that when he was last at the road of St Helena he had delivered certain drugs to Edward Booker for the use of Elizabeth Roads. After hearing the evidence from both sides, the Court suggested that the parties withdraw and attempt to reach an agreement. They agreed to do so. Elizabeth Roads and Edward Booker left the Court for a short time. Upon returning, they declared that they had reached an agreement. Booker was to pay Roads six dollars. Roads stated in Court that she was satisfied with this settlement. John Smith then renewed his complaint against Jonathan Higham. The allegation concerned a report that Mary Smith, his wife, had killed a calf belonging to the Company. John Smith, a planter, gave evidence. He stated that Bridget Coates, sister to Mary Smith, had told him that she and Sarah, the wife of Pray Godger, had quarrelled. When asked the cause, Sarah had said that she had told Bridget’s mother that Mary, now Smith’s wife, had killed a Company calf. This calf was said to have come from a cow that the Company had received from his Milidge. Bridget Coates had challenged this claim. Sarah had replied that she believed it to be true, though she had not expected it to be repeated, as she and Bridget had shared a bed. Sarah, the wife of Pray Godger, who had previously given evidence at the Court of Justice held on 5 May 1690, was again examined. She stated that she had heard John, son of Mr Collier, a planter, say some years earlier to Mary, his sister and now Smith’s wife, that she should answer to the Company for a calf she had killed. She further stated that Bridget Coates had told her that she had heard Mary confess to killing a Company calf. Interpretations The resolution of the dispute through private agreement shows that the Court actively encouraged settlement. Monetary compensation provided a practical means to conclude contested claims without further litigation. The repeated reliance on reported speech demonstrates the evidentiary challenges in defamation cases. Testimony often depended on chains of hearsay, which required careful scrutiny. The reference to earlier proceedings indicates continuity in legal process. Prior testimony could be recalled and used to support or challenge current claims. Speculations The Court’s suggestion that the parties settle outside formal judgement suggests a preference for efficiency. Encouraging agreement probably reduced prolonged disputes while still achieving a recognised outcome. | |
232 | These partyes understanding nothing for certaine It was judged requisite to have ye sd And did not then say that they Upon Consideration of what formerly It is Ordered That ye sd Smith and Higham be admon Eliz Roads complaines of John Wilson in The sd Wilson being sick doth not appear The sd Eliz Roads producing a | It was understood by all parties that nothing certain had been known of Mary Smith killing a Company calf, beyond what had been heard by report. For this reason, Thomas Cole, Mary Smith, and Bridgett Coates, as sisters, were required to be sworn. Each gave evidence. None stated that they had ever known Mary Smith to have killed a Company calf. The court considered both the earlier and present testimony from all sides. No words or proof advanced were found sufficient. Statements from neighbours over several years were judged to contain more malice than truth. No adequate evidence was established that Mary Smith had killed the calf belonging to the Company. An order was made that Smith and Higham be admonished to live in mutual goodwill and maintain peace with one another. The costs of the court were to be divided equally between them. Elizabeth Roads brought a further complaint against John Wilson in an action of debt for two shillings, expressed also as two dollars. She stated that this sum had been paid by her for the maintenance of his black woman. She also claimed that he had previously possessed a watch in England, in respect of which he had been cast, and that he ought to have borne the charge. Wilson did not appear, being sick, but appointed Robert Grey, marshal, as his attorney. Elizabeth Roads produced a receipt under her own hand stating that all debts relating to her had been settled in full. Wilson’s attorney argued that she was not entitled to further demand, but admitted that one dollar was owed for the keeping of Wilson’s black woman. Interpretations The requirement that multiple individuals be sworn, including Mary Smith herself, showed the court’s reliance on direct testimony to test the reliability of circulating accusations. The dismissal of hearsay as insufficient evidence reflected an effort to distinguish between rumour and actionable claim. The court’s conclusion that the allegations arose more from malice than truth indicated a concern with the social harm caused by unfounded accusations. Such findings served to protect personal reputation while discouraging the spread of damaging reports within the community. The order that both parties share court costs functioned as a disciplinary measure. It signalled that neither side had established a sufficient case, while still imposing a financial consequence to deter further dispute. The action of debt brought by Elizabeth Roads illustrated the enforcement of small financial obligations. The reference to payment for the maintenance of a “black woman” showed how the costs of supporting a slave could be treated as a recoverable debt, enforceable through the court. The production of a receipt acknowledging full settlement of debts operated as formal proof to limit further claims. Such documents carried legal weight in demonstrating that obligations had already been discharged. The appointment of Robert Grey, marshal, as attorney in Wilson’s absence demonstrated the use of representation within the court system. This allowed proceedings to continue despite illness, ensuring that claims could still be contested and partially admitted. | |
233 | The sd Roads declared that ye sd Upon Considering of ye whole matter It is Ordered That ye sd Wilson doe pay to ye sd Roads Robt Broxton who was bound in a recogni It is Ordered That ye sd Broxton be cleared by Procla J. Sm[...]ing | Elizabeth Roads declared that John Wilson had promised to give her satisfaction and now demanded two dollars. The whole matter was considered. An order was made that Wilson pay Roads two dollars together with the costs of suit, in full discharge of her claim. Robert Broxton, who had been bound in a recognisance at the Court of Justice held on 5 May 1687, requested release together with his sureties. An order was made that Broxton be discharged by public proclamation. This was carried out accordingly. The record was subscribed by J. Sm[…]ing, John Johnson, and Rich[…]. Interpretations The promise by Wilson to give “content” operated as an informal undertaking to settle a claim. Its recognition by the court gave it practical force, allowing Roads to convert a verbal assurance into an enforceable денежary obligation. The award of costs of suit alongside the principal sum ensured that the successful party did not bear the expense of pursuing the claim. This reinforced the court’s role in enabling recovery without financial loss to the claimant. A recognisance functioned as a formal legal bond, secured by sureties, requiring an individual to fulfil a specified obligation, often related to appearance or good behaviour. Release by proclamation indicated that the obligation had been satisfied or was no longer required, and that this discharge was publicly declared to remove any continuing liability for both Broxton and his sureties. | |
234 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday ye Present Mr Blackmore Go: [...] Booker Armo having bin for The said Booker did this day being humbly It is Ordered That ye sd Booker be released out of Wm Clifton who having in ye Consultation It is Ordered That ye sd Clifton be [...] | A consultation was held on 2 July 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Mr Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helmig, Ensign. […] Booker, armourer, had for several days been committed to prison for neglect of his duty and for using insolent language and behaving improperly towards the Governor. On this day, he appeared and humbly confessed his faults. A promise was given that he would act with greater diligence and fulfil his duties as armourer more faithfully in future. An order was made that Booker be released from prison, with his conduct to be observed for diligence thereafter. William Clifton had previously, at a consultation held on 20 June 1690, been found guilty of engaging in deceitful and improper conduct with Elizabeth, the wife of Thomas Swallow. This had included the use of disreputable language and rude behaviour, which had been judged to create strong inducements towards lewdness […]. For this, he had been committed to prison and had remained there until the present time, being […]. An order was made that Clifton be […]. Interpretations The charge of neglect of duty against Booker as armourer reflected the importance of his role in maintaining weapons and military readiness on the island. His imprisonment and subsequent release upon confession showed how discipline was enforced within essential technical offices tied to defence. The requirement that Booker’s future diligence be observed indicated an ongoing form of administrative supervision. Release from confinement did not end scrutiny but placed his conduct under continued evaluation by authority. The reference to fraudulent or improper conduct involving a married woman engaged concerns of moral regulation as well as social order. Behaviour described as creating inducements to lewdness suggested that the court acted to police personal conduct where it threatened established norms of household integrity and communal stability. Clifton’s earlier imprisonment demonstrated that offences involving moral misconduct could be treated with comparable seriousness to breaches of duty, reinforcing the governing authority’s role in regulating both labour and behaviour. | |
235 | Tho: Clifton Sedn having Neglected It is Ordered That ye sd Clifton doe on Thursday ye 10 [...] | Thomas Clifton, a soldier, had neglected his duty by failing to attend the guard and by attempting to pass a letter to one Blan[…]. For this, he had been committed to prison. An order was made that Clifton, on Thursday 10 July 1690, when the whole garrison was under arms, be […] upon a horse for one hour with a wheel […], with drink to be taken at each house, […]. The remainder of the order was not fully recorded. The record was subscribed by Joshua Johnson and Richmo[…]. Interpretations Failure to attend the guard constituted a breach of military discipline. Attendance at guard duty was essential for the defence and security of the settlement, and neglect of this obligation exposed the garrison to risk. The attempted passing of a letter suggested unauthorised communication. Control over correspondence could serve to regulate the flow of information within and beyond the island, particularly where security or authority might be affected. The punishment ordered to be carried out before the assembled garrison indicated a public and performative sanction. Such measures reinforced discipline by exposing the offender to collective scrutiny and by demonstrating the consequences of disobedience within the military hierarchy. | |
236 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Saturday Present Mr Blackmore Go The Honble Compys former Orders and And Tho Rich[ ] appeared whom was Requi That he ye sd Rich shall have ye Estate Every year out of ye term of 4 years and 2 halfe But | A consultation was held on Saturday 5 July 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Mr Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helmig, Ensign. The Honourable Company’s earlier orders and instructions concerning the condemned from all estates still remaining on the island were read, together with further orders brought by the ship Benjamin, commanded by Captain Leonard Browne. It was observed that no clear or fixed direction had been given as to whether persons of any estate or condition were to be spared or otherwise dealt with in relation to transportation. The limits and instructions from previous governors were also found to be uncertain. For the sake of justice and the security of all concerned, the matter of the condemned slaves remaining on the island was brought under present consideration. Richard […] appeared and was required to settle his proposal concerning the whole of their estates and others in similar circumstances. After extended discussion, an agreement was reached. Richard […] was to hold the estate of one […] Walron, a young man, which he had previously possessed in a private capacity. This holding was granted at a rent of £4 0s 0d per year, together with several acres of land in the country at the same annual rent, commencing on 29 October 1690 for a term of four and a half years, ending on 29 October […]. Payment was to be made in the current money of the island, or in provisions delivered there, valued at £12 0s 0d in full satisfaction to the Honourable Company. Security was to be provided upon the island for the Company’s estate, with payments to be made annually over the term of four years and a half. A further condition was set that within eighteen months the Honourable Company might signify its approval or disallowance of Richard’s custody and use of the land. Should such approval not be granted, the agreement would become void and without effect. The agreement was to be formalised in the form of a bond. Interpretations The reference to the Honourable Company’s orders concerning condemned slaves showed the Company’s authority over both persons and property on the island. The uncertainty in those instructions revealed gaps in metropolitan control, requiring local governance to interpret and apply policy in practice. The term “transportation” indicated the removal of condemned individuals from the island, a penal and administrative measure used to manage labour, discipline, and population. Its ambiguous application in this instance required negotiation at the local level. The leasing of land and estate at a fixed annual rent reflected the Company’s use of contractual arrangements to extract value from confiscated or controlled property. Payment in provisions as an alternative to currency showed the flexibility of the island’s economy, where goods could serve as recognised equivalents of money. The requirement for security upon the island functioned as a guarantee of performance. It ensured that the Company’s financial interest in the estate would be protected against default during the term of the agreement. The condition allowing the Company to void the agreement within eighteen months demonstrated a retained supervisory authority. Even after local agreement, final approval remained subject to confirmation from higher authority, limiting the permanence of local arrangements. The instruction that the agreement be drawn into a bond gave it formal legal force. A bond created an enforceable obligation, binding the parties to the agreed terms under penalty of forfeiture if conditions were not met. Speculations The decision to proceed with a provisional agreement despite uncertain instructions was probably intended to prevent the estates of condemned slaves from remaining idle. Productive use of land and assets would have been necessary to maintain economic stability on the island. The inclusion of an eighteen-month review period suggests an attempt to balance immediate local needs with deference to the Company’s authority. This structure allowed the Governor and Council to act without delay while preserving the Company’s right to intervene once informed. The option to pay rent in provisions rather than solely in money indicates a practical response to limited currency circulation. This arrangement perhaps ensured that the Company would still receive value even where coin was scarce, while also supporting local supply systems. | |
241 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Saturday the Present Go: Blackmore Go: Whereas in Consultation held the 2d of And whereas information was brought to us It is Ordered That upon the sd Swallow be brought Wm Clifton being Commanded forth of prison Whereupon it is further Ordered that the sd Clifton is | A consultation was held on Saturday 12 July 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Governor Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, and Richard Helmig, Ensign. Reference was made to a consultation held on 2 June 1690, at which Elizabeth Swallow, wife of Thomas Swallow, planter, had upon full proof been found guilty of incontinency with one Clifton, who was then under guard. Clifton had also been judged guilty in the same sentence. Both had been committed to prison. Information had since been received that Clifton, while detained in prison for several days, had broken out. He had later been taken again and recommitted to prison, as had Swallow, this being supported by the testimony of several persons. An order was made that Elizabeth Swallow be brought again before the council to receive the punishment set out in the earlier sentence. It was further ordered that both she and Clifton be removed at once from the Fort and Chapel Hill and kept apart for a period thereafter. They were not to keep company with one another or return to their former manner of association. William Clifton was then brought from prison and appeared before the council. A humble acknowledgement was made of his offence in keeping company with Elizabeth Swallow. He declared regret for his conduct and promised amendment. A further order was made that Clifton, being a young man whose conduct in this matter had by various circumstances shown a tendency to lead others into unlawful company by his example, be treated with consideration in expectation that he would fulfil his promise of reform […]. Interpretations The finding of “incontinency” reflected a formal judgement of sexual misconduct. Such offences were treated as matters of public concern, as they were understood to threaten social order and the integrity of household structures. The recommittal of Clifton after breaking prison demonstrated the enforcement of confinement as a disciplinary measure. Escape from custody constituted a further breach of authority, requiring renewed detention to uphold the credibility of punishment. The order to separate the two individuals and restrict their movement from key locations such as the Fort and Chapel Hill showed the use of spatial control as a means of regulating behaviour. Preventing contact was intended to disrupt the relationship that had given rise to the offence. The emphasis on Clifton’s influence over others highlighted concern with example and imitation within a small community. Conduct deemed improper was treated not only as an individual fault but as a potential source of wider moral disorder if left unchecked. | |
242 | It is Ordered That ye sd Clifton shall now have his liberty Robt D[…] Marshall being sent for to Execute Whereupon It is Ordered That ye sd Robt be dismissed from being Henry Jackson Serjt desired that he might It is agreed & Ordered That the sd Henry Jackson shall have the use […] | An order was made that William Clifton be granted his liberty. Conditions were imposed. He was not to come and go freely in the former manner, nor keep company with Elizabeth Swallow. He was forbidden to enter the house of any person who had previously associated with her. He was not to attend or keep company with the Council without further order. All communication with Elizabeth Swallow, whether by writing, speaking, or any other means, was strictly prohibited upon pain of imprisonment and more severe punishment. Robert D[…] was directed, as marshal, to carry out the ordered punishment upon Elizabeth Swallow. She refused to submit and behaved in a refractory manner. In response, an order was made that Robert D[…] be dismissed from the office of marshal. William White was sworn into that office in his place and was to receive all benefits belonging to the position of marshal […]. Henry Jackson, sergeant, requested the use of a black slave named Doll, belonging to the Right Honourable Company, for one year. The request was granted. The term was to begin on 30 July 1690 and continue for one year, ending on 30 July 1691. Payment was fixed at £2 10s 0d per year, to be made in quarterly instalments of 8s 0d each quarter. Jackson was also required to provide sufficient maintenance and clothing for the slave during the term […]. The record was subscribed by Joshua Johnson and Rich[…]. Interpretations The conditional release of Clifton showed the use of behavioural restrictions as an alternative to continued imprisonment. Liberty was granted but tightly controlled, with specific prohibitions designed to prevent recurrence of the offence and to regulate social interaction. The prohibition on communication in any form, including writing, reflected an attempt to close all channels of contact. This extended the court’s authority beyond physical movement into private correspondence, demonstrating a comprehensive approach to enforcement. The dismissal of the marshal following Swallow’s refusal to submit suggested that officeholders were held responsible for the effective execution of court orders. Failure to secure compliance could result in removal from office, reinforcing accountability within the administrative structure. The office of marshal carried defined “benefits”, indicating that it was a remunerated or privileged position tied to the enforcement of judicial authority. Appointment to this role involved both responsibility and material advantage. The hiring of the Company’s slave Doll to Henry Jackson illustrated the treatment of enslaved labour as a rentable asset. The fixed annual sum and quarterly payments structured the arrangement as a formal financial contract. The requirement that Jackson provide maintenance and clothing showed that responsibility for the upkeep of the slave was transferred to the hirer during the term. This arrangement ensured that the Company’s property was preserved while generating income from its use. Speculations The strict conditions placed on Clifton’s release were probably intended to isolate him from the social network connected to Elizabeth Swallow. By restricting both movement and association, the authorities sought to prevent the re-formation of the relationship that had led to the original offence. The removal of the marshal following Swallow’s resistance suggests that effective enforcement of punishment was treated as essential to maintaining authority. The swift replacement perhaps aimed to restore confidence in the execution of orders and deter further defiance. The structured hiring of the slave Doll, with quarterly payments and maintenance obligations, indicates a deliberate arrangement to secure both steady income and proper care. This system perhaps balanced economic return with the practical need to sustain the labourer over the contracted period. | |
243 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Tuesday Present Geo Blackmore Governor Complaints having bin made by Tho: Swallow Upon this it was thought fitt yt the above sd Mathew Upon the above sd order of Councell was perused | A consultation was held on Tuesday 20 August 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were George Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard […] Kelinge, Ensign. A complaint was brought by Thomas Swallow, planter, stating that despite an order made in the consultation held on 2 June 1690, requiring him to deliver all his wife’s wearing apparel following their separation, he had failed to do so, though he had promised compliance. He was summoned to appear and did so. When charged with disobedience and breach of promise, he first claimed that no demand had been made. Mathew Booker affirmed that he had been present when Elizabeth Swallow had required her husband to deliver her clothes. Swallow had refused and had demanded a dollar, which he claimed she owed him. Swallow then acknowledged this to be true but insisted that he would not deliver the clothes unless he received one dollar in payment. Mathew Booker was sworn and gave evidence that Elizabeth Swallow, while staying at his house, had asked him to accompany her to her husband’s house to demand her clothes. They had gone together. In his presence, Elizabeth had demanded her wearing clothes and apparel in accordance with the Council’s order. Swallow had repeatedly refused to deliver them and had at last declared that he would rather burn them than allow her to have them. They then returned without the clothes. The earlier order of Council was read to Swallow. No condition had been expressed requiring payment of one dollar before or upon delivery of the clothes. His conduct was judged to show contempt of government and clear disobedience of the order. It was therefore determined that a response be made to deter him and others from similar contempt […]. Interpretations The original order requiring the delivery of Elizabeth Swallow’s clothing upon separation showed the court’s role in regulating the division of personal property within marriage. Wearing apparel was treated as belonging to the wife, and its return was enforceable by authority. Swallow’s insistence on payment before compliance demonstrated an attempt to impose a private condition upon a public order. The court’s rejection of this claim reinforced that its directives could not be altered by individual negotiation once issued. The sworn testimony of Mathew Booker illustrated the reliance on witness evidence to establish both fact and intent. His account confirmed not only refusal but the deliberate nature of Swallow’s defiance. The reading of the prior order in open consultation served to reaffirm its authority. This act ensured that its terms were publicly understood and that any deviation could be clearly identified as disobedience. The characterisation of Swallow’s conduct as contempt of government elevated the matter beyond a private dispute. Disobedience to an order was treated as a challenge to authority itself, warranting a response aimed at deterrence. | |
244 | It is judged Concluded & ordered That he the sd Swallow be fined to the Rt Honble […] | It was judged, concluded, and ordered that Thomas Swallow be fined two dollars for the use of the Right Honourable Company, to be paid immediately. He was also to be committed to the custody of the marshal until he entered into a recognisance of £20 0s 0d, with two sureties bound at £10 0s 0d each, for his good behaviour until the next Sessions of the Peace, to be held on the first Monday in October 1690 […]. The record was subscribed by Joshua Johnson and Rich[…]. Interpretations The fine of two dollars payable to the Company operated as a direct financial penalty for disobedience. It reinforced the Company’s authority by converting misconduct into an immediate денежary obligation. A recognisance of £20 0s 0d, secured by two sureties at £10 0s 0d each, functioned as a conditional bond for future conduct. It bound both the principal and guarantors to ensure compliance, creating a shared financial risk if further misconduct occurred. Commitment to the marshal until the recognisance was entered ensured enforcement. Detention acted as a means of compelling the provision of security rather than as punishment alone. The reference to the Sessions of the Peace indicated a structured judicial calendar. Good behaviour was required up to a defined future court date, linking ongoing conduct to formal review within the island’s legal system. Speculations The requirement for substantial sureties suggests an intention to extend responsibility beyond Swallow himself. By involving others as guarantors, the court probably sought to create social pressure to regulate his conduct and prevent further defiance. The combination of an immediate fine with a forward-looking recognisance indicates a dual response to the offence. Immediate punishment addressed past disobedience, while the bond mechanism was designed to manage future risk until the next formal session of the court. | |
245 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Wensday the 27 Present [...] Blackmore Go[v] Whereas there was an Agreement made on beh[al]f Therefore upon serious consideration It And Accordingly It is Ordered That all the sd shoes left by Cap[t] [...] in | A consultation was held on Wednesday 27 August 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were […] Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Reference was made to an agreement concluded on 11 April 1680 on behalf of the Honourable Company between the Governor and Council on one part and Henry Jackson on the other. Under this agreement, Jackson had undertaken to work up and manufacture into shoes all the tanned and curried leather held in the Company’s stores. This work had been carried out until it was stopped by Captain […], then storekeeper. A total of 273 pairs of shoes had been made and delivered to the storekeeper to be sold at 5s 0d per pair. Jackson had disposed of part of this quantity at that price. Upon his departure in January 1690, when the remaining goods in store had been handed over to his successor, Ensign Richard Keeling, there were found 223 pairs of these shoes. They had become somewhat damaged through decay caused by long storage. As a result, none of the garrison would accept them as part of their pay, and neither planters nor others would take them in exchange for store goods or in settlement of accounts at the set price of 5s 0d per pair. This situation having been reported by the storekeeper, and concern arising that further delay would increase the damage and lead to greater loss, the matter was considered with the aim of preventing such loss so far as possible. It was therefore judged appropriate, for the speedy sale of the shoes, that the price be reduced from 5s 0d to 4s 0d per pair. An order was made that all such shoes remaining in the custody of Ensign Richard Keeling, the present storekeeper, be sold at 4s 0d per pair to any persons, including soldiers, planters, or seamen, who would take them at that price. Interpretations The original agreement of 11 April 1680 showed a contractual arrangement for converting Company-owned raw materials into finished goods. This reflected the Company’s control over production and its reliance on contracted labour to process stored resources. The role of the storekeeper was central to the management and distribution of goods. Responsibility for pricing, storage, and sale rested with this office, and the transfer of stock between officeholders ensured continuity of accountability. The use of goods, such as shoes, in lieu of wages or in settlement of accounts illustrated a mixed economy in which material goods functioned alongside money. Refusal by soldiers and planters to accept the shoes indicated that value depended on usability and condition rather than nominal price. The reduction in price represented an administrative adjustment to preserve value in deteriorating stock. By lowering the price, the Company sought to convert declining assets into realised return before further loss occurred. Speculations The decision to reduce the price suggests a practical response to a supply problem where goods had lost market acceptance. The authorities probably acted to prevent total loss by encouraging quicker circulation of the remaining stock. The earlier halt in Jackson’s work by the storekeeper may indicate a breakdown in coordination or a reassessment of need. This interruption perhaps contributed to the accumulation and eventual decay of unsold goods, prompting the later corrective action. | |
246 | Whereas for some yeares past there was a And in Order whereunto It is Judged & Ordered And It is Ordered That ye said Linnen be so sold vended and Whereas in the Consultation held ye 23 day Mem. | A quantity of cloth had for several years been worked into linen and […] and had remained lying in the warehouse and storehouse without being sold. Complaints had been made by soldiers and inhabitants regarding this linen, and although some part had been disposed of at the set prices during the period of its management, a balance had remained after one year. This remaining linen had become stained and had deteriorated into waste or rags. Its measured quantity had been greatly reduced through decay, leading to loss. Upon the dismissal of Hodson, his successor found the linen in this damaged condition. It proved very difficult, and almost impossible, to sell or dispose of such goods. Complaints had also arisen that the linen had not been properly accounted for. The exact quantity remaining was not known with certainty. To prevent further loss, it was considered most appropriate to dispose of what remained of the calico and linen as far as possible, including converting it into usable linen where feasible. It was judged and ordered that the linen should be valued at 10s 0d per ell, being the former selling price. It was further ordered that the linen be sold and disposed of at that rate by the present storekeeper, notwithstanding its condition and the earlier management under Bishop. Reference was then made to a consultation held on 23 October 1689, at which John Peck, a man described as an honourable weaver, and Job, another black man of the killing gun, had been convicted of arriving with a governor from the Fort of St Jago Islands. Sentence had been passed that Job be burned alive, which was ordered to be carried out on 30 November 1689 and was executed accordingly. It was also recorded that the two black men were then hanged by order of the Governor and Council and that a sum of forty-two pounds was levied, being assessed at 1s 0d per pound upon the soldiers […]. Mem. Interpretations The prolonged storage and deterioration of linen demonstrated the risks inherent in holding perishable goods within the Company’s supply system. Failure to sell or distribute such items in a timely manner resulted in measurable financial loss and administrative concern. The reference to accounting deficiencies indicated the importance of accurate stock management. Storekeepers were expected to maintain clear records, and discrepancies or uncertainty in quantity could lead to formal complaint and scrutiny. The unit of measure “ell” functioned as a standard length for cloth, allowing goods to be valued and sold by measure rather than by piece. Pricing at 10s 0d per ell reflected an attempt to maintain a fixed valuation despite declining quality. The instruction to sell the linen at its former rate, notwithstanding its damaged condition, showed the imposition of administrative pricing rather than market adjustment. This could compel acceptance or enforce accounting consistency even where the goods had lost practical value. The reference to earlier judicial proceedings involving John Peck and Job demonstrated the severity of punishments imposed for offences connected with unauthorised movement or association. Sentences such as burning alive and hanging reflected the exercise of extreme penal authority within the island’s governance. The levy of forty-two pounds, assessed at 1s 0d per pound upon soldiers, indicated a collective financial imposition. Such assessments could distribute the burden of a cost across a defined group, functioning as a means of raising funds for specific purposes within the garrison. Speculations The decision to maintain the original price for damaged linen suggests an attempt to preserve accounting consistency or avoid recognising loss formally in the Company’s records. This approach perhaps shifted the burden of diminished value onto those required to accept or purchase the goods. The difficulty in disposing of deteriorated stock, combined with uncertainty over quantities, indicates a breakdown in oversight during earlier management. The emphasis on rapid disposal and conversion into usable forms suggests a corrective effort to recover value before further decay rendered the goods entirely worthless. | |
247 | Now in ye Councill held ye 25 day of August 168[?] And Whereas the said Russell hath often Therefore It is Ordered That all ye Owners and Possessors of any Blacks […] | At a council held on 25 August 168[…] an order or law had been enacted providing that all white persons, Indians, and those described as bastards of black slaves, or any such slaves born of them, might obtain freedom upon payment of a proportion set by the Governor and Council. This proportion was to be determined according to age and condition, or by such sum as would make up their assessed value. The order was to be recorded in relation to black slaves. However, this law had not yet been confirmed by the Honourable Company, nor had any new instruction been received to authorise it, except that in a preceding paragraph of instructions brought by the ship Capt Mercht, commanded by Captain Stanford, it had been thought fit to exempt certain young persons from attaining freedom where they belonged to the Company’s own black slaves. It was further noted that Russell and others had not yet received satisfaction for goods lost, for which certain black slaves had been held accountable. Upon oath and the best available evidence, it was determined that those who had suffered such losses should be compensated. An order was made that all owners and possessors of black men and women on the island, whether aboard ships or belonging to any person, should immediately deliver to the Governor and Council, or to such person as should be appointed, a full and accurate account of their slaves. This account was to include names, ages, numbers, and details of possession. These lists were to be provided at once. In default of compliance, the slaves concerned might be seized, forfeited, or otherwise disposed of. All persons were required to obey this order […]. The record was subscribed by Joshua Johnson and […]. Interpretations The provision allowing certain individuals, including those of mixed descent, to obtain freedom upon payment reflected a structured system of manumission. Freedom was treated as a purchasable status, with value assessed by the Governor and Council according to labour capacity and social classification. The requirement that such payments correspond to the assessed value of the individual indicated that enslaved persons were regarded as economic assets. Manumission thus operated as a financial transaction compensating owners or the Company for the loss of labour. The lack of confirmation from the Honourable Company showed that local legislative initiatives required metropolitan approval. Until confirmed, such laws existed in a provisional state, subject to alteration or rejection. The exemption concerning certain young persons belonging to Company-owned slaves demonstrated a limitation on manumission. It preserved the Company’s interest in maintaining its own labour force by restricting the extension of freedom in specific cases. The order to compensate losses attributed to slaves indicated that enslaved individuals could be held responsible for damage or theft, but that financial redress ultimately fell upon their owners or the governing authority. The requirement for a comprehensive register of all slaves on the island functioned as an administrative measure of control. Recording names, ages, and numbers enabled oversight of labour, ownership, and potential claims to freedom. The threat of seizure or forfeiture for failure to comply enforced this registration system. It provided a coercive mechanism to ensure accurate reporting and reinforced the authority of the Governor and Council over all slave property on the island. Speculations The attempt to formalise manumission through payment suggests an effort to regulate a practice that may already have been occurring informally. By setting terms and requiring approval, the authorities probably sought to control both the social consequences and the financial implications of granting freedom. The order for a complete accounting of slaves appears to respond to uncertainty about ownership and numbers. This measure was probably intended to establish a reliable record, which would support enforcement of both compensation claims and any future application of the proposed manumission law. | |
248 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Friday the 29 Present Mr Blackmore Govr Thomas Aston Planter made a Complaint The sd Laston confesseth that he found ye sd linen Upon consideration of what ye sd Aston hath said Therefore It is Ordered That the sd Thomas Laston be Committed to safe […] | A consultation was held on Friday 29 August 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Mr Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. Thomas Aston, planter, brought a complaint against Thomas Laston. He stated that while he had been at the fort attending upon a summons, Laston had entered his house, broken open the chamber door, and taken goods from his chest. These goods were listed as one linen neckcloth valued at 12s 0d, almost one pound of shroud valued at 2s 6d, one piece of calico shirt valued at 10s 0d, a remnant of fine cloth valued at 12s 0d, and one knife valued at 5s 0d. The total value of the goods taken amounted to £3 5s 0d. Laston admitted that the linen neckcloth and the shroud had been found in his possession but claimed that he did not know how they had come there. He stated that he had been heavily intoxicated for two or three days and did not know what he had done with the neckcloth and shroud, nor where the remaining items were. The court considered Aston’s statement and Laston’s admission that part of the goods had been found with him. From this, it was judged probable that he had taken the remainder. An order was made that Thomas Laston be committed to safe custody in preparation for further trial, and that the goods be restored to Thomas Aston […]. The record was subscribed by Joshua Johnson and […]. Interpretations The breaking open of the chamber door and removal of goods from a chest constituted a direct violation of property and domestic security. Such acts were treated as serious offences, particularly where they involved forced entry into a private dwelling. The detailed listing and valuation of each item demonstrated the importance of assigning precise monetary value to stolen goods. This allowed the court to quantify loss and to frame the offence in financial as well as criminal terms. Laston’s partial admission, combined with possession of some items, was treated as sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a broader inference of guilt. The court relied on probability derived from possession rather than requiring direct proof for each item. Commitment to safe custody pending further trial showed that initial proceedings could establish grounds for detention while reserving full judgement for a later hearing. This process allowed time for further evidence or formal adjudication. The order for restoration of goods indicated that recovery of property was an immediate priority alongside prosecution. Restitution could be directed even before final judgement had been reached. Speculations The reliance on Laston’s possession of part of the goods to infer responsibility for the whole suggests a practical approach to proof in a setting where direct evidence might be limited. This method probably enabled the court to proceed efficiently in cases where full recovery of stolen items was uncertain. The immediate order for restitution, despite the case being set for further trial, indicates that the court prioritised restoring economic balance without delay. This approach perhaps aimed to reduce the material impact on the complainant while the legal process continued. | |
249 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Wensday the 10th Present Mr Blackmore Govr Complaint was made by Henry Jackson Sergt of The said Battermouth was sent for out of prison Upon Consideration of all the | A consultation was held on Wednesday 10 September 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Mr Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and Richard Keeling, Ensign. A complaint was made by Henry Jackson, sergeant of the guard, concerning a soldier named Battermouth. He had been placed as a sentinel at the Company’s store at the fort. On the evening of 8 September 1690, at about 11 o’clock at night, he had broken into the store room. Jackson stated that, while making his round to inspect the sentinels, he had found the other sentinel at his proper post on the opposite side of the store room, but Battermouth was absent. A search had been made, and Battermouth’s clothes had been seen lying beneath a window leading into the store room. On looking within, Jackson had observed Battermouth inside. When called to, he had made no answer but had broken out backwards and fled into the country. He had been taken the previous night after a search, brought back, and committed to prison by order of the Governor. Battermouth was brought from prison, and the sergeant’s statement was read to him. He confessed the whole account to be true, except that he stated that while on guard at the store room he had stripped himself, removed some of the iron bars from the window, and entered the store room naked. Being disturbed, he had taken nothing but had escaped backwards without being seen by the other sentinel, and had then fled into the country. The matter was considered in light of all these circumstances […]. Interpretations The role of a sentinel at the Company’s store involved direct responsibility for safeguarding valuable goods. Abandonment of this post and entry into the store constituted both a breach of military duty and a threat to Company property. The act of removing iron bars from the window demonstrated deliberate preparation. This indicated that the entry had not been accidental but involved purposeful interference with the store’s physical security. The confession by Battermouth, following the reading of the accusation, reflected the use of direct admission as a key element of proof. Such acknowledgements could establish the facts of the case without the need for extended evidentiary dispute. The immediate commitment to prison upon capture showed the enforcement of discipline within the garrison. Custody was used to secure the accused and maintain order pending formal determination of the offence. The inspection of sentinels by the sergeant illustrated an internal system of supervision within the guard. This mechanism ensured accountability and enabled breaches of duty to be detected and reported promptly. Speculations The removal of clothing before entering the store room suggests an attempt to avoid detection or identification, perhaps by reducing noise or preventing damage to clothing during entry. This detail indicates a deliberate effort to carry out the act without immediate notice. The failure to take any goods, despite gaining entry, implies that the intrusion may have been interrupted at an early stage. The rapid escape and flight into the country suggest that the presence of the sergeant disrupted the attempt before any theft could be completed. | |
250 | It is Ordered That the said Battermouth be committed close [...] Island St Helena Whereas Mr Ellon Breaks Window hath presented It is Ordered That the discharge here afore mentioned is [...] | An order was made that Battermouth be committed as a close prisoner and placed in irons until the next session. There he was to be tried in due course by a jury and also by a court martial if it should be thought fit […]. A petition was presented by Mrs Ellon Booth, widow of Captain Anthony Booth, deceased. She humbly requested discharge from a receipt or account outstanding between the Honourable Company and her late husband. The matter was examined again by the Governor and Council. An order was made that the requested discharge be granted. It was to be formally transferred, sealed with the Company’s seal, and delivered to Mrs Booth. A copy of this discharge was to be sent to the Honourable Company by the next returning ships, in accordance with the Governor’s direction […]. Interpretations The order that Battermouth be held as a close prisoner in irons reflected the severity of the offence. Close confinement with physical restraint was used to prevent escape and to mark the seriousness of a breach involving both military duty and Company property. The provision for trial by both jury and court martial showed the overlapping jurisdictions on the island. Civil and military processes could be applied to the same offence, depending on its nature and the authority invoked. The petition by Mrs Booth demonstrated the use of formal application to seek relief from financial obligations. As widow, she acted in relation to her late husband’s outstanding account with the Company. The granting of a discharge from a receipt or account indicated that the Company’s claim had been formally released. This removed any continuing liability attached to the deceased officer’s estate. The requirement that the Company’s seal be affixed gave the discharge legal authority. Sealing authenticated the document and made it enforceable as an official act of the governing body. The instruction to send a copy to the Honourable Company ensured that local decisions were reported and could be recognised or reviewed by higher authority. This maintained a link between island governance and Company oversight. Speculations The decision to allow both jury trial and possible court martial suggests uncertainty over the appropriate jurisdiction. This arrangement perhaps preserved flexibility, allowing the authorities to determine later which forum would best address the offence. The grant of discharge to Mrs Booth indicates a willingness to settle outstanding accounts in favour of dependants of deceased Company officers. This may have been intended to maintain confidence among officers and their families that their estates would be treated with consideration after death. | |
251 | By vertue of the power and Authority unto us Given [...] | By virtue of the authority granted by the Honourable the Governor in Chief, Governor and Court of Committees of the East India Company, Lords Proprietors of the island of St Helena, in their General Letter dated 5 April 1689 and brought to the island by the ship Benjamin, commanded by Captain Bonard Browne, the Governor and Council of the island considered the petition submitted. In accordance with the tenor of those instructions, a full and final release was granted to Thomas Board, widow of Captain Anthony Booth, deceased. She was discharged from all demands relating to the account between the East India Company and her late husband, and herself. In witness of this, the Company’s common seal on the island was affixed to the document, and it was subscribed by the Governor and Council on 22 September 1690 […]. Interpretations The reference to the Governor in Chief and Court of Committees of the East India Company showed the hierarchical structure of authority. Local decisions on the island were grounded in powers delegated through formal written instructions issued from London. The “General Letter” functioned as a governing instrument. It conveyed policy, authority, and direction, enabling the Governor and Council to act within defined limits while exercising discretion in local matters. The term “relict” indicated the legal status of a widow in relation to her deceased husband’s estate. This status allowed her to be formally discharged from liabilities connected to his accounts. The issuance of a full discharge operated as a legal release of all claims. It ensured that no further demands could be made by the Company in relation to the specified account. The affixing of the Company’s common seal gave the document formal legal validity. The seal signified that the act was executed under corporate authority and was binding in law. Speculations The reliance on the authority of the General Letter suggests that the Governor and Council sought to ground their decision firmly within Company instructions. This may have been intended to prevent later dispute or reversal by demonstrating that the discharge was properly authorised. The granting of a full release to the widow indicates a resolution of outstanding financial matters that might otherwise have remained uncertain. This action perhaps aimed to close the account definitively, avoiding prolonged claims against the estate and simplifying Company records. | |
252 | Blank page | ||
253 | Island St Helena Present [...] Blackmore Govr [...] Helinge [...] [...] a Complaint That the said Thomas of the Island planter being Yo[u]r Petitioners therefore pray that you will And yo[u]r Petitioners shall pray &c [...] Elmer Denyes the former part of the Declara | A Court of Justice was held on […] October 1690 at the Sessions House near Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were […] Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, and […] Helinge […]. A complaint was brought against Thomas Elmer, planter. It was alleged that, while in England, he had made a false and scandalous complaint to the East India Company, asserting that the Council of the island had fixed prices upon the provisions of the inhabitants. It was further alleged that, since his return to the island, he had declared that the Company had freely granted to five men, described as condemned, the right to sell their estates and that all persons concerned would be made free. It was also claimed that this supposed grant extended to those condemned persons and their lands, and that Elmer had acted injuriously towards those remaining upon such estates by preventing them from enjoying their houses and lands without interference. These reports were presented as false and malicious, with a tendency to bring the Company into displeasure against the government and people of the island, or to provoke unrest and disturbance among them. The petitioners therefore requested that the matter be examined with care and that, if Elmer were found guilty, he be dealt with according to the nature of his offence and its consequences. Thomas Elmer denied the first part of the declaration. He stated that he had not made any complaint to the East India Company in England concerning the Council’s setting of prices […]. Interpretations The allegation of making complaints to the East India Company in England demonstrated the channel through which island affairs could be reported to metropolitan authority. Such communications had the potential to influence oversight and policy decisions affecting the island. The claim that Elmer had misrepresented Company grants concerning condemned persons and their estates engaged questions of property rights and legal status. Assertions about freedom and entitlement to land could alter expectations among affected individuals and disrupt established arrangements. The reference to condemned persons’ estates indicated that property associated with punishment or forfeiture remained under regulated control. Any unauthorised interference with such estates risked conflict over possession and authority. The characterisation of the statements as scandalous and malicious showed that harmful speech affecting governance could be treated as an offence. Reputation and public order were protected by addressing statements that might incite dissatisfaction or disorder. The petition process illustrated how grievances were formally brought before the court. It allowed individuals or groups to seek redress and required the authorities to examine the matter through structured proceedings. Speculations The concern that Elmer’s statements might provoke displeasure from the Company suggests sensitivity to external scrutiny. The authorities probably aimed to prevent any account reaching England that could undermine their administration or invite intervention. The emphasis on disturbance among those connected to condemned estates indicates that such claims about freedom and property could have practical consequences. The complaint perhaps arose from tensions over control of land and labour, where competing interpretations of authority threatened stability. | |
254 | letting prices upon the Inhabitants Provisions on Whereupon the following Paragraph in the “We have had Complaint made to us by an Whereupon the said Stomons did openly The said Stomons being demanded what he had Whereupon Stomons replyed that his selfe did | Thomas Elmer acknowledged that he had not complained in England that the Council had set prices on the inhabitants’ provisions, but stated that he had said Captain Stodden had set prices upon country provisions. A paragraph from the East India Company letter dated 5 April 1689, brought by the ship Benjamin under Captain Leonard Browne, was then openly read. It stated that a complaint had been received from an inhabitant who had travelled home on the Bansford, alleging that the Council had set prices on provisions. The Company declared that no such direction had been given and that no fixed prices were to be imposed on planters’ provisions. The sale of such goods was to remain at the free discretion of the planters, except in the case of certain articles that had previously been regulated. Following this, Stomons declared openly that the Company had ordered that two men might go to England each year and, upon their return, might write freely against those in authority, alleging abuse on the island. When questioned about the remaining part of the complaint, concerning his reported statements that the Company had granted condemned persons their real estates, Stomons replied that he believed the matter to be true. He stated that the wife of John Cotton, one of the executed persons, and sister to Sutton Quarter, had been present in an office at the East India House in London. There, a document written on parchment had been read aloud by one Mr Jackson, a clerk. Stomons stated that he had heard words to the effect that all condemned persons on the island should have their real and personal estates freely granted to them. He added that this document had been intended to be sent to St Helena. However, he denied ever stating that such a document had actually been sent, or that, if sent, it had been concealed. Interpretations The reading of the Company’s letter in open court demonstrated the authority of written instructions from London. Such documents were used to clarify policy and to test the accuracy of statements attributed to Company authority. The rejection of fixed prices on provisions affirmed the principle of market freedom for planters. This limited the Council’s ability to regulate local prices and protected the economic autonomy of inhabitants in selling their produce. The reference to complaints carried to England by passengers showed the existence of an informal channel of oversight. Individuals could report local conditions directly to the Company, creating a mechanism of external scrutiny beyond the island’s administration. The claim concerning a parchment document at the East India House indicated the perceived authority of written instruments prepared in London. Even unconfirmed reports of such documents could influence expectations about property rights and legal status on the island. The distinction made by Stomons between believing a report and asserting its execution reflected an attempt to avoid liability for spreading false information. This distinction bore directly on whether his statements constituted deliberate misrepresentation or merely repetition of rumour. Speculations The public reading of the Company’s letter suggests an effort to counter claims that the Council had overstepped its authority. By presenting the Company’s explicit rejection of price-setting, the court probably aimed to reinforce its compliance with metropolitan policy. The circulation of rumours about grants to condemned persons indicates underlying uncertainty over property rights following conviction. Such reports may have created expectations among affected individuals, contributing to tension and prompting formal inquiry to reassert control over estates. | |
255 | John Dick one that had bin Condemned was called Which it was thought requisite for satisfaction To the Relations of the Executed persons and Upon Consideration of the premises and | John Dick, one of those formerly condemned, was called and gave evidence. He affirmed that Stomons had told him he had seen the writing and heard the words previously described in one of the clerks’ offices at the East India House in London. Dick stated that he had not heard Stomons say that any such writing or packet had been concealed by the Governor on the island, although some remarks had been made in conversation tending in that direction. It had been suggested that, if such a packet had been sent, it might have been concealed. For his own satisfaction, Dick stated that he had asked Mr John Bymes, clerk to the Governor and Council on St Helena, whether any such packet had been brought by the ship Benjamin. Bymes had replied that no such packet had been received, and that no document of that nature existed. He added that whatever part of the Company’s instructions concerned the condemned persons and their estates had been made public while the ship Benjamin lay in the road. It was then judged necessary, for the satisfaction of the inhabitants and the vindication of the government, that the paragraph relating to the estates of condemned persons be read openly in court. This was done. The passage declared that the relations of the executed persons, and those who had been condemned and later pardoned, were forgiven all forfeitures to the East India Company in respect of their real estates. It further stated that similar clemency might be extended if it were considered safe for them to remain on the island, but that, for the sake of justice and the security of the settlement, the Company was bound to act firmly. No malice was held against any person, yet the island, having been subject to hostile attempts against the government, was to be secured for the benefit of future successors, given the great expense incurred by the Company in maintaining it. Upon consideration of these matters, and of Stomons, who had himself been involved in the recent rebellion and attempt upon […]. Interpretations The testimony of John Dick showed how reports circulating from London could influence perceptions on the island. Statements attributed to Company offices carried weight even when based on second-hand account. The consultation with John Bymes, clerk to the Governor and Council, demonstrated the administrative role of clerks as custodians of official correspondence. Their confirmation or denial of documents served as an authoritative check on rumour. The public reading of the Company’s instructions functioned as a formal act of clarification. It ensured that all present understood the official position regarding condemned persons and their estates, thereby countering misinformation. The remission of forfeitures relating to real estates indicated a conditional restoration of property rights. While punishment had been imposed, some property interests were allowed to remain or be returned, subject to considerations of security. The emphasis on securing the island for “posterity” reflected the Company’s long-term investment. Governance decisions were framed not only in immediate terms but in relation to the preservation of order and property for future use. The reference to rebellion highlighted the political context in which these decisions were made. Property, punishment, and clemency were all shaped by concerns over loyalty and the stability of authority. Speculations The insistence on reading the relevant paragraph in open court suggests that uncertainty or mistrust had arisen among inhabitants regarding the fate of condemned estates. This step was probably intended to restore confidence by making the Company’s position transparent. The distinction between forgiveness of forfeitures and continued concern for security indicates a balancing approach. The authorities perhaps aimed to ease tensions by restoring some rights while retaining control over individuals considered a risk to the settlement. | |
256 | [...] upon [...] as also [...] of his [...] It was thought fitt that he should have Accordingly the Court did Order That he the said Stomons be tyed to the And that he doe Enter into a Recognizance Tho: Alan Planter was called And was Ordered to prosecute the Complaint The said Alan declared that what he had In- Then the said Confession of the said Leston | […] account was taken of Stomons and of his offences, both in relation to the Honourable Company and in England, together with words spoken in court that were judged derogatory to their authority, as well as remarks made concerning the Council of the island. The nature and tendency of the reports he had spread were also considered. It was judged appropriate that a severe penalty be imposed and that he be bound to good behaviour for a considerable period. An order was made that Stomons be fined in the sum of £9 0s 0d for the use of the Honourable Company. He was further required to enter into a recognisance of £20 0s 0d, with himself bound in that amount and Edward Bryan, planter, as surety at £10 0s 0d, for his good behaviour until the next sessions and thereafter if required. Thomas Alan, planter, was then called into court and appeared. He was directed to proceed with the complaint he had made at the consultation held on 29 August 1690 against Laston, a soldier, for breaking open his chamber door and taking goods from his house valued at 30s 0d. Alan declared that the account he had previously given was true but that he had no evidence to prove that Laston had possessed the goods within the house, except for Laston’s earlier confession that he had found a […] and had thrown it into his […]. This confession was read in court. An order was then made that a jury be impanelled for the trial of Laston […]. Interpretations The imposition of a fine of £9 0s 0d for the use of the Company functioned as a punitive and financial sanction for conduct judged to undermine authority. Such fines reinforced the link between obedience and economic penalty. The requirement to enter into a recognisance of £20 0s 0d, with a surety, extended responsibility beyond the individual. It created a continuing obligation, enforceable through financial forfeiture, to secure future compliance. The reference to words spoken in court as part of the offence showed that speech within judicial proceedings could itself be actionable. Respect towards authority was expected even during defence or explanation. The summoning of Thomas Alan to pursue his earlier complaint illustrated the continuity between consultation and formal court process. Matters raised informally were required to be prosecuted with evidence before judgement could be reached. The reliance on confession as the principal evidence in the case against Laston demonstrated its evidentiary weight. In the absence of independent proof, prior admission could justify proceeding to trial. The impanelling of a jury reflected the formal structure of adjudication. Trial by jury introduced a collective judgement by members of the community, distinguishing the determination of fact from the authority of the court. | |
257 | And two or [...] persons were called who all appeared The said [...] and other persons that were nomi- All this being heard and considered by the Court The Court did grant the Country desire on Then the said [...] was brought to the Barr John [...] Thou standest Indicted by the name of [...] [...] | Several persons were called and appeared. Before they were sworn, the said […] and other nominated persons, together with several planters present in court, made a humble request that the accused not be tried by a jury for this offence and misdemeanour. They asked that the matter be passed over and forgiven, on the grounds that the goods were of small value and that no proof existed beyond his own confession that he had found some of them in his […]. The court heard and considered this request. It remained inclined towards proceeding with a trial and advanced several arguments to that effect. However, the petitioners persisted earnestly in seeking relief from further inquiry. The request of the inhabitants was granted. It was ordered that the accused be spared further prosecution for this matter. He was, however, to remain in prison to answer for neglect of duty, specifically for failing to attend the guard and for not repairing to his assigned post when an alarm had been raised upon the approach of ships to the island. The accused was then brought to the bar and indicted as follows: John […] stood indicted under that name for having, without regard to lawful conduct, and being moved by ill intent, on Monday 29 […] at about eleven o’clock at night, feloniously broken into the Honourable Company’s store room on the island. It was alleged that he had attempted to steal and carry away goods belonging to the Company but, being discovered and disturbed by Henry Jackson, then sergeant of the guard, had […]. Interpretations The intervention by planters to prevent a jury trial demonstrated the influence of community opinion within judicial proceedings. Collective requests could affect the course of prosecution, particularly in cases involving minor loss. The court’s willingness to grant the request, despite initial resistance, showed a balance between formal legal process and local sentiment. Judicial authority was exercised with regard to maintaining social cohesion as well as enforcing law. The decision to retain the accused in custody for neglect of duty separated the offences. While the alleged theft was set aside, the breach of military obligation remained actionable and subject to punishment. The reference to failure to respond to an alarm concerning approaching ships highlighted the importance of readiness in a fortified settlement. Such neglect was treated as a serious lapse affecting collective security. The formal indictment recited the elements of the alleged offence, including intent, time, place, and action. This structure framed the accusation within established legal form, even where the outcome might be altered by discretion. Speculations The agreement to forgo a jury trial in response to local petition suggests a pragmatic approach to minor offences. The authorities probably judged that enforcing a full trial would impose unnecessary strain where the loss was small and restitution uncertain. The retention of the accused in prison for military neglect indicates that discipline within the garrison was prioritised over property offences in this instance. The court perhaps sought to reinforce readiness and obedience as matters of greater immediate concern to the island’s security. | |
258 | made his escape by flight Which felonious Act Whereunto the said Prisoner pleaded Guilty Being asked what he could say for himselfe He Answered that he had nothing to say for Upon Consideration it although the said The Court Ordered that the said Prisoner Att a Court of Judicature Added to the Court Elizabeth wife of John [...], complains The Defendant Answered that he had delivered The plantiffe was ordered to name particularly | The indictment continued, stating that the prisoner had escaped by flight after the act. This offence was declared to be contrary to the peace of Their Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, and against the government and laws of the island of St Helena. The prisoner pleaded guilty and confessed the fact. When asked what he could say before sentence was passed, he stated that he had nothing to offer in his defence and humbly begged the mercy of the court. The matter was considered. Although the offence was judged to be of a serious and dangerous nature, regard was given to the prisoner’s youth and the possibility of amendment. An order was made that he be immediately tied to the gallows and whipped upon his naked body. He was then to be returned to prison and remain there until the next court martial, where he was to be tried for his offences as a soldier. A further sitting of the court of judicature was held. Elizabeth, wife of John […], brought a complaint that her husband had not delivered her clothes in accordance with the order of Council made on 20 June 1690. The defendant replied that he had delivered all the clothes he knew to belong to her. The plaintiff was directed to specify the items she claimed. She did so, and their value was assessed by several inhabitants present in court. Each item was appraised, and the total amounted to about 40s 0d. Interpretations The plea of guilty removed the need for further proof and allowed the court to proceed directly to sentencing. Confession functioned as decisive evidence within the judicial process. The sentence of public whipping at the gallows combined corporal punishment with public display. This form of penalty served both as punishment and as a visible warning to others. The reference to a subsequent court martial demonstrated that military offences were subject to a distinct jurisdiction. Civil punishment did not preclude further proceedings under military law. The valuation of the disputed clothing by inhabitants in court showed the use of local knowledge to determine worth. Such assessments enabled the court to quantify claims in the absence of fixed prices. The earlier order of Council concerning the delivery of clothing reflected the regulation of property between spouses. Enforcement of such orders ensured that personal goods were restored following separation or dispute. Speculations The decision to temper punishment in light of the prisoner’s youth suggests an attempt to balance discipline with the possibility of reform. The court probably aimed to impose a severe warning while allowing for future correction under continued supervision. The use of community appraisal to value the clothing indicates a practical reliance on those present to establish fair worth. This approach perhaps ensured acceptance of the valuation by grounding it in shared judgement rather than imposed assessment. | |
259 | The Court Ordered he should pay his wife The said Thomas Swallow being bound to the Which the Court granted and he was dischar- The persons appointed to receive in the [...] [...] Memo: Coppys of this Councell from [...] | The court ordered that the husband pay his wife 20s 0d in full satisfaction of her claim and that mutual releases be given between them. Thomas Swallow, who had been bound to good behaviour at the consultation held on 20 August 1690 until this session, requested to be discharged from his recognisance. This was granted, and he was released by public proclamation. Persons appointed to receive accounts of all cattle killed on the island from 5 January 1690 until this session submitted their lists. These were compared with the marks recorded in the mark book. The lists were read openly in court and approved. A memorandum recorded that copies of these consultations, from 20 June 1690 until 6 October 1690, were sent to the East India Company by the ship […], commanded by Captain […], which sailed from St Helena on Thursday 21 October 1690 […]. Interpretations The order requiring payment of 20s 0d with mutual release indicated a final settlement of the dispute. Mutual release extinguished further claims between the parties, ensuring that the matter could not be reopened. Discharge from a recognisance by proclamation showed that obligations for good behaviour were time-bound. Public declaration of release confirmed that the individual was no longer under legal bond. The requirement to account for cattle killed and to compare marks with those in the mark book reflected a system of livestock control. Marking identified ownership, and verification against records helped prevent theft or unauthorised slaughter. The submission and approval of lists in open court demonstrated administrative oversight. Public reading ensured transparency and allowed verification by those present. The transmission of consultation records to the Company illustrated the reporting structure linking the island to central authority. Regular dispatch of proceedings ensured that governance on the island remained subject to review and record at a higher level. Speculations The systematic recording and verification of cattle slaughter suggests concern over the management of valuable livestock resources. This process was probably intended to prevent loss through misappropriation and to maintain accurate accounting of the island’s assets. The forwarding of consultation records at set intervals indicates an effort to maintain accountability to the Company. This practice perhaps ensured that local decisions were documented and could be assessed in London, reducing the risk of unchecked authority on the island. | |
260 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Tuesday the Present [...] Blackmore Govr And Wilson Planter Complaines of Thomas The sd [...] denyes the debt and saith that The sd Wilson denyeth that ever he did Whereupon the sd [...] produced Henry [...] Planter who saith that the John [...] saith that he did heare But upon Consideration of all that | A consultation was held on Tuesday 7 October 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were […] Blackmore, Governor, Joshua Johnson, Deputy Governor, Richard Rolingo, Ensign, and […]. Andrew Wilson, planter, brought a complaint against Thomas […], stating that he had taken two of his twenty-pound shirts as payment for diet. The defendant denied the debt and stated that Wilson had promised to provide him with his diet in return for work performed. Wilson denied that any such promise had been made and added that the work done for him had been of little value. The defendant then produced witnesses. Henry […], planter, stated that he had heard Andrew Wilson promise to provide the defendant with diet in return for tending him during a period of sickness. John […] stated that he had heard Wilson say that he would provide the defendant with diet for as long as he remained in his service. The matter was then considered in light of all that had been presented by both parties […]. | |
261 | It is Ordered [...] the said [...] to pay unto the said Wm Luke [...] was appointed Marshall in the It is Ordered That the said Luke be dismissed from being [...] | An order was made that the said […] pay to the said […] the sum of one dollar in full satisfaction of all demands up to that day. William Luke, who had been appointed marshal at a consultation held in July 1690, was found unfit to execute that office. An order was made that he be dismissed from the position of marshal, and that […] perform the duties of that office until further order […]. Interpretations The award of one dollar in full satisfaction functioned as a final settlement of the dispute. It extinguished all claims between the parties up to that date, preventing further action on the same matter. The office of marshal carried responsibility for executing the orders of the court. Removal from that office on grounds of unfitness showed that performance in administrative roles was subject to review and could be terminated where standards were not met. The appointment of a replacement to officiate temporarily indicated the need for continuity in enforcement. The marshal’s role was essential to the functioning of judicial authority, requiring that the position be filled without interruption. | |
262 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Mr Blackmore Govr Tho D[...] who was appointed to Whereupon It is Ordered That Walter M[...]on be [...] | A consultation was held on Thursday 20 October 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Mr Blackmore, Governor, […] Johnson, Deputy […], and Richard Mol[…], Ensign. Thomas D[…] who had been appointed to officiate as marshal at the consultation held on 7 October 1690 requested to be dismissed from that office. An order was made that Walter M[…] be appointed marshal in his place, with all fees and privileges belonging to that office. Interpretations The office of marshal was treated as an operational role requiring active consent and capacity. A request for dismissal was accepted, indicating that service in such a position could be relinquished when the individual was unwilling or unable to perform it. The grant of “fees and privileges” formed part of the office’s structure. These provided material benefit alongside responsibility, ensuring that the execution of court orders was supported by recognised entitlement. The immediate appointment of a successor maintained continuity in enforcement. The marshal’s role was essential to the administration of justice, requiring that authority be consistently exercised without interruption. | |
263 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Mr Blackmore Govr [...] was made [...] that he That he the said [...] shall have the Rich Stace[...] Planter desired that he might It is Agreed That the said Stace[...] shall have the use [...] [...] Consultation was perfected | A consultation was held on Thursday 23 November 1690 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Mr Blackmore, Governor, […] Johnson, Deputy […], and Richard […], Ensign. […] was directed to undertake work concerning about forty swords, together with scabbards and all fittings belonging to them. These swords had been brought by a ship […] and were now delivered to him. It was agreed that he should have the use of the swords for the purpose of carrying out the required work and service. Richard Stace[…], planter, requested the use of a black boy belonging to the Honourable Company, named […], for one year from the date of the agreement, having previously hired him for part of the preceding year. It was agreed that Stace[…] should have the use of this slave for one year, paying £3 0s 0d for the term in four equal instalments. Articles of agreement were to be drawn up in the usual form. It was noted that the consultation had been completed and entered during the lifetime of a late Governor but had not been signed before his death […]. Interpretations The delivery of swords with their fittings for repair or preparation reflected the maintenance of military equipment as a routine administrative task. Such work ensured that arms remained serviceable for defence of the island. The granting of temporary possession of the swords for the purpose of performing the work indicated a controlled transfer of Company property. Responsibility for the items remained tied to the assigned task. The hiring of a Company-owned slave to a planter demonstrated the structured use of enslaved labour as a revenue-generating asset. The fixed annual sum and staged payments created a formal contractual arrangement. The requirement that articles of agreement be drawn up in the usual form showed reliance on standardised documentation. This ensured consistency in the terms governing such arrangements and facilitated enforcement. The note that the consultation had been entered during the lifetime of a previous Governor but left unsigned until after his death indicated the importance of formal authentication. Signature served to confirm validity, and its absence required acknowledgment within the record. Speculations The assignment of swords for repair suggests that newly arrived or stored weapons required attention before being issued. This action was probably taken to ensure readiness of arms in response to ongoing concerns for the island’s defence. The repeated hiring of the same slave by Stace[…] indicates an established working relationship. This continuity perhaps reflects the planter’s reliance on familiar labour, as well as the Company’s interest in maintaining steady income from such arrangements. | |
264 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday Present Josh Johnson Govr Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God by Wee do therefore look on it our obliged in | A consultation was held on Tuesday 2 December 1690 at about eight o’clock in the morning at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Joshua Johnson, Governor, and Richard Mol[…], Deputy Governor. It was recorded that Mr Blackmore, late Governor, had died suddenly on 30 November 1690 at about six o’clock in the evening. His death was described as a great loss, both in personal regard and in the discharge of his office, which he had held for more than twelve years. The absence of his leadership was felt in the management of the affairs of the East India Company on the island. In view of this vacancy, and in accordance with the Company’s orders and instructions brought by the ship B[…] This step was taken despite the fact that the time fixed by the Company for such an appointment had not yet been reached, that period not expiring until January 1691, being one year from the arrival of Captain Browne’s ship at the island. Interpretations The reference to the Company’s orders and instructions showed that even in circumstances of sudden death, local authority remained grounded in prior directives. Actions taken in emergency were justified by reference to these instructions. The reduction of the Council to two members created a procedural difficulty. A minimum number of councillors was required to ensure proper deliberation, voting, and recording of decisions. The decision to appoint an additional councillor before the prescribed time indicated the exercise of discretionary authority. This allowed governance to continue without interruption despite deviation from formal schedule. The functions assigned to the new councillor, including voting and recording dissent, reflected the structured nature of Council proceedings. Formal participation ensured that decisions carried recognised legitimacy. Speculations The immediate move to appoint an additional councillor suggests concern over the risks of operating with too few decision-makers. The remaining members probably sought to avoid deadlock or challenges to authority by restoring a fuller governing body. The emphasis on the deceased Governor’s long service indicates that his absence may have created uncertainty in administration. The prompt action to fill the gap perhaps aimed to reassure both inhabitants and the Company that governance would continue in an orderly manner. | |
265 | And Accordingly It is Ordered That the said Capt Stephen Corier doe [...] | An order was made that Captain Stephen Corier take his place in the Council and act with full authority to vote and participate in all matters as required […]. Interpretations The appointment of Captain Stephen Corier to the Council filled the vacancy created by the Governor’s death. This ensured that the governing body retained sufficient members to conduct its business. The authority granted to vote and act confirmed that Corier held full status as a councillor. His role was not provisional in function, even if prompted by an emergency, and his participation carried equal weight in decision-making. The formal order of appointment demonstrated that legitimacy depended on recorded authority. Entry into the Council was effected through explicit command, ensuring recognition of his position within the administrative structure. Speculations The selection of Corier suggests that a person already trusted or experienced was chosen to stabilise governance. This decision was probably intended to maintain continuity and avoid uncertainty during a period of transition following the Governor’s death. | |
266 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Tuesday the Present Josh Johnson Govr Whereas o[r] late Govr Mr Blackmore Esq It is thought requisite and necessary that The Names of wch Jury hereafter follow Vizt [...] Miles 1 Planters Jn Ford [...] 9 [...] of the Jury of Inquest Henry Manning Chirurgeon added Assistant | A consultation was held on Tuesday 2 December 1690 at about nine o’clock in the morning at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Those present were Joshua Johnson, Governor, Richard Mol[…], Deputy Governor, and Captain Stephen Corier of the Council. It was recorded that the late Governor, Mr Blackmore, had on Monday 1 December 1690, while coming from the country towards Fort James, suddenly fallen from the side of a […] into a place called Bowmans Stone, near the foot of Ladder Hill. He had died from this fall. It was judged necessary that a formal inquiry be made according to the law, custom, and usage of England. A jury of inquest was therefore assembled to examine and determine the manner and cause of the Governor’s death. The jurors were sworn accordingly. The names of the jury were recorded as follows: […] Miles, Beni Leach, John C[…], Beni Willis, John Richo[…], Thomas Dominey, William Hayes, John Shovell, planters, John Ford […], Thomas Goodwin […], Thomas Na[…] with Gunn Mate […], and Cooke with Arms […]. Henry Manning, surgeon, was added as an assistant to the jury of inquest. Interpretations The convening of a jury of inquest reflected the application of English legal procedure to the island. Sudden or unexplained deaths required formal investigation to establish cause and to determine whether any fault or wrongdoing was involved. The reference to law, custom, and usage of England showed that colonial governance drew directly upon metropolitan legal traditions. These practices were adapted locally to maintain recognised standards of inquiry. The composition of the jury, including planters and others, indicated community participation in the process. Such juries brought local knowledge and collective judgement to the determination of fact. The inclusion of a surgeon as assistant to the jury introduced specialised knowledge into the inquiry. Medical assessment could assist in explaining the cause of death, particularly in cases involving injury. The recording of the exact location of the fall, near Bowmans Stone and Ladder Hill, demonstrated attention to physical circumstance. Establishing place was essential to understanding the sequence and nature of events leading to death. Speculations The immediate establishment of an inquest suggests concern to clarify whether the Governor’s death was accidental or involved other causes. Given his office, a clear determination would have been necessary to prevent suspicion or dispute. The addition of a surgeon to assist the jury indicates that the injuries from the fall required interpretation. This measure was probably intended to ensure that the conclusion rested on informed assessment rather than assumption. | |
267 | Then the worp Josh Johnson did on That he the said Josh Johnson Govr and the Next Mr Symes Factor was by the Coroner | Joshua Johnson, now Governor, was sworn and gave evidence to the jury concerning the death of the late Governor. He stated that on Monday 1 December 1690, at about six o’clock in the afternoon, he and Mr Blackmore, together with their two boys, had been returning from the country. At that time, the late Governor had slipped from the path and fallen down a steep and stony place beyond any possibility of assistance before Johnson had any awareness of the fall. Johnson declared that he had immediately called out to Mr Symes, whom he had seen in the valley below waiting for the Governor’s return near the foot of the hill, to inform him of the event. The fall was described as so violent that Johnson believed the late Governor had lost his senses at the first descent. No cry had been heard except words such as “O help” or “O help me” when he reached the bottom. The late Governor was taken up dead at the foot of the steep place, near the water in the valley known as C[…] Valley. Johnson stated that he had sent his boy to inform the garrison of the event with all speed. Assistance was then brought to the place, and the Governor’s body was carried into Fort James, to the great grief of all present. Johnson declared that he had freely and voluntarily made this statement on oath and subscribed to it. Mr Symes, factor, was then examined by the coroner and jury. He testified on oath that on Monday 1 December 1690, at about six o’clock in the morning, he had gone to meet the late Governor as he returned from the country. He had entered into the valley called C[…] Valley, expecting the Governor to come that way rather than by the country path, and had proceeded beyond […]. Interpretations The sworn testimony of Joshua Johnson formed the principal account of the incident. As an eyewitness, his statement provided a direct narrative used by the jury to determine the cause of death. The description of the fall and its effects established the event as accidental. Emphasis on the suddenness and violence of the fall supported the conclusion that death resulted from mischance rather than external cause. The summoning of witnesses, including Mr Symes, showed the systematic gathering of evidence. Multiple testimonies were used to corroborate circumstances and confirm the sequence of events. The involvement of the coroner and jury reflected adherence to formal procedure in cases of sudden death. Their role was to assess evidence and reach a finding consistent with established legal practice. The transport of the body to Fort James indicated the central role of the fort as the administrative and ceremonial centre of the island. It served as the place where official actions following death were carried out. Speculations The detailed account of the fall suggests a need to remove any suspicion surrounding the Governor’s death. Given his position, the authorities probably aimed to establish clearly that the cause was accidental. The rapid communication with the garrison and the gathering of assistance indicate the importance of collective response. This action perhaps served both practical and symbolic purposes, demonstrating unity and order in the face of sudden loss. | |
268 | [...] house Mr Symes did see the aforesaid late Wherein Mr Symes had given the Jury what The next that was Examined was the late Govr wᶜᵗ This done the Govr Ensignes Holms and Mr Symes | Mr Symes stated that he had seen the late Governor, Mr Blackmore, and Captain Joshua Johnson, then Deputy Governor, approaching with two black boys on the hillside known as Butty Hill, near a stone called Bowmans […]. He had been on the opposite side of a stream and had not seen the moment when the Governor first slipped from the path. He saw Johnson signal to him and cry out that the Governor was dead. Symes ran along the water and then saw the Governor lying at some distance within the stream. He entered the water and helped to raise him. He called out, as if asking for a knife, but heard no words from the Governor, only a faint groan. Shortly after, Johnson arrived and, with Symes’s assistance, removed the body from the water. Symes stated that he had given the jury all the information he could concerning the fall and death, and he made oath to its truth and subscribed his name. The next witness examined was Ambrose, a slave belonging to the late Governor, about 20 years of age, who had lived with him for seven or eight years. He stated that as his master was descending the rock from which he fell, he had seen him lean upon his stick or bamboo, lose his balance, turn upon his heel, and fall down. Following these examinations, the Governor, Ensign Holmes, Mr Symes acting as coroner, and the jury went to view the place from which the late Governor had fallen. After careful inspection, the coroner and jury withdrew into a separate room. Having considered all the evidence, they delivered their verdict to the Governor and Council. Interpretations The testimony of Mr Symes provided corroboration of the circumstances immediately following the fall. His account confirmed the location of the body and the absence of sustained speech, supporting the conclusion of a fatal accident. The evidence of Ambrose offered a direct observation of the moment of the fall. His statement that the Governor lost balance while leaning on a stick established a physical cause consistent with accidental misstep. The viewing of the site by the coroner and jury formed a critical part of the inquest process. Inspection of the terrain allowed the jurors to assess the plausibility of the accounts given and to connect testimony with physical evidence. The withdrawal of the jury for deliberation reflected the structured procedure of inquest. Evidence was considered collectively before a formal verdict was delivered. The inclusion of a slave’s testimony demonstrated that evidence could be received from individuals across social status where relevant to establishing fact. Such testimony was incorporated into formal proceedings when it bore directly on the event under inquiry. Speculations The combination of eyewitness testimony and physical inspection suggests a deliberate effort to produce a clear and unquestionable conclusion. The authorities probably aimed to eliminate any doubt regarding the cause of death given the Governor’s position. The reliance on Ambrose’s account indicates that those closest to the deceased at the moment of the fall were essential to reconstructing events. His presence at the scene perhaps provided the most immediate explanation of how the accident occurred. | |
269 | Island St Helena Wee whose Names are here under Written being Impannell’d a Jury with a Corroner (by the Govʳ & Councell) and sworne to make Enquire into and after the manner of the death of our late Governor John Blackmore Esqʳ According to Duty and Charge Given unto Us, haveing viewed the Corps of the aforesaid Govʳ and searched his wounds and also the place from which he fell, do by severall Evidences upon Oath being strictly Examined by us to satisfactory Answers Returned, It is Evident by all Answers and we are satisfied in our Consciences that the Death of the said Govʳ John Blackmore Esqʳ was Occasioned by the Violence of the fall he Rec[eive]d, and the Steepness of the place from which he fell, haveing severall perpendicular Rockes, which wee Judge and are satisfyed were from whence he fell, from which wee deliver as our Verdict according to Consciences Henry Cales Corroner Jnᵒ Midg[e] Jnᵒ Hird After the Corroner and Jury had delivered their aforesaid Verdict it was considered when the Corps of our late | An inquest was held on 2 December 1690 on the island of St Helena. A jury, impanelled with a coroner by the Governor and Council, was sworn to inquire into the manner of the death of the late Governor, John Blackmore, Esquire. The jury viewed the body, examined the injuries, and inspected the place from which he had fallen. Evidence was taken upon oath and carefully examined. From this evidence, and upon full consideration, the jury declared themselves satisfied that the death of the Governor had been caused by the violence of the fall he had received and by the steepness of the place, which consisted of several perpendicular rocks from which he had fallen. This conclusion was delivered as their verdict according to conscience. The verdict was signed by Henry Cales, coroner, John Midg[…], John Cotgrave, Quin Willis, Richard Leach, John Mitchell, William Hayes, John Shorron, Edward Dom[…], John Hird, Thomas Raine, Andrew Booker, and Thomas Goodwin. After the coroner and jury had delivered their verdict, it was then considered when the body of the late Governor […]. Interpretations The impanelling of a jury with a coroner followed established legal procedure for investigating sudden death. This ensured that the determination of cause was made through formal inquiry rather than assumption. The requirement that the jury view the body and inspect the place of the fall demonstrated the integration of physical evidence into legal judgement. Observation of injuries and terrain formed the basis of their conclusion. The reliance on sworn testimony and the emphasis on “satisfactory answers” reflected the evidentiary standard applied. The jury’s role was to weigh testimony and reach a reasoned determination grounded in oath. The verdict that death resulted from the fall and the nature of the terrain formally classified the event as accidental. This finding excluded suspicion of foul play and resolved the matter within legal record. The signing of the verdict by multiple jurors and the coroner confirmed collective agreement. Such subscription gave authority and finality to the finding as an official act. Speculations The detailed reference to the steep and rocky terrain suggests that the jury sought to anchor its conclusion firmly in observable conditions. This emphasis probably aimed to ensure that the verdict would not be questioned. The formal and collective nature of the verdict indicates an effort to produce a clear and authoritative record. Given the Governor’s status, the jury perhaps intended to eliminate any doubt by presenting a unified and carefully supported conclusion. | |
270 | [...] on Consideration that he ye late Govʳ was It was therefore Ordered That ye late Govʳ Interment should be on ye And to ye end that nothing be wanting whereby It was Ordered That Directions should be gotten against that That Scarves and Hat bands be provided for them That Invitation be given to all Housekeepers on That there be Provisions made what is necessary That ye Drums and Colours be put in Mourning That there be four Vollies of small Armes fired That there be twenty of ye smallest Guns about It was then also Ordered That an Inventory of ye late Govʳs Goods and [...] Jno Johnson | After consideration, it was observed that the late Governor had been of large body and had suffered severe bruising from the fall. It was judged that he could not be suitably kept for burial without causing difficulty to those nearby. An order was therefore made that his interment take place on the following afternoon, Wednesday 3 December 1690. It was further resolved that all proper respect be shown to his memory, and that the burial be conducted in as solemn and decent a manner as the circumstances of the island and the shortness of time would allow. An order was made that suitable arrangements be prepared if possible on the island. Six colours were to be appointed to attend and bear up […] at the ceremony. Scarves and hatbands were to be provided for them. Invitations were to be sent to all householders on the island to attend the funeral and accompany the body to the grave. Provision was to be made for refreshment, including bread and drink, for those present. It was also ordered that the drums and colours be put into mourning. Four volleys of small arms were to be fired at the grave, followed by the discharge of twenty of the smallest guns about the fort. A further order was made that an inventory be taken of the late Governor’s goods and chattels as soon as possible, and that this inventory be […] and sent […]. The record was subscribed by Joshua Johnson. Interpretations The decision to proceed quickly with burial reflected practical concerns relating to the condition of the body. Physical state and climate influenced the timing of interment, requiring prompt action. The organisation of a formal funeral ceremony demonstrated the ceremonial role of governance. Public rites served to honour office and reinforce hierarchy within the community. The inclusion of military elements, such as volleys of small arms and the firing of guns, indicated the Governor’s position as both civil and military authority. Such honours marked his status within the island’s command structure. The provision of food and drink for attendees showed the communal aspect of the event. Attendance by householders and shared refreshment reinforced collective participation in mourning. The order to take an inventory of goods and chattels reflected administrative procedure following death. Recording property ensured accountability and prepared for settlement of the deceased’s estate. Speculations The scale and detail of the funeral arrangements suggest an intention to display continuity and stability in governance. By conducting a formal and well-ordered ceremony, the authorities probably aimed to reassure the inhabitants during a moment of transition. The prompt ordering of an inventory indicates concern to secure the late Governor’s estate. This action perhaps sought to prevent dispute or misappropriation while ensuring that all property could be properly accounted for and reported. | |
271 | An Inventory of the Goods and Chattles of the late Go[...] Gn[r] Blackmore [t]k[en] taken on the [y]ou and Councell with th[e] Gn[r] Symos ffacto on the 4 and 5 dayes of Decemb 1690 [A]l Likewise an Appraisomt made of the said Goods th[e] [&]y [st] Orlando Eagly, and mr Edward Edmunds, [P]landors, on tho[s] day of Jany 1690 [91] Out of the late Gou Deceased Ladyes Closett [t]vi[t] In a small Chest. Gold Silver Money oz dt g[r] oz dt g[r] [£] s d His late [Gou] [A]figos in [Letto] in a Gold frame . . . t[e]io whole [B]read p[i]s of [y]ald and t[e]iro halffe dette, [o]t[ith] two whole G[i]nnyes and two halffe dette . . . [D]oauon Ceparges g[t] . . . 3 19 12 [D]oauon [R]oors p[i]s of [f]orraigrne gold g[t] . . . [s] 19 10 two [P]rince of Orange [m]odalos, [ri] silver, one [s]mall one Large . . . 2 19 18 two [d]o[a]vitts [M]odalos, one[a] silver, the Othor Guilt . . . 2[s] 4 00 one [f]airofax [M]odalon gold and [s]mall [P]icture . . . 7 10 [S]ourloon p[i]s of Gold who[re][o]f two are [s]hanlanos . . . [1]th 17 12 . /· The aforesaid [A]ticulars are in a [C]lack Square [C]ette[d] N[o] [s] [B]ox . . . [S]ev[e][r] p[i]s of [B]roaken [B]lu[rr] [A] two [T]obaice [S]lopers, and one [T]ouch, with three pairs of [C]lapros in [...] N[o] [2] daleo . . . 4 . Ringes in a [C]or[n]ed [L]achar [B]ox, [V]iz one G[o]ynt Gold Ring one Ring of gold with a large stone . . . . . one do of Silver [t]h a stone Two Gold funerall Ringes [Borne Chor-] | An inventory of the goods and chattels of the late Governor Blackmore was taken by the Governor and Council together with Mr Symes, factor, on 4 and 5 December 1690. An appraisal of the same goods was later made by Orlando Eagly and Mr Edward Edmunds, planters, on […] January 1691. From the late Governor’s lady’s closet were listed the following items: In a small chest were contained sums of gold and silver money […]. A portrait of the late Governor set in a gold frame was recorded. Several pieces of gold coin were noted, including whole and half pieces, together with two whole guineas and two half guineas. Certain foreign gold coins described as ducatons or similar pieces were valued at £3 19s 12d. Additional foreign gold coins were valued at £[…] 19s 10d. Two medals of the Prince of Orange, in silver, one small and one large, were valued at £2 19s 18d. Two further medals, one in silver and the other gilt, were valued at £2 4s 0d. One Fairfax medal in gold, together with a small picture, was valued at £7 10s 0d. Several pieces of gold, including two described as shillings or similar coins, were valued at £[…] 17s 12d. These articles were contained within a black square box […]. Several pieces of broken blue […] were also recorded, together with two tobacco stoppers and one touch […], and three pairs of clasps, contained in another box, valued at £4 […]. Rings were listed in a lacquered box, including one jointed gold ring, one gold ring set with a large stone, one silver ring with a stone, and two gold funeral rings […]. Interpretations The taking of an inventory immediately after death reflected a formal administrative process. Goods and chattels were recorded to establish the extent of the estate and to ensure accountability. The subsequent appraisal by appointed planters showed that valuation required local assessment. Trusted individuals were selected to assign monetary worth to items, translating goods into financial terms. The presence of foreign coins and medals indicated participation in wider trade networks. Such items reflected both wealth and connections beyond the island. The recording of items by location, such as within the lady’s closet and specific boxes, demonstrated an organised approach to property. This method preserved information about storage and ownership within the household. The inclusion of personal objects, such as rings and portraits, alongside money and coinage showed that both sentimental and monetary items were subject to inventory. All forms of property were treated as part of the estate. The use of varied coin types and valuations illustrated the complexity of currency in circulation. Conversion into sterling values allowed for standardised accounting despite diverse origins of the items. Speculations The careful listing of valuables from the lady’s closet suggests concern to secure items that were both portable and easily concealed. This step was probably intended to prevent loss or dispute during the transition following the Governor’s death. The inclusion of medals and commemorative objects indicates that such items held recognised value beyond ornament. Their appraisal suggests they were treated not only as symbols but also as assets within the estate. | |
272 | Brought Over- four Cornelion Ringes One[d] inlaid with [g]od One Diamond Ring with three stones and t[i]ve Sparks One G[o]l Ring i[d] [S]auon stones One Wod[d]ing Gold Ring - - - One G[o]l[d]Ring [o]f a G[r]een Stone One pairs of [M][l]aro Ringes with dropps - - - - - Two p[r] of God Buttons fo[r] Cloutes [g]ot with Stones Three S[h]arbo [allot] Diamonde with one Red Stone in a lette paper . . . Three p[r] G[o]d Buttons M[o]n[e]r la wo[r]ke one Gold Chaine . . . . one p[r] of Gold Wapo g[t] . . 13 12 . . two pair of plaine Silver [k]n[o][e] [S]uckl[e]s One [p]r d[e] [g]ott [t] Stones The aforesaid Ringes [t]h are [s]oaled [u]p in a N[o] [3] Smal Gord[n] [L]achred Box. One Silver Tobacco- Box, at those [A]liculars [S]eue do[t] and four [S]elvor Buttons, [C]over, M[ar]bla work[s] on Silver Thimble . . . One S[l]vor [S]oale . . . . Two p[r] ofSmal Silver Shirt[k] Buttons . . . 8 · 15· 00 One Silver Tin i[d] Stone[r] One p[r] of Silver [H]odkin All the aforesaid [A]ticu- N[o] [4] lars, are [s]oaled [u]p in the [y]o- [o]red Silver Tobacco- Box. N[o] [5] Fourteen Large Silver [S]olton[s] in a little Begg[s] all the aforesaid [A]ticu[lars] [S]ol[d] [u]p f[o]r [t]h[e] [f]ir[st] [v]i[s] Begg [m]ailes [No] [1] [C]ome Over- | Further items were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore. Four cornelian rings were listed, one set with gold. One diamond ring set with three stones and five small sparks was noted. One gold ring set with seven stones was recorded, together with one wedding gold ring. Another gold ring set with a green stone was included. One pair of earrings with drops was also listed. Two pairs of gold buttons for clothes, set with stones, were noted. Three small diamond pieces with one red stone, contained in a paper, were recorded. Three pairs of gold buttons of another workmanship were listed, along with one gold chain. One pair of gold […] was valued at £13 12s 0d. Two pairs of plain silver knee buckles were recorded, together with one pair set with stones. All these rings were sealed up in a small green lacquered box marked No. 3. A silver tobacco box was listed, containing several small articles. These included seven […] and four silver buttons, one silver thimble, one silver seal, two pairs of small silver shirt buttons valued together at £8 15s 0d, one silver tin set with stones, and one pair of silver bodkins. All these items were sealed up within the silver tobacco box marked No. 4. Fourteen large silver spoons were recorded in a small bag, all sealed together as part of the inventory […]. Interpretations The continued listing of rings, jewellery, and small valuables demonstrated the detailed accounting applied to portable wealth. Such items were carefully recorded and secured due to their high value and ease of removal. The use of numbered boxes and sealed containers showed a controlled method of storage. Sealing ensured that contents could not be altered without detection, preserving the integrity of the inventory. The valuation of selected items in sterling provided a standard measure of worth. This allowed diverse goods to be incorporated into a unified financial account of the estate. The presence of both gold and silver items indicated a range of wealth forms. Precious metals served both ornamental and economic functions within the household. The inclusion of clothing accessories, such as buttons and buckles, reflected their material value. Items worn on the person could represent significant portions of personal wealth. The recording of spoons and domestic silverware showed that household goods were also treated as assets. Such items could be used, exchanged, or melted, and therefore required formal inclusion in the estate. Speculations The sealing of items into numbered boxes suggests an effort to maintain strict control over the estate during a period of transition. This procedure probably aimed to prevent disputes or loss before final settlement. The prominence of jewellery and small valuables in the inventory indicates that wealth was partly held in portable form. This arrangement perhaps provided flexibility in storage, transport, and exchange within a remote island setting. | |
273 | Brought Over Silver Platto g[i]t Nine Silver Spoons whereof one a Broaken One d[o] [C]hild, and a handle of a Bread on dett[o] 17·00·00 Six [T]roncho[r] Salts, [S]mall One Table Salt with [A]rols 3 . . . . 18· 6· 00 Two Tumblors One [T]ankar 39· 6· 00 and Silver [C]andlo [C]up w[th] Cover One detto witho[u]t Two [C]orrengors 38 15 One Small Cupp with Eares One [C]late One Broaken head of [S]ane One dram Cupp Small . . . 13· 9· 0 N[o] 6 All[e] Silver and Gold Lace in a [C]amms Bagg 21 [3/] One Copper [T]onqueon Box One Ivory head i[th] a po[r][p]ocketino Gla[s] One [L]itle Ivory Box Three G[a]lper [A]ust[e]nia [P]eares in a Litte Lachor Box . . . One Case of Tweezers [I]mperfect One Horno [S]kitt, for Casion One Scotch [D]irke One Gold watch with double Caso One Stone Supposed to be Bazoor in a Litte wooden Box N[o] 7 All and Every one of all the foremention [P]orkiculars are in a Small Chest Marked- Wooming Gownes Sell with Other Woureing App[a]rell and [p]y or [G]orne[a] of Cloth th[o] in a [S]all Large Bed Trunke with Brasse [D]i[r]t . . . 3 Dolls One Mans Silke Gowne Large [L]ined with Green . . . 05· 0· One Womans ditto Lined with Red 04· 0· and do Olive [C]uller quilted 06· and do Lyned with Black Gause . . . 08· ½· Borne Over- 18 [½] | Further items were recorded as part of the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore. Silver plate gilt was listed. Nine silver spoons were noted, one broken, together with one small spoon and the handle of another, valued at £17 0s 0d. Six trencher salts and one small table salt with a cover were valued at £3 18s 6d. Two tumblers and one tankard were valued at £39 6s 0d. One silver candle cup with cover, another without cover, and two porringers were valued at £38 15s 0d. One small cup with ears, one plate, one broken head of a spoon, and one small dram cup were valued at £13 9s 0d. All silver and gold lace contained in a canvas bag was valued at £21 […]. A copper […] box was listed, together with one ivory-handled object with a small looking glass, one small ivory box, and three […] stones or beads in a small lacquered box. One case of tweezers, imperfect, one horn instrument for […] use, one Scotch dirk, one gold watch with double case, and one stone supposed to be a bezoar in a small wooden box were also recorded. All the foregoing particulars were contained in a small chest marked No. 7. Wearing apparel was then listed. Several gowns and other garments, together with pieces of cloth, were contained in a large bed trunk with brass fittings, valued at 3 dollars. One man’s silk gown, lined with green, was valued at £5 0s 0d. One woman’s gown lined with red was valued at £4 0s 0d. Another of olive colour, quilted, was valued at £6 0s 0d. One gown lined with black gauze was valued at £8 0s 6d. Interpretations The listing of silver plate and domestic vessels demonstrated the value placed on household metalware. Such items served both practical and financial functions, being capable of reuse, exchange, or melting. The categorisation and valuation of goods in grouped entries reflected systematic accounting practice. Items were aggregated and priced to facilitate overall assessment of the estate. The presence of a gold watch and specialised objects, such as a dirk and a bezoar stone, indicated both status and the variety of personal possessions held. These items combined practical, decorative, and symbolic value. The recording of lace as a distinct category showed its importance as a valuable textile. Gold and silver lace represented a form of wealth embedded in clothing and decoration. The storage of goods in marked chests and trunks demonstrated organised management of property. Labelling allowed items to be tracked and verified within the inventory process. The valuation of clothing alongside metal goods indicated that garments were treated as significant assets. Their material, lining, and condition influenced their assessed worth within the estate. Speculations The concentration of silverware and valuable textiles suggests that wealth was held in durable and transportable forms. This arrangement probably reflected the practical needs of a remote trading settlement, where goods had to retain value across distance. The inclusion of objects such as a bezoar stone indicates the retention of items believed to have special properties. Such possessions perhaps combined perceived medicinal or protective value with their status as rare curiosities. | |
274 | Brought Over 18 ½ One d[o] Lac[t] i[th] Black, One Stomacher with d[o] 004 . One Flowre[d] Mantua d[o] Lyned with white[n] with One ditto Stomacher 008 . One Blue Sattin [P]otty Coate, with Gold & Silver Lace 020 . One ditto Mohaire[d] [C]ourle Couler 008 ½ One Red [C]uttanoe [P]otty Coate with Silver Lace 005 . One Flowred Silke Gowne Lyned i[th] white [C]uttanoe 006 . One Flowred [P]otty Coate Lyled i[th] white Sar[s]neet 002 ½ One Womane [O]l[d] Clonke Flowred 001 ½ One Black [W]ater[e]d [G]abby [P]otty Coate [M]uch worne 001 . One Scarlett Cloth Gowne, [M]aws Lyned i[th] Red [S]orge 008 . One quilted Wast Coate, mans [s]hout Slinos 002 . One [C]hile[s] red Volvolt Mankle O[l]d 002 . One [E]mbrodred [S]hould [B]olt 010 . One p[r] of Woome[ns] Shoes Lac[t] 000 ½ One p[r] of red Volvolt Slippers 000 ½ One p[r] of Black plaine China Silke 0[1]0 . One [R]omna of quilted Cloth for Wast Coates [o]f [6] y[d]s 003 . One [R]omna[t] of Silke g[t] 3 y[d] 002 . One Caip Flowred, [f]acob with furr, Mans 001 . One d[o] Flowred Scarlett [f]ac[t] with furr 001 ½ One d[o] Flowred, with Spangles Old 000 ½ One [A]pplet dove Collet Silke 002 . One p[r] of white [D]olong 002 ½ One p[r] of Flowred [T]onquoon Silke 002 ½ Three Bitts of an Old [E]mbrodred Wast Coate 001 ½ One Old Linong for a Wast Coake 000 [3/4] Two [E]mbrodred Swool [L]aggs 003 . One d[o] Spanyco[d] . . four Old Small Flowred [C]oach Curtaines 001 . Two Chil[d] Bood Suites, and two Pair Pillowes 004 ½ One [D]aloin [C]ore 005 . One d[o] Cutt 003 . One p[r] of [B]ongall [S]kripos 002 ½ two p[r] of Black [C]hunke 004 . One [R]omnt of Black d[o] g[t] 3 y[d]a 001 ½ One [R]omnt of [S]orge g[t] 6 y[d] [... ...] 002 ½ [A]lmost a p[r] of Course [S]trined [M]uzleing g[t] 10 y[d]s 003 ½ One Romnt of Callico [A] 5 y[d] 003 ½ Two Romnts of Course plaine [M]uzleing g[t] 9 y[d]s 002 ½ One Romt of India diaper g[t] 6[½] y[d]s 001 ½ Borne Over 168[·]- | Further items of wearing apparel and cloth were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore, with the total brought forward at £18 10s 0d. One lace garment with black trimming and one stomacher with the same were valued at £4 0s 0d. One flowered mantua lined with white, together with a matching stomacher, was valued at £8 0s 0d. One blue satin petticoat with gold and silver lace was valued at £20 0s 0d. One mohair petticoat of a darker colour was valued at £8 10s 0d. One red petticoat with silver lace was valued at £5 0s 0d. One flowered silk gown lined with white was valued at £6 0s 0d. One flowered petticoat lined with white sarcenet was valued at £2 10s 0d. One old woman’s cloak, flowered, was valued at £1 10s 0d. One black watered gown, much worn, was valued at £1 0s 0d. One scarlet cloth gown lined with red serge was valued at £8 0s 0d. One quilted waistcoat was valued at £2 0s 0d. One old red velvet mantle was valued at £2 0s 0d. One embroidered shoulder belt was valued at £10 0s 0d. One pair of women’s lace shoes and one pair of red velvet slippers were each valued at £0 10s 0d. One pair of black plain China silk items was valued at £1 0s 0d. One remnant of quilted cloth for waistcoats, measuring 6 yards, was valued at £3 0s 0d. One remnant of silk, 3 yards, was valued at £2 0s 0d. One man’s cap, flowered and faced with fur, was valued at £1 0s 0d. One flowered scarlet cap with fur was valued at £1 10s 0d. One old flowered cap with spangles was valued at £0 10s 0d. One silk item of dove colour was valued at £2 0s 0d. One pair of white […] was valued at £2 10s 0d. One pair of flowered Tonquoon silk items was valued at £2 10s 0d. Three pieces of an old embroidered waistcoat were valued at £1 10s 0d. One old linen for a waistcoat was valued at £0 15s 0d. Two embroidered wool […] were valued at £3 0s 0d. One […] Spanyco[…] was listed […]. Four old small flowered coach curtains were valued at £1 0s 0d. Two children’s bodice suits and two pairs of pillows were valued at £4 10s 0d. One […] core was valued at £5 0s 0d. One cut […] was valued at £3 0s 0d. One pair of […] was valued at £2 10s 0d. Two pairs of black […] were valued at £4 0s 0d. One remnant of black cloth, 3 yards, was valued at £1 10s 0d. One remnant of serge, 6 yards, was valued at £2 10s 0d. Almost one piece of coarse striped muslin, 10 yards, was valued at £3 10s 0d. One remnant of calico, 5 yards, was valued at £3 10s 0d. Two remnants of coarse plain muslin, 9 yards, were valued at £2 10s 0d. One remnant of India diaper, 6½ yards, was valued at £1 10s 0d. The total of these items was carried forward at £168 […]. Interpretations The extensive listing of garments and textiles demonstrated the scale of wealth held in clothing. Materials such as silk, satin, velvet, and lace indicated high value and status within the household. The detailed valuation of each item, including remnants measured by the yard, showed the integration of textiles into formal accounting. Even partial pieces of cloth were treated as assets with assignable worth. The presence of both finished garments and unfinished materials reflected a dual function. Clothing could be worn, while cloth remnants could be repurposed or traded. The variety of imported fabrics, including China silk and India muslin, illustrated the reach of global trade networks. Such goods connected the island’s economy to wider commercial systems managed by the East India Company. The inclusion of worn and old items alongside newer garments indicated that value was retained even in used goods. Condition affected price but did not exclude items from the inventory. Speculations The large quantity of textile goods suggests that clothing functioned as a principal store of wealth. In a remote settlement, such materials could be exchanged, reused, or adapted, providing flexibility beyond coin. The careful recording of remnants implies an intention to maximise value from all materials. This practice perhaps reflected the limited supply environment, where even small quantities of fabric held practical and economic importance. | |
275 | Brought Over The late Govʳ Wearing Apparell one sarge Coate wᵗ silver twist ........ 002 Gloves Leather one paire of silke Damaske ............... 001 ½ Beding wᵗ Vizt one Bedstead stock with iron screws ...... 001 ½ Some Over | Further items were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore, comprising his wearing apparel and household goods. His clothing included one serge coat with silver twist valued at £2 0s 0d. One coat lined with white China silk, together with a pair of breeches belonging to it, was valued at £4 0s 0d. One serge campaign coat was valued at £2 0s 0d. One red coat with silver lace was valued at £5 0s 0d. One very old black mullet coat was valued at £5 0s 0d. One silk coat with brass buttons, very old, was valued at £5 10s 0d. One old furrendine doublet was valued at £1 0s 0d. Two pairs of white satin breeches were valued at £3 0s 0d. One leather waistcoat was valued at £3 0s 0d. One doublet cloak with silver and scarves was valued at £2 0s 0d. Two pairs of silk stockings were valued at £3 0s 0d, and three further pairs at £6 0s 0d. One old pair of shoes with embroidered bolsters, of little value, was valued at £0 3s 0d. One new Turkey-work carpet stool cushion was valued at £6 0s 0d. Four suits and two black velvet caps, together with one […] were valued at £4 0s 0d. One old Turkey-work carpet was valued at £3 0s 0d. Items contained within a small red trunk inside a larger red trunk included leather gloves, one pair of silk damask gloves valued at £1 10s 0d, one pair with gold fringe, and four plain pairs. One very old black lace beard was valued at £5 0s 0d. One black gauze hood was valued at £5 0s 0d. One white satin hood was valued at £0 10s 0d. One old lace coronet and hood was valued at £0 5s 0d. One pair of ordinary embroidered slippers was valued at £0 10s 0d. One man’s black silk cap was valued at £0 5s 0d. Three silk sashes were valued at £3 0s 0d, and one old sash at £0 5s 0d. Two China locks of brass were valued at £5 0s 0d. Three remnants of ribbon were valued at £5 0s 0d. Bedding was also listed. One bedstead with iron screws was valued at £1 10s 0d. One feather bed and bolster with two pillows, described as very good, were valued at £18 0s 0d. One pair of very old blankets was valued at £1 0s 0d. One set of old cloth curtains, yellow with double valances and silk fringe, together with one old blue cloth counterpane, was valued at £50 0s 0d. One set of old white calico curtains with valances was also recorded […]. Interpretations The detailed inventory of the Governor’s clothing reflected the importance of dress as a marker of rank and status. Items such as silk coats, lace, and velvet caps indicated high social standing within the settlement. The inclusion of military-style garments, such as campaign coats, demonstrated the dual civil and military role of the Governor. Clothing was both functional and symbolic of authority. The listing of textiles from different regions, including China silk and Turkey-work carpets, showed the global reach of trade networks connected to the East India Company. Imported goods formed a significant part of elite households. The storage of smaller items within nested trunks illustrated controlled management of personal property. Layered storage reduced risk of loss and aided systematic recording. The valuation of bedding and furnishings alongside clothing indicated that domestic goods were integral components of wealth. Items such as feather beds and curtained furnishings held substantial monetary value. The presence of worn or old items alongside newer ones demonstrated that all possessions, regardless of condition, were included in the estate. This ensured a complete accounting for legal and financial purposes. Speculations The prominence of luxury textiles and furnishings suggests that the Governor’s household served as a visible representation of Company authority. Such display probably reinforced hierarchy and legitimacy within the island community. The careful recording of trunks and contained items indicates concern for safeguarding portable goods. This practice perhaps aimed to prevent misappropriation during the period following the Governor’s death, when oversight could be uncertain. | |
276 | Brought Over one feather Bed and Bolster wᵗ two pillows ...... 016 ½ Chaires & Vizt four Turkey worke Chaires and four Cushions old . 006 Tables Vizt one Spanish Table ............................... 005 ½ Linnen Table & Shirtes Vizt one large damask Table Cloth 4 yds long 2 Some Over 348 ¾ | Further bedding, furnishings, and household linen were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore, with the total carried forward at £348 15s 0d. One feather bed and bolster with two pillows was valued at £16 10s 0d. One set of curtains and valances, white worked with red worsted, was valued at £13 10s 0d. One set of India calico curtains and valances was valued at £13 10s 0d. One pair of old white blankets was valued at £1 10s 0d. One quilt bordered with striped calico was valued at £8 0s 0d. One quilt counterpane was valued at £5 10s 0d. One large feather pillow was valued at £4 0s 0d. One bolster was valued at £7 10s 0d. One feather bed, bolster, and pillow were valued at £6 0s 0d. One set of old grey serge curtains and valances with a matching counterpane was valued at £3 0s 0d. One large feather pillow was valued at £1 0s 0d. One flock bed was valued at £2 0s 0d. One old embroidered counterpane was valued at £4 0s 0d. One quilt carpet was valued at £5 0s 0d. One feather bed with two bolsters was valued at £5 0s 0d. One feather bolster […] was valued at £5 0s 0d. One old red rug was valued at £5 0s 0d. One mattress with a white quilt was valued at £9 0s 0d. One bedstead was valued at £1 10s 0d. Furniture was listed. Four old Turkey-work chairs with four cushions were valued at £6 0s 0d. One blue cloth couch, one elbow chair with a footstool, five low chairs, and two stools, all old, were valued at £3 0s 0d. One old Turkey-work carpet in the morning room was valued at £1 0s 0d. Tables were recorded. One Spanish table was valued at £5 10s 0d. One small table with a drawer and one old broken stand were valued together at £5 10s 0d. One small table was valued at £0 10s 0d. Table linen and shirts were listed. One large damask tablecloth measuring four yards in length and two and a half ells in breadth was valued at £5 0s 0d. Two damask tablecloths of similar length and slightly greater breadth were valued at £7 0s 0d. Two dozen damask napkins were valued at £6 0s 0d. Three damask towels were valued at £6 0s 0d. One tablecloth and towel were valued at £3 0s 0d. One cupboard cloth was valued at £5 0s 0d. Eight old damask napkins were valued at £5 0s 0d. Interpretations The extensive listing of bedding demonstrated the importance of domestic furnishing as a store of wealth. Feather beds, quilts, and curtains represented high-value items within the household. The repeated use of damask linen indicated access to fine imported textiles. Such goods reflected both wealth and participation in long-distance trade networks linked to the East India Company. The valuation of items by measurement, such as yards and ells, showed the application of standard units in accounting. This allowed precise assessment of textile goods within the estate. The inclusion of worn and older furnishings alongside newer items ensured complete accounting. All goods, regardless of condition, were treated as part of the estate’s total value. The grouping of items by function, such as bedding, furniture, and table linen, reflected an organised approach to inventory. This facilitated management and later distribution or settlement. The presence of imported styles, such as Turkey-work and Spanish furniture, illustrated the cultural and material influence of global trade on the island’s elite households. Speculations The large quantity of bedding and linen suggests that such items were essential for maintaining a household of status and hospitality. This stock probably supported both daily use and the reception of guests in an official capacity. The careful recording of furniture and textiles indicates an intention to preserve the full value of the estate. This process perhaps aimed to ensure fair settlement and prevent loss during the administrative transition following the Governor’s death. | |
277 | Brought Over 18 ½ One d[o] Lac[t] i[th] Black, One Stomacher with d[o] 004 . One Flowre[d] Mantua d[o] Lyned with white[n] with One ditto Stomacher 008 . One Blue Sattin [P]otty Coate, with Gold & Silver Lace 020 . One ditto Mohaire[d] [C]ourle Couler 008 ½ One Red [C]uttanoe [P]otty Coate with Silver Lace 005 . One Flowred Silke Gowne Lyned i[th] white [C]uttanoe 006 . One Flowred [P]otty Coate Lyled i[th] white Sar[s]neet 002 ½ One Womane [O]l[d] Clonke Flowred 001 ½ One Black [W]ater[e]d [G]abby [P]otty Coate [M]uch worne 001 . One Scarlett Cloth Gowne, [M]aws Lyned i[th] Red [S]orge 008 . One quilted Wast Coate, mans [s]hout Slinos 002 . One [C]hile[s] red Volvolt Mankle O[l]d 002 . One [E]mbrodred [S]hould [B]olt 010 . One p[r] of Woome[ns] Shoes Lac[t] 000 ½ One p[r] of red Volvolt Slippers 000 ½ One p[r] of Black plaine China Silke 0[1]0 . One [R]omna of quilted Cloth for Wast Coates [o]f [6] y[d]s 003 . One [R]omna[t] of Silke g[t] 3 y[d] 002 . One Caip Flowred, [f]acob with furr, Mans 001 . One d[o] Flowred Scarlett [f]ac[t] with furr 001 ½ One d[o] Flowred, with Spangles Old 000 ½ One [A]pplet dove Collet Silke 002 . One p[r] of white [D]olong 002 ½ One p[r] of Flowred [T]onquoon Silke 002 ½ Three Bitts of an Old [E]mbrodred Wast Coate 001 ½ One Old Linong for a Wast Coake 000 [3/4] Two [E]mbrodred Swool [L]aggs 003 . One d[o] Spanyco[d] . . four Old Small Flowred [C]oach Curtaines 001 . Two Chil[d] Bood Suites, and two Pair Pillowes 004 ½ One [D]aloin [C]ore 005 . One d[o] Cutt 003 . One p[r] of [B]ongall [S]kripos 002 ½ two p[r] of Black [C]hunke 004 . One [R]omnt of Black d[o] g[t] 3 y[d]a 001 ½ One [R]omnt of [S]orge g[t] 6 y[d] [... ...] 002 ½ [A]lmost a p[r] of Course [S]trined [M]uzleing g[t] 10 y[d]s 003 ½ One Romnt of Callico [A] 5 y[d] 003 ½ Two Romnts of Course plaine [M]uzleing g[t] 9 y[d]s 002 ½ One Romt of India diaper g[t] 6[½] y[d]s 001 ½ Borne Over 168[·]- | Further garments and textile goods were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore, with the total brought forward at £18 10s 0d. One lace garment with black trimming and one matching stomacher were valued at £4 0s 0d. One flowered mantua lined with white, together with a matching stomacher, was valued at £8 0s 0d. One blue satin petticoat with gold and silver lace was valued at £20 0s 0d. One mohair petticoat of darker colour was valued at £8 10s 0d. One red petticoat with silver lace was valued at £5 0s 0d. One flowered silk gown lined with white was valued at £6 0s 0d. One flowered petticoat lined with white sarcenet was valued at £2 10s 0d. One old flowered woman’s cloak was valued at £1 10s 0d. One black watered petticoat, much worn, was valued at £1 0s 0d. One scarlet cloth gown lined with red serge was valued at £8 0s 0d. One quilted waistcoat was valued at £2 0s 0d. One old red velvet mantle was valued at £2 0s 0d. One embroidered shoulder belt was valued at £10 0s 0d. One pair of women’s lace shoes and one pair of red velvet slippers were each valued at £0 10s 0d. One pair of black plain China silk items was valued at £1 0s 0d. One remnant of quilted cloth for waistcoats, measuring 6 yards, was valued at £3 0s 0d. One remnant of silk, 3 yards, was valued at £2 0s 0d. One man’s flowered cap faced with fur was valued at £1 0s 0d. One flowered scarlet cap with fur was valued at £1 10s 0d. One old flowered cap with spangles was valued at £0 10s 0d. One silk item of dove colour was valued at £2 0s 0d. One pair of white […] was valued at £2 10s 0d. One pair of flowered Tonquoon silk items was valued at £2 10s 0d. Three pieces of an old embroidered waistcoat were valued at £1 10s 0d. One old linen for a waistcoat was valued at £0 15s 0d. Two embroidered wool […] were valued at £3 0s 0d. One […] Spanyco[…] was listed […]. Four small old flowered coach curtains were valued at £1 0s 0d. Two children’s bodice suits and two pairs of pillows were valued at £4 10s 0d. One […] core was valued at £5 0s 0d. One […] cut was valued at £3 0s 0d. One pair of […] was valued at £2 10s 0d. Two pairs of black […] were valued at £4 0s 0d. One remnant of black cloth, 3 yards, was valued at £1 10s 0d. One remnant of serge, 6 yards, was valued at £2 10s 0d. Almost one piece of coarse striped muslin, 10 yards, was valued at £3 10s 0d. One remnant of calico, 5 yards, was valued at £3 10s 0d. Two remnants of coarse plain muslin, 9 yards, were valued at £2 10s 0d. One remnant of India diaper, measuring 6½ yards, was valued at £1 10s 0d. The total of these items was carried forward at £168 […]. Interpretations The extensive range of garments, including mantuas, petticoats, and gowns, demonstrated the structured composition of elite dress. Clothing was layered and varied, reflecting both fashion and social rank. The presence of imported textiles such as China silk, mohair, and India muslin showed reliance on global trade networks. These materials were valuable commodities circulating through the East India Company. The inclusion of stomachers, lace, and embroidered items indicated specialised components of dress. These elements contributed both to appearance and to the monetary value of garments. The valuation of remnants by yard confirmed that unused cloth retained economic importance. Even partial lengths were accounted for as assets within the estate. The listing of worn items alongside newer ones ensured comprehensive accounting. Condition affected value but did not exclude items from record. The grouping of children’s clothing and household textiles within the same inventory showed that all forms of domestic material were integrated into a single financial assessment. Speculations The large quantity of fine clothing suggests that the household maintained a visible standard of display appropriate to high office. Such attire probably reinforced authority and distinction within the island community. The careful accounting of textile remnants implies an intention to preserve and reuse materials. In a remote setting, such goods perhaps served as a flexible reserve of value, adaptable to various practical and economic needs. | |
278 | Brought Over 397 [3/4] One p[r] of Lact Ruffles 001 . Three p[r] of Plaine Musling Ruffles 000 [3/4] Gloves, Callicoe & Throod Knitt Eleven paires 001 ½ . Stockings, Cotton and Throod five Paire 003 . Wast Coates and Drawers four White Wast Coats 002 . Two paires of Callyco[e] Drawers 003 . One p[r] of dim[i]ty ditto 001 ½ . fifteen Night Capps 000 ½ . N[o] 8 All the aforesaid Linnon [...] is in the [H]adro Trunke. Trunkes, Chests, Boxes And Caspers One [H]air Trunke 001 ½ One Large Red Trunke with Brasse 003 . One Large Chest [t]h Drawers 002 . One Small Chest 000 ½ One Chest of Drawers 005 . One Small Lachored Scriptorc One Small Lachored [D]roping Box One Small Swoot Powder Box 004 . One Old Powder Box One Small Bottio of War[...] One Prest framed for [w]al g[t] 000 ½ One Standing Watchk 010 . One [C]lose Stoolo and Pan 001 . One [B]arricks Caso with Bottles 002 . One Plaine Caso with Bottles 002 . One Large Lachoring Glas One [D]rofing Olive wood 003 . One Dutch Lochong Glas Giult One Paire of Tables with Mon 001 ½ 001 ["] Canes four with Silver heads 008 . Borne Over 45[1] . | Further linen, clothing, and household goods were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore, with the total brought forward at £397 15s 0d. One pair of lace ruffles was valued at £1 0s 0d. Three pairs of plain muslin ruffles were valued at £0 15s 0d. Eleven pairs of gloves, calico and thread knit, were valued at £1 10s 0d. Five pairs of cotton and thread stockings were valued at £3 0s 0d. Four white waistcoats were valued at £2 0s 0d. Two pairs of calico drawers were valued at £3 0s 0d. One pair of dimity drawers was valued at £1 10s 0d. Fifteen nightcaps were valued at £0 10s 0d. All these linen items were contained in a trunk marked No. 8. Storage items and furniture were then listed. One hair trunk was valued at £1 10s 0d. One large red trunk with brass fittings was valued at £3 0s 0d. One large chest with drawers was valued at £2 0s 0d. One small chest was valued at £0 10s 0d. One chest of drawers was valued at £5 0s 0d. One small lacquered escritoire and one small lacquered dropping box were listed. One small sweet powder box was valued at £4 0s 0d, together with one old powder box and one small bottle of […]. One press frame for a wall was valued at £0 10s 0d. One standing watch was valued at £10 0s 0d. One close stool with pan was valued at £1 0s 0d. One barrack case with bottles was valued at £2 0s 0d. One plain case with bottles was valued at £2 0s 0d. One large looking glass and one Dutch looking glass gilt were listed. One olive wood […] was valued at £3 0s 0d. One pair of tables with […] was valued at £1 10s 0d. Four canes with silver heads were valued at £8 0s 0d. The total of these items was carried forward at £451 […]. Interpretations The listing of linen clothing, including ruffles, gloves, stockings, and nightcaps, showed the importance of undergarments and accessories within personal dress. These items, though smaller, contributed significantly to the overall value of the estate. The grouping of such items within a designated trunk demonstrated organised storage and categorisation. This facilitated both inventory control and later distribution. The presence of furniture for storage, such as trunks, chests, and drawers, indicated the material infrastructure required to manage a large household. These items were themselves valuable and integral to estate management. The inclusion of specialised objects, such as a standing watch and escritoire, reflected both utility and status. These items were associated with timekeeping, writing, and administration. The presence of a close stool illustrated domestic arrangements for sanitation within the household. Such items were standard components of elite living conditions. The repeated appearance of lacquered goods and imported furnishings showed continued reliance on international trade. These goods were characteristic of material culture connected to the East India Company. The valuation of canes with silver heads indicated their dual function as both practical aids and symbols of rank. Such items carried social as well as monetary significance. Speculations The extensive provision of storage furniture suggests that the household managed a large and varied quantity of goods. This arrangement probably reflected the need to organise property accumulated through trade and official position. The inclusion of items such as watches, lacquered boxes, and decorated canes indicates a lifestyle oriented toward display as well as function. These objects perhaps reinforced authority and identity within the island’s social hierarchy. | |
279 | Brought Over 397 [3/4] One p[r] of Lact Ruffles 001 . Three p[r] of Plaine Musling Ruffles 000 [3/4] Gloves, Callicoe & Throod Knitt Eleven paires 001 ½ . Stockings, Cotton and Throod five Paire 003 . Wast Coates and Drawers four White Wast Coats 002 . Two paires of Callyco[e] Drawers 003 . One p[r] of dim[i]ty ditto 001 ½ . fifteen Night Capps 000 ½ . N[o] 8 All the aforesaid Linnon [...] is in the [H]adro Trunke. Trunkes, Chests, Boxes And Caspers One [H]air Trunke 001 ½ One Large Red Trunke with Brasse 003 . One Large Chest [t]h Drawers 002 . One Small Chest 000 ½ One Chest of Drawers 005 . One Small Lachored Scriptorc One Small Lachored [D]roping Box One Small Swoot Powder Box 004 . One Old Powder Box One Small Bottio of War[...] One Prest framed for [w]al g[t] 000 ½ One Standing Watchk 010 . One [C]lose Stoolo and Pan 001 . One [B]arricks Caso with Bottles 002 . One Plaine Caso with Bottles 002 . One Large Lachoring Glas One [D]rofing Olive wood 003 . One Dutch Lochong Glas Giult One Paire of Tables with Mon 001 ½ 001 ["] Canes four with Silver heads 008 . Borne Over 45[1] . | Further linen, clothing, and household goods were recorded from the inventory of the late Governor Blackmore, with the total brought forward at £397 15s 0d. One pair of lace ruffles was valued at £1 0s 0d. Three pairs of plain muslin ruffles were valued at £0 15s 0d. Eleven pairs of gloves, made of calico and thread knit, were valued at £1 10s 0d. Five pairs of stockings, of cotton and thread, were valued at £3 0s 0d. Four white waistcoats were valued at £2 0s 0d. Two pairs of calico drawers were valued at £3 0s 0d. One pair of dimity drawers was valued at £1 10s 0d. Fifteen nightcaps were valued at £0 10s 0d. All the aforesaid linen was contained in a trunk marked No. 8. Trunks, chests, boxes, and cases were then listed. One hair trunk was valued at £1 10s 0d. One large red trunk with brass fittings was valued at £3 0s 0d. One large chest with drawers was valued at £2 0s 0d. One small chest was valued at £0 10s 0d. One chest of drawers was valued at £5 0s 0d. One small lacquered escritoire and one small lacquered dropping box were recorded. One small sweet powder box was valued at £4 0s 0d. One old powder box and one small bottle of […] were listed. One press frame for wall use was valued at £0 10s 0d. One standing watch was valued at £10 0s 0d. One close stool with pan was valued at £1 0s 0d. One barrack case with bottles was valued at £2 0s 0d. One plain case with bottles was valued at £2 0s 0d. One large lacquered looking glass and one Dutch gilt looking glass were recorded. One […] of olive wood was valued at £3 0s 0d. One pair of tables with […] was valued at £1 10s 0d. Four canes with silver heads were valued at £8 0s 0d. The total of these items was carried forward at £451 […]. Interpretations The classification of linen garments and accessories into a single trunk demonstrated systematic organisation of personal clothing. Such grouping aided both inventory control and later distribution. The valuation of everyday clothing items, including ruffles, gloves, and stockings, showed that even small articles formed part of the estate’s measurable wealth. The listing of storage furniture, including trunks and chests, indicated the infrastructure required to maintain and secure a large quantity of goods. These items were themselves valuable assets. The inclusion of lacquered objects and imported furnishings reflected the material culture associated with long-distance trade. Such goods were characteristic of households connected to the East India Company. The presence of a standing watch and escritoire pointed to administrative and personal functions within the household. These items were associated with timekeeping and record-keeping. The recording of canes with silver heads demonstrated their dual role as practical objects and symbols of status. Their inclusion emphasised the social as well as monetary value of personal effects. Speculations The concentration of linen and clothing within a designated trunk suggests deliberate organisation for ease of access and control. This arrangement was probably intended to reduce loss and simplify accounting during estate settlement. The presence of multiple storage containers and valuable portable items indicates concern for safeguarding property. In the period following the Governor’s death, such measures perhaps aimed to prevent misappropriation and ensure orderly transfer of goods. | |
280 | Brought Over 500 ¼ Catalogue of Bookes Viz[t] In Folio: Josephus [H]istory of the Jewes . . . . . Turkish History . . . . S[r] Walter Ralegh . Calvinis [m][g][t]tickes Dr [S]tortons 100 Sermons . Hughes [C]apedition on Genesis [H]a . Cottons Concordance . Ushors Body of Divinity . History of India tho [s]s Statuto Booke at Larg[o] [c]oys [E]nd of [M]on go [H][t] Aristotlos Politichi Hallors Italy Warr Hallory Holy Warr and Holy State . [S]tondaius [D]iseription of Italy History of Henry tho [4][t] Sutton[i]us [s]2 [D]ollars [M]ayos [H]iston[e][r] of the Parlon[tt] [H]ookors [E]cclesiasticall Pollicoy [H]istory of China L [C]acone [N]aturall History [P]eriole [H]istory of England . Acts of the Church . [S]trongos Discours of the two Covenants [S]nodds Mapps . [4]o Two Old Bibles . Morning [C]acrites [ri] 2 pts . Annotations on the New Testament Harmony of Devino [A]ttributos . Caroll upon Job . ditto . Saints Rest . Swinnecks Christian mans Calling g[t] [P][t] . Owons Justification by [F]ackh . The Way to gott Wealth Tilos [B]reckfullnos of the Heart . Robmons 3 Principals . A Mirrour for Magistrats Taylors Liberty of Prophecoy . [A][r] [C]oynold on 3 [S]ubjerts . Gafsolt Liberty by Craddock . Borne Over 500 ¼ | A catalogue of books belonging to the late Governor Blackmore was recorded, with the total of the estate carried forward at £500 5s 0d. In folio were listed the following works: Josephus, History of the Jews, Turkish History, works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Calvin’s writings, Dr […]’s one hundred sermons, Hugh’s exposition on Genesis […], Cotton’s concordance, Ussher’s Body of Divinity, a history of India […], a statute book at large […], Aristotle’s Politicks, Fuller’s Holy War and Holy State, Stow’s description of Italy, a history of Henry IV, Suetonius, May’s history of Parliament, Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, a history of China, Pliny’s Natural History, a periodical history of England, acts of the Church, Strong’s discourse of the two covenants, and Snod’s maps. In quarto were listed two old Bibles, morning exercises in two parts, annotations on the New Testament, Harmony of Divine Attributes, Caroll upon Job, Saints Rest, Swinnock’s Christian Man’s Calling, Owen on justification by faith, The Way to Get Wealth, Tillotson’s works […], Robinson’s three principles, A Mirror for Magistrates, Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying, Arnold on three subjects, and Gassolt’s work on liberty by Craddock. The total was carried forward at £500 5s 0d. Interpretations The catalogue of books formed part of the estate inventory, demonstrating that intellectual property was treated as a valuable asset. Books were recorded alongside material goods and contributed to the total value of the estate. The division of books by format, such as folio and quarto, reflected standard bibliographic classification. Size and format often corresponded to cost and prestige, with folios generally representing larger and more expensive volumes. The range of works, including theology, history, law, and politics, indicated the breadth of reading associated with the Governor’s office. Such texts supported administrative, legal, and religious functions. The presence of statute books and ecclesiastical works showed the practical use of books in governance. These texts informed decision-making and reinforced the application of English law and doctrine on the island. The inclusion of maps and histories of various regions reflected engagement with global knowledge. This corresponded with the island’s role within wider trade networks connected to the East India Company. Speculations The substantial number of books suggests that the Governor maintained a working library for both governance and personal study. This collection probably supported the exercise of authority by providing reference to law, religion, and history. The emphasis on theological and legal works indicates that intellectual authority was closely tied to governance. These texts perhaps reinforced both moral and administrative legitimacy within the colonial setting. | |
281 | Brought Over 500 ¼ Garnads Christian Arms . . . . . [H]atham ag[t] Quakers . Childe of L[o]k[t] withering in Darkones . Markham about[s] [G]lortos . Good House or Art of Nature . A Coore of hono . Prim agains [B]rolacy . the doc[t] of the Church of England . Military [G]ouern of Gloucester . m[r] Goodwin on the [g][t] of the Romans . [J]r [P]restons workes . ditto New Covenant . [J]r Gibbs workes in a Booke . A Christian [D]iktionary . [A]ustin on [F]ruit [T]rees . Marrow of History . Vindication of Churches Congregations . [...] . Candons [R]omains . Cooke Upon Planting . 8o One Bible with Acts . . . . two Lacys [C]alrigs . Glowes [B]lossomes of the Righteous . [J]r [J][t]auktons Life and death . ditto of the Same . [B]illingslook [D]g[t] Roman [P]ook[...] . Grotius on the Low Countryos . Lords Sermon at the Lady Langham [F]unerall . The Gospell Precher . Shopard on the Sabboth . The Office of a Justice of Peace . Molins in[q]uirendam about[s] Non Conformity . Seraphick Love . Vines on the Lords Suppor . Hike upon the Sacrament . Cobb of Ely . Bishops of Sarom . Goboys Nikolamies . [T]orbox for [H]oaring of Sermons . Cloud of [W]itnosses in 3 parts . Corkers [U]sefull Instrustions . Joseph [A]llons Life and death . World to Come . the Godly mans Choyce . Beakers 32 Directions . Borne Over 500 ¼ | Further books belonging to the late Governor Blackmore were recorded, with the total carried forward at £500 5s 0d. Additional folio and other volumes were listed, including Garnard’s Christian Arms, works against the Quakers, Child of Light, Wither’s writings […], Markham on […] matters, The Good House or Art of Nature, A Course of Honour, works against prelacy, The Doctrine of the Church of England, a military government of Gloucester, Mr Goodwin on the Epistle to the Romans, Dr Preston’s works and his work on the New Covenant, Dr Gibbs’s works in one volume, A Christian Dictionary, Austin on fruit trees, Marrow of History, Vindication of Church Congregations, […] Candour’s Romans, and Cooke upon planting. In octavo were listed one Bible with the Acts, two […] calends, Grove’s Blossoms of the Righteous, Dr […]’s life and death, another of the same, Billingsley’s works […], Grotius on the Low Countries, a sermon at the funeral of Lady Langham, The Gospel Preacher, Shepard on the Sabbath, The Office of a Justice of Peace, Moline’s inquiry concerning nonconformity, Seraphic Love, Vines on the Lord’s Supper, Hake upon the sacrament, Cobb of Ely, the Bishop of Sarum’s works, God’s Nicknames […], A Toolbox for Hearing of Sermons, A Cloud of Witnesses in three parts, Cocker’s Useful Instructions, Joseph Alleine’s life and death, The World to Come, The Godly Man’s Choice, and Baker’s thirty-two directions. The total remained carried forward at £500 5s 0d. Interpretations The continued catalogue of books demonstrated the extent of the Governor’s library as a significant intellectual asset. Books were systematically recorded as part of the estate alongside material goods. The classification by size, including folio and octavo, reflected established bibliographic practice. Format indicated both physical characteristics and relative value. The strong presence of religious and theological works showed the centrality of religion in intellectual life. These texts informed both personal belief and public authority within the colony. The inclusion of legal and administrative works, such as The Office of a Justice of Peace, indicated practical application in governance. Such books supported the execution of law and order on the island. The presence of agricultural and practical works, such as Cooke upon planting, suggested engagement with land use and local production. Knowledge of cultivation was relevant to sustaining the settlement. The diversity of authors and subjects reflected connections to wider intellectual currents in England and Europe. The library embodied the transmission of metropolitan knowledge to a colonial setting. Speculations The breadth of the collection suggests that the Governor relied on written works to guide both policy and daily administration. This library probably functioned as a reference for resolving legal, religious, and practical matters. The prominence of works addressing religious conformity and dissent indicates concern with maintaining doctrinal order. These texts perhaps supported efforts to regulate belief and practice within the island community. | |
282 | Brought Over 500 ¼ Two Bibles . . . . . Childe upon [C]oroneilliation . Ball Marthos [D]iscovery and Flames . Durnalls No Cowor [O]lt God . The Codica of [C]sto . Lattin [T]ostome . The Life of [G]alakious . Hooder Upon the doubling Christian . Nashtali Church of Scotland . Caps of [G]ro[s] [H]airos . [H]arbolt[e] Rooms . Man of [S]in [D]iscour . Mar[o]s in [C]ore . King Charles the 1[st] [L]ottery . [E]xpedition of the English Dictionary . Voice of one Crying in the Wildernes . [A][l][l][a]sh of [C]lericalism . m[r] [G]ourdahe Life and death . Brigges [A]proaching of Glory . Three Bookes of Psalmes in Metre . The 2[d] pt of the Interest of England . The Late Gou[d] Stock of Neate [C]attle which is taken into the L[t] [M]ard [C]orn[e] [M]took Viz[t] [...] These [...] dolls dolls five Cowes att 10 Each 050 . the [G]o[...] one d[o] with a Calfo . . . 011 2 [N][o][t] [...] [t]he one Bullock . . . 010 . [C]orn[...] [S]t[...] two Young [H]aifor[s] [...] . . . 020 . [H]is [A]c[...] one y[n] [B]ulltek . . . two [S]houros . . . [...] one y[n] [H]eifer . . . [...] 015 . 106 [...] is 31·19·0 The Late Gou[d] Black Boyes. One Named [A]mbros[e] about[e] twenty years of [A]ge 33 . One Named George ab[t] fourteen years of [A]ge 17 . . Borne Over 550 ¼ | Further books belonging to the late Governor Blackmore were recorded, with the total carried forward at £500 5s 0d. Additional volumes included two Bibles, works by Childe upon coronation, Ball’s Marrow’s Discovery and Flames, Durnall’s No Coward Soldier of God, The Practice of Piety […], Latin texts of Tostatus, The Life of Galatius, Hooker upon the double Christian […], Naphtali concerning the Church of Scotland, works against gross errors […], Harbottle’s writings […], The Man of Sin Discourse, Marrow’s works […], King Charles the First […], an English dictionary, The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness, works against clericalism […], Mr Gurnall’s life and death, Briggs on the approaching of glory, three books of Psalms in metre, and the second part of The Interest of England. The livestock of the late Governor was then entered into account. Five cows were valued at £10 0s 0d each, amounting to £50 0s 0d. One cow with a calf was valued at £11 0s 0d. One bullock was valued at £10 0s 0d. Two young heifers were valued at £20 0s 0d. Additional cattle included one young bullock, two steers, and one young heifer valued together at £15 0s 0d. The total value of the cattle was recorded at £106 0s 0d, noted as £31 19s 0d […]. The enslaved boys belonging to the late Governor were also recorded. One named Ambrose, about 20 years of age, was valued at £33 0s 0d. One named George, about 14 years of age, was valued at £17 0s 0d. The total was carried forward at £550 […]. Interpretations The continued catalogue of books showed that intellectual property formed a substantial component of the estate. The range of religious, political, and practical works reflected the intellectual framework supporting governance. The inclusion of cattle within the inventory demonstrated the integration of agricultural assets into formal accounting. Livestock represented productive capital essential to the island’s economy. The valuation of animals by type and age indicated an organised approach to assessing agricultural resources. Different categories of cattle were assigned distinct values based on their utility. The recording of enslaved individuals as property, with assigned monetary values, showed their treatment as economic assets within the estate. Their age was noted as a factor influencing value. The combination of books, livestock, and enslaved labour within a single inventory illustrated the breadth of property considered in estate management. All forms of wealth, material and human, were incorporated into the same accounting structure. Speculations The inclusion of cattle and enslaved individuals alongside household goods suggests a diversified estate. This arrangement probably reflected the need to balance domestic wealth with productive resources in a remote settlement. The detailed valuation of enslaved individuals indicates their economic importance within the household. Their recorded ages suggest that labour capacity was a key factor in determining their assessed worth. | |
283 | Brought Over 550 ¼ The Late Gou[d] Shoop Goates Young and Old Viz[t] Sheep Three Rames Eight Ewes [...] 13 hoad at 3 Dollers [D][o][t][t] - two Woathers [...] each is - - [...] [...] Six Lambes . at at 1[s] Doller each - 9 · 48 . Goates dolls dolls Forty Eight Growne at 2 [p]ps· 96· [D]ols· Twenty One Ridrig at 1 ½ [p]ps· 26½ 132½ 132 ¼ Twenty Small . . . at · ½ [p]ps· 10[½] Totall · - 730 ½ · The [A]ticulars mentioned in the for[e]going [P]anes are a [T]rue Inventory of y[e] Gods and Chattles [&]a of [G]n[o] Blackmore [L]ag[e] Late Gov[d] Defunct, as appraised to the [g][t] of [t]h[e] are appraised, as by the prices affixed will appeare. By us Orlando Bagley [E]d[w] [D]ormonds The aforesaid Inventory before written pt of which is apprais[ed] by m[r] Orlando Bagley [&] David Edmunds is the full & whole Contents of y[e] Late Gov[t] Blackmores Estate on this Island of St Helena to y[e] Best of our understanding and knowledge. [A]nd Collected & Searched into by us with all y[e] Care as possible we Could. In Witness whereof we have hereunto [...] Subscribed our Names. [J][o][s] [J]o[h][n]on [P]r[i]n[c][e] [...] [P]o[i]n[e][r] [...] | Further livestock belonging to the late Governor Blackmore was recorded, with the total brought forward at £550 5s 0d. Sheep were listed as three rams and eight ewes […], amounting to thirteen head valued at 3 dollars each. Two wethers were also included […], together with six lambs valued at 1 dollar each, giving a total of 9 dollars 48 […]. Goats were recorded in greater number. Forty-eight grown goats were valued at 2 […] each, amounting to 96 dollars. Twenty-one young goats were valued at 1½ […] each, amounting to 26½ dollars. Twenty small goats were valued at ½ […] each, amounting to 10½ dollars. The total value of all livestock and goods was carried forward at 730½ […]. It was declared that the particulars set out in the foregoing pages formed a true inventory of the goods and chattels of the late Governor Blackmore, deceased, as appraised according to the values affixed. This inventory was made by Orlando Bagley and Edward Edmunds. It was further certified that the inventory represented the full contents of the late Governor’s estate on the island of St Helena, to the best of their knowledge and understanding. It was stated that all items had been collected and examined with as much care as possible. In witness of this, the subscribers set their names thereto, including Joshua Johnson and others […]. Interpretations The inclusion of sheep and goats completed the accounting of livestock within the estate. These animals represented productive assets, contributing to food supply and economic value. The valuation of livestock in dollars indicated the use of multiple currencies within the island economy. Conversion between local and sterling values formed part of the accounting process. The differentiation between grown animals, young stock, and lambs showed an organised method of valuation. Age and maturity directly influenced assessed worth. The formal declaration that the inventory was true and complete served as a legal certification. Such statements affirmed that due diligence had been exercised in compiling the estate record. The naming of appraisers and subscribers established accountability. Their signatures confirmed responsibility for the accuracy of the inventory. The assertion that the estate had been fully searched and collected reflected the administrative requirement to secure all property. This ensured that no assets were omitted from the record. Speculations The detailed enumeration of livestock suggests that agricultural resources formed an important part of the Governor’s estate. These assets were probably essential to sustaining both household and wider supply on the island. The formal certification of completeness indicates concern to prevent later dispute or challenge. By affirming that all goods had been examined and recorded, the authorities perhaps aimed to secure confidence in the settlement of the estate. | |
284 | [...] St Helena [...] Consultation Held On Wednesday — Preſent Whereas there hath bin ſom diſturbance Whereupon It is Ordered That the ſaid Claimes of ſuch perſons be Examined It is further Ordered That the ſaid Richd Keeling doe Receive all It is likewiſe that the ſaid Keeling doe pay ſuch of | A consultation was held at Fort James on an unspecified day in January 1691. Present were Governor Johnson, Deputy Governor Richard Keeling, Captain Correr, and the council. A disturbance had arisen in connection with arrangements for the funeral of a slave. At the same time, it was reported that the late Governor John Blackmore had, during his lifetime, entered into several financial obligations. Claims had already been made against his estate. Richard Keeling presented an account stating that money had been paid out on Blackmore’s behalf, under his direct orders, before his death, and that a debt remained due to him. An order was issued that all such claims should be formally examined. The purpose was to establish precisely what sums were owed by the late governor to various individuals. A further inquiry was also required to determine what debts were owed to him by others. Responsibility was then assigned to Richard Keeling to collect all monies due to the late governor from inhabitants of the island. He was also directed to settle the valid claims of creditors, provided those debts could be shown to have been contracted by Blackmore during his lifetime. In addition, he was required to meet all expenses associated with the late governor’s funeral. Interpretations The formal examination of claims functioned as an administrative audit of the deceased governor’s estate, ensuring that private debts were recognised and settled in an orderly manner under official supervision, rather than through informal or disputed demands. The assignment of Richard Keeling to collect outstanding debts and discharge liabilities effectively placed him in the role of executor under council authority, concentrating both recovery of assets and payment of creditors in a single office to maintain financial control and accountability. The requirement that only debts proven to have been contracted during the governor’s lifetime should be paid established a legal threshold for validation, protecting the estate from fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims while preserving the rights of legitimate creditors. Speculations The consolidation of both debt collection and payment in Richard Keeling’s hands was probably intended to prevent conflict among claimants and to impose a controlled process over the settlement of the late governor’s finances, especially given the disturbance already reported in relation to funeral arrangements. | |
285 | For which End It is also Ordered That the said Late Govr stock of slaves Cattle or As likewise that the whole acct thereof be John Blackmore Esq Deceased late Govr Towards his funerall vizt To 3 pr Coffin Handles . . . 0 : 3 : 3 Summe Over 16 : 10 : 5 1/2 | An order was issued that the late Governor John Blackmore’s stock of slaves, cattle, and other goods should be formally appraised by Mr Orlando Bagly and Mr Edward D[...]es. An inventory was to be prepared from this valuation. All items listed were then to be placed in the custody of Captain John Correr. This was done for the sole use and benefit of the Right Honourable Company of Merchants, so that the proceeds might be applied towards funeral expenses and any other debts paid on account of the late governor from the Company’s stores. A further instruction required that a full account of these proceedings should be compiled and formally subscribed by the governor and council. A detailed account of funeral expenses for John Blackmore, late governor of St Helena, was then recorded. Charges were listed as follows: three pairs of coffin handles at £0 3s 3d; three ell of nails at £0 1s 6d; four dozen iron squares at £0 4s 4d; one inch iron boards at £0 2s 6d; seven doubles at £0 9s 11d; sawing boards at £0 5s 0d; one silk item at £0 11s 0d; one hatband at £0 5s 0d; two ell of flower at £0 8s 0d; one pound of tobacco at £0 2s 0d; two gross of pipes at £0 12s 0d; a second part of arrack valued at 8s per gallon at £0 8s 0d; forty pounds of sugar at £0 10s 0d; one bottle of rum for making punch at £0 8s 0d; and one Madeira for the butler at £0 17s 0d. The total was given as £16 10s 5½d. Interpretations The appraisal and inventory of slaves, cattle, and goods functioned as a formal conversion of the late governor’s personal estate into accountable assets under Company oversight, ensuring that private property could be redirected to satisfy obligations incurred through official channels. The transfer of custody to Captain John Correr placed the estate under controlled management, preventing unauthorised disposal and aligning its use with Company interests, particularly where Company stores had already been drawn upon to meet expenses. The requirement that all accounts be subscribed by the governor and council imposed collective administrative responsibility, giving the record legal force and ensuring that the settlement of debts and expenses was formally authorised. The use of the Company’s stores to cover funeral charges indicates that institutional resources were advanced in expectation of reimbursement, effectively creating a recoverable liability against the deceased governor’s estate. Speculations The decision to appraise and secure the estate before settling accounts was probably intended to ensure that sufficient assets were preserved to reimburse the Company for goods already issued, particularly given the detailed and substantial funeral expenses recorded. | |
286 | [...] Govr Blackmore Dr To More to his funerall vizt Debts due before his Death To Richd Keeling on accot To Mr Orlando Bagley & Mr Downs To Silke for putting in Sullers in mourning More charge about Governr his Ladying Due to Ballance 13 16 8½ [...] 51 08 06 | An account was continued under the name of Governor John Blackmore as debtor. A previous total of £16 10s 5½d was brought forward. Further funeral expenses were then added. Coffins used for making buckboards were charged at £0 10s 0d. Henry Gates received £1 16s 0d for making the silk pall, the ser[...] headband, and for preparing the cloth used to cover the corpse. A further payment of £0 4s 6d was made to Worrall for similar work. Downing was paid £3 5s 0d for constructing the coffin and covering it with black cloth. Robert Sexton received £1 4s 0d for building the tomb, repairing the late governor’s lodging, and attending to several graves. Debts incurred before the governor’s death were then listed. Richard Keeling was owed £5 2s 0½d for sums disbursed on the governor’s behalf. John F[...] was paid £0 3s 0d for dressing goat skins. Mr Brown, the surgeon, was owed £9 0s 0d for treating and curing two black boys belonging to the governor. Joseph Trapp received £0 7s 6d for shoes. William Allin, a tailor, was paid £0 6s 0d. James Duffee, a barber, received £0 9s 0d. William Price was paid £0 7s 0d for shoes. A commission of £1 4s 0d was paid to Mr Orlando Bagley and Mr Downs for appraising goods, cattle, sheep, and goats. An additional £0 6s 0d was spent on silk used to place sullers in mourning, which had been omitted from the earlier funeral charges. A further £0 6s 0d was recorded for charges relating to the governor’s laying out and other omitted funeral expenses. A remaining balance of £13 16s 8½d was noted. The account then showed totals of £51 8s 6d and £16 3½d, producing a final sum of £65 4s 9½d. Interpretations The continued account treated the late governor as a debtor entity, allowing both funeral expenses and prior personal debts to be aggregated into a single financial reckoning against his estate under formal supervision. Payments to craftsmen and labourers for coffin-making, burial construction, and repairs to lodging demonstrate how funeral arrangements extended beyond ceremony into maintenance of property and burial space, all chargeable to the estate. The inclusion of medical fees for treating two black boys indicates that dependants or slaves formed part of the governor’s chargeable household expenses, and that such care was recognised as a legitimate debt recoverable from his estate. The commission paid for appraising livestock and goods confirms that valuation itself was a remunerated administrative task, necessary for converting physical assets into accountable sums that could be applied against debts. The recorded balance reflects the formal closing stage of the account, where liabilities exceeded immediate recoverable funds, requiring a calculated remainder to be carried or settled through estate assets. Speculations The inclusion of omitted funeral expenses and additional mourning materials was probably intended to regularise all costs retrospectively, ensuring that no informal or unrecorded expenditure remained outside the official account before final settlement was enforced. | |
287 | Contra By Cash recd [...] £ s d 5 Cows at 10 Dollors Each 15 00 00 14 head att 31 19 00 Debts due to the Estate By Mr Flowers on 01 04 00 18 04 00 By Cash being pd money found 65 04 09½ This is the True State of ye above mentioned John Blackmore Jas [...] | A counter-account was then entered to set against the charges already recorded. Cash received was first noted, though part of the entry was obscured. A negro boy slave was valued at £15 0s 0d. The late governor’s cattle were then accounted for. Fourteen head of stock had been placed into the Company’s stock. These were valued as follows: five cows at 10 dollars each, totalling £15 0s 0d; five ox calves at £3 9s 0d; five bullocks at £3 0s 0d; two young heifers and two young steers at £6 0s 0d; and two steers with one young steer at £4 10s 0d. The full value of the fourteen head was given as £31 19s 0d. Debts owing to the estate at the time of the governor’s death were then listed. Mr Flowers owed £1 4s 0d. Sam Taylor owed £12 16s 0d. Mr Smith owed £1 10s 0d. William Mason owed £0 19s 0d. Captain Willis owed £1 15s 0d. These debts together totalled £18 4s 0d. A further sum of £0 1s 9½d was recorded as cash found in the governor’s chest. The account was then balanced against the previously stated total of £65 4s 9½d. The record concluded with a declaration that this represented the true state of the estate of John Blackmore, Esquire, late governor deceased, as it appeared on the island, excluding the inventory of goods and chattels already taken. The document was then subscribed by James [...] and Frances [...] on the island. Interpretations The counter-account functioned as the credit side of the estate ledger, offsetting liabilities with assets such as cash, livestock, slaves, and outstanding debts owed to the deceased, thereby enabling a full financial reckoning. The valuation and transfer of cattle into the Company’s stock shows how private livestock could be absorbed into corporate resources, with their assessed value credited against the deceased’s obligations rather than physically liquidated. The listing of debts owed to the estate demonstrates that personal credit relationships were formally recoverable after death, and were treated as transferable financial assets within the administrative process. The reference to cash found in the governor’s chest indicates the formal seizure and accounting of movable wealth, ensuring that even small sums were incorporated into the official balance. The concluding declaration and subscription by named individuals gave the account legal standing, confirming that it had been reviewed and accepted as an accurate representation of the estate’s condition within the island’s administrative framework. Speculations The absorption of cattle into the Company’s stock rather than immediate sale was probably intended to preserve productive assets for ongoing use on the island, while still allowing their assessed value to offset the governor’s debts within the accounting system. | |
288 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the Present Capt John Johnson Govr Whereas Mr Booker was appointed Surgeon to Upon Consideration that Capt Borr[or] hath His Honour Considering that there is now It is Ordered and Agreed That the sd Mr Booker shall have Thirty Severall persons presented their Petitions for Borro[...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 8 January 1691. Present were Captain John Johnson, governor, Richard Ke[...]o, deputy governor, Captain Borr[...] and three members of council. Mr Booker had previously been appointed surgeon to the Honourable Company at a consultation held on 20 March 1689. He now requested to leave his employment unless his salary was continued. He declared that he would no longer serve the Company, as the term of service he had contracted for had expired on 3 June 1689. He was identified as one of those who had arrived on the island aboard the good ship [Ca]rter, ye 2d. Consideration was given to the workload of Captain Borr[...], who was responsible for managing store rooms and tools. It was also recognised that the Company’s servants on the island could not be conveniently supplied with a surgeon, and that without such provision they would probably become impoverished in health and unfit for service. The governor further considered that no smith or surgeon was present on the island other than Mr Booker, and that his services were required daily. An order was made and agreed that Mr Booker should receive £30 0s 0d per annum, to be paid from the Company’s stores. In return, he was required to attend at the fort for three days each week, and additionally when needed. Several persons then submitted petitions seeking permission to sell strong liquor by retail. Interpretations The renegotiation of Mr Booker’s salary reflects the contractual nature of Company service, where fixed-term agreements could be extended or altered through formal consultation when essential skills remained scarce. Payment from the Company’s stores indicates that remuneration could be issued in goods or accounted provisions rather than cash, embedding wages within the island’s controlled supply system. The requirement for attendance on specified days established a regulated duty schedule, ensuring predictable access to medical services while allowing the surgeon to manage other activities or obligations. The reference to the absence of both a smith and a surgeon highlights the overlap of skilled roles in a small settlement, where technical and medical functions were concentrated in very few individuals, increasing their administrative importance. Speculations The decision to retain Mr Booker on reduced and structured attendance was probably intended to balance limited Company resources with the urgent need to maintain a functioning workforce, especially given the risk that illness without medical care could quickly diminish labour capacity on the island. | |
289 | Upon Consideration that ye Augmentation of It is therefore Ordered That such persons who shall desire Licences for ye And Phillips Gunn proposed a Petition that It is Ordered That ye sd Mr Phillips shall have a Note together And that a Proclamation forthwith be published Ja[...] | Further consideration was given to the increase in licences for selling and retailing strong liquor. It was noted that those who obtained such licences would pay £4 0s 0d per annum for the privilege, which would add to the revenues of the Honourable Company on the island. It was also observed that many of those seeking additional licences had already been selling as much, or more, liquor without authorisation as those who held licences. An order was therefore made that any persons wishing to retail strong liquor might be granted licences, provided that they adhered to the rules and measures set out within them. A petition was then presented by Phillips Gunn, who sought compensation for his black man who had been executed for poisoning. This execution had taken place following a consultation held on 23 December 1689, in accordance with an earlier order issued by the governor and council on 27 August 1689. An order was made that Phillips Gunn should receive a note authorising him to collect the value of three slaves, whether young or old, from the island. This compensation was to be granted according to the usual practice of the Honourable Company in cases where a slave had been executed under official authority. It was further ordered that a proclamation should be immediately issued requiring all persons on the island to comply with this arrangement. Interpretations The expansion of liquor licences functioned as a regulatory and fiscal mechanism, converting previously unlicensed trade into a controlled and revenue-generating activity under Company authority. The fixed annual fee for licences established a predictable income stream, while the requirement to observe prescribed rules ensured that retailing practices could be supervised and standardised. The compensation granted for the executed slave reflects an institutional practice whereby private property destroyed under legal authority was indemnified, maintaining confidence in the enforcement system by protecting owners from uncompensated loss. The issuance of a note authorising collection of slaves in value indicates a system in which compensation could be satisfied through redistribution of labour rather than monetary payment, reinforcing the treatment of slaves as transferable assets within the island’s administrative economy. The proclamation served as an instrument of enforcement, extending the council’s decision into public authority and obliging compliance across the island’s population. Speculations The decision to license rather than suppress widespread unregulated liquor sales was probably intended to bring an existing informal economy under control while immediately increasing Company revenue, without the disruption that stricter enforcement might have caused. | |
290 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Weddensday the Present Capt John Johnson Govr Whereas on Twesday last being 13th instant Which Confession was judged the rather to | A consultation was held at Fort James on 14 January 1691. Present were Captain John Johnson, governor, Richard Ke[...]o, deputy governor, Captain Borr[...], and three members of council. On Tuesday 13 January 1691, Henry Man[...]ing, surgeon to the garrison, had taken from the Honourable Company’s stores a new silk hatband belonging to William, an Indian chirurgeon. Richard Ke[...]o, acting as storekeeper, suspected that the item formed part of the late governor’s goods, which had previously been found missing when an inventory of his estate was taken. Henry Man[...]ing was questioned as to how he had obtained the item. He replied that it had been given to him by Mr Drayton, who held a licence to retail liquor. Mr Drayton was then summoned and examined. He stated that he had received it from Sam Black Jack’s son, who was one of the Company’s slaves. Sam Black Jack’s son was then brought in and questioned. He confessed that he had received the item from James Cursen, another of the Company’s slaves. James Cursen was then examined. He initially denied any knowledge of the item, but later admitted that he had possessed it and had passed it to Sam. He claimed that he had forgotten from whom he had obtained it, but under further questioning he stated that he had found it on the hillside known as Goose Hill. This account was considered credible, as further evidence was noted. Another item had been found hidden in a chest in [...]. A witness reported that Sam had been seen picking up several items that had fallen from the late governor’s pocket, which were later restored, though this particular piece had been concealed. Interpretations The tracing of the hatband through multiple individuals demonstrates a structured investigative process, in which responsibility was pursued through successive transactions to establish the chain of possession and identify potential misappropriation of Company or estate property. The involvement of licensed traders and Company slaves in the circulation of the item reveals how goods could pass informally between regulated and unregulated spheres, complicating the enforcement of property control within the settlement. The reference to the inventory of the late governor’s goods highlights its role as a legal baseline, against which missing items could be identified and claims of ownership assessed. The interrogation and eventual confession of James Cursen reflects the use of sustained questioning to extract admissions, forming a key mechanism for resolving disputes over property and responsibility in the absence of formal forensic evidence. The recovery of items reportedly dropped from the governor’s pocket indicates that personal effects of high-ranking officials were treated as recoverable estate assets, and that their dispersal triggered formal inquiry when irregularities were detected. Speculations The reliance on witness testimony combined with confessions was probably intended to resolve uncertainty over whether the item had been stolen or merely found, allowing the council to distinguish between deliberate misappropriation and opportunistic recovery while preserving the authority of the inventory process. | |
291 | Upon the whole, it was thought necessary that ye And accordingly it was Ordered That the said Sambo should immediately have Which Sentence was presently Executed Jo[...] | After full consideration of the matter, punishment was judged necessary for Sam Black Jack’s son, a slave of the Honourable Company, for having concealed and withheld the piece of money. An order was issued that he should receive 30 lashes upon his naked body at the whipping post. The sentence was carried out immediately. Interpretations The whipping post functioned as a formal instrument of corporal punishment within the island’s system of governance. Its use demonstrated the council’s authority to impose immediate physical penalties, particularly upon Company slaves, without extended legal process. The offence of detaining the money reflected an expectation that all property, especially items belonging to senior officials such as the governor, remained strictly controlled. Failure to return such property was treated not as a minor lapse but as a punishable breach of discipline and hierarchy. The summary execution of the sentence showed the council acting as both investigative and judicial authority. This concentration of power allowed rapid enforcement of order, especially in cases involving slaves, where maintaining control and deterrence was prioritised. Speculations The decision to inflict a fixed number of lashes probably aimed to make a visible example of Sam, reinforcing discipline among other Company slaves and discouraging similar acts of concealment or petty appropriation. | |
292 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Thursday the Present Capt John Johnson Govr Capt Borr[or] being much Necesitated for Yams And Understanding by the said Capt Borr[or] Whereupon the Govr was discoursed w It was at length Agreed That for the said Dennings should have Twelve | A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 January 1691. Captain John Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. Captain Borr[or] reported that he had been in urgent need of yams to sustain his household, his servants, the Honourable Company’s slaves, and their large plantation. A request was made to the governor and deputy governor that provisions be purchased for relief. Information had been received that a planter named Dennings held a substantial quantity of yams for sale at a reasonable price. Captain Borr[or], accompanied by Richard Gurling, was directed to inspect the yams. The inspection was completed, and Captain Borr[or], Gurling, and Dennings returned to report that the produce was of good quality and amounted to about 6,086 weight. Discussion followed with Dennings regarding price. Initial hesitation was shown, but agreement was eventually reached. A payment of £12 10s 0d was settled for the yams and their suckers. This sum was to be credited against revenues owed by Dennings to the Honourable Company. Interpretations The reference to revenues due to the Honourable Company indicated a system in which planters were required to make payments or contributions, probably in the form of rent, tax, or produce. The adjustment of £12 10s 0d against this obligation showed how the Company’s administration could offset debts through the direct acquisition of goods rather than cash transfer. The inclusion of suckers in the agreement reflected an interest not only in immediate consumption but also in sustaining future cultivation. Such planting material held value for maintaining or expanding agricultural output on Company-controlled land. The combined provisioning for Captain Borr[or]’s household, servants, Company slaves, and plantation demonstrated how private and Company needs were closely intertwined. Authority over resources allowed council members to direct supplies across both personal and institutional domains. Speculations The decision to purchase a large quantity of yams from a single planter probably aimed to secure a stable and immediate food supply for a labour force that included Company slaves, thereby preventing shortages that could disrupt plantation work. | |
293 | Mr Smith who hyred a Black Boy of the The said Smith now desired to buy the said But it was Considered that the said Boy was So It was Agreed with the sd Smith That he should have the use and Labour of Jo[...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 January 1691. Captain John Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. Mr Smith had previously hired a boy, a slave belonging to the Honourable Company, for a term of two years at a rate of £3 10s 0d per annum. This term had been due to expire on 2 February 1691. A request was made by Smith to purchase the boy outright. The matter was considered. The boy was judged to be improving in strength and capacity, and it was expected that within a little more than two years he would reach full maturity. A sale was therefore refused. Preference was given to retaining ownership and continuing to profit from his labour. Agreement was reached that Smith should continue to employ the boy for a further year, beginning on 2 February 1691. The hire was set at £4 0s 0d per annum, to be paid in four quarterly instalments. Interpretations The hiring of a Company slave for a fixed annual sum showed how labour was monetised and circulated under Company control. The slave remained property of the Company, while his labour was leased out to private individuals for profit. The refusal to sell reflected an assessment of future economic value. The council treated the boy as an appreciating asset, whose productive capacity, and therefore rental value, would increase with age and physical development. Quarterly payments structured the agreement as a regular revenue stream. This arrangement reduced the risk of non-payment and ensured steady income to the Company rather than a single lump sum. Speculations The increase in the annual hire from £3 10s 0d to £4 0s 0d probably reflected the boy’s growing physical ability and usefulness, indicating that his labour had already become more valuable to Smith. | |
294 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Saturday Present Capt John Johnson Govr Capt Borr[or] being further Necesitated for And Understanding that Wm B[r]ice Planter The said Brice was sent for and discoursed with It was Agreed with the said Brice That he should have thirteen pounds for a Jo[...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 14 February 1691. Captain John Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. Captain Borr[or] again reported a pressing need for yams to sustain his household, his servants, the Honourable Company’s slaves, and those employed at their large plantation. A request was made for further provisions to be secured. Information had been received that William Brice held a substantial quantity of yams and was willing to dispose of them. The proposed sale was intended to reduce a debt owed by Brice to the Honourable Company, arising from the purchase of a slave and from outstanding revenues. Brice was summoned and negotiations were conducted concerning the yams and their suckers. After extended discussion, agreement was reached. A payment of £13 0s 0d was fixed for a parcel estimated at 2,700 weight. This amount was to be credited in part against Brice’s existing debt to the Company. Interpretations The reference to debt for a slave purchased from the Honourable Company showed that slaves were sold on terms that could create ongoing financial obligations. Such debts bound planters into continued economic dependence on the Company. The use of produce to offset debt demonstrated a flexible accounting system in which goods could substitute for cash payments. This arrangement allowed the Company to secure necessary supplies while maintaining control over debtor relations. The repeated inclusion of suckers in the transaction indicated a deliberate effort to sustain agricultural production. These planting materials ensured that the plantation’s food supply could be maintained or expanded beyond the immediate purchase. Speculations The decision to accept yams in part payment of Brice’s debt probably addressed two needs at once: it reduced the planter’s liability while securing essential food supplies for a labour force whose maintenance was critical to the functioning of the Company’s plantation. | |
295 | Island St Helena At a Consultation held on Fryday the Present Josh Johnson Govr Mr John Tims who came over factor to this I- | A consultation was held at Fort James on 3 April 1691. Joshua Johnson presided as governor, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...] present as council members. John Tims had arrived on the island as a factor aboard the Royall March, his term having expired in December 1690. For more than twelve months, he had conducted himself in a disorderly and drunken manner. For this behaviour he had been committed to custody by the late governor, but release had followed after submission and petition, supported by promises of reform. No improvement had been sustained. A return to the same excesses had soon followed. Repeated efforts had been made to correct his conduct through warnings and restraint, but punishment had been withheld. Patience had been exercised, and hope of reform had been maintained, as reluctance existed to dismiss a servant sent by the Right Honourable Company before the completion of his term. Evidence of this restraint was shown by his continuation as clerk of the council after the departure of Bradshaw from the island. His condition had worsened. Greater negligence and carelessness had been observed. Others had been encouraged to follow similar behaviour. Disorder had extended into his official duties, where Company papers were kept. Some documents were suspected to have been lost or misused. A lease belonging to Coulson could not be found when required. A failure had also occurred in the proper discharge of his office, as he had wholly neglected his responsibilities. | |
296 | Attendance at ye Orphans Court held Monday It was Ordered That he Surrenders up ye Key of his office Jo[ ] [ ]n D[ ]ren | A consultation was held at Fort James on 3 April 1691. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...] present as council members. John Tims had continued in a state of severe drunkenness for seven consecutive days. During this period, attendance had been neglected at the Orphans Court held on Monday and Tuesday immediately preceding. His conduct had already been judged disorderly and negligent, and his failure to perform his duties confirmed that he could no longer be trusted with the custody of the Honourable Company’s records. An order was issued that he should surrender the key to his office and deliver all writings relating to the Honourable Company that remained in his possession. An inventory of these documents was to be taken by Goodwin James and John Vernon. The matter was set for further consideration at the Grand Council on the following Monday, where it would be determined whether he should be retained any longer in the Company’s service. Interpretations The Orphans Court functioned as a formal judicial body responsible for administering estates and safeguarding the interests of minors. Failure to attend signified a breakdown in essential legal administration, as such proceedings required proper record keeping and official oversight. The requirement to surrender the office key and Company papers demonstrated the importance of document control within the Company’s governance. Custody of records conferred administrative authority, and its removal effectively suspended Tims from exercising his role. The taking of an inventory by designated officials showed a structured process for securing and auditing Company records. This ensured accountability and reduced the risk of further loss or concealment of documents critical to legal and financial matters. The reference to the Grand Council indicated a higher deliberative body within the island’s administration. Its involvement suggested that dismissal from Company service required collective judgement rather than unilateral decision by the governor alone. Speculations The decision to secure the records immediately and defer the final judgement to the Grand Council probably reflected concern that further delay might allow additional loss or alteration of documents, while still preserving a formal process for determining whether dismissal from service was justified. | |
297 | Island St Helena At a Court of Justice Held on James Present Joshua Johnson Govr Andrew Cooke Armourer complains agt John John Steven Insists the Action. The sd Steven further saith yt on tuesday the Isaac Slaughter being sworn saith, That he Mr Roads being sworn, saith yt John Steven Thomas Dixon Corporall, being sworne saith that | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 6 April 1691. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. Andrew Cooke brought an action of defamation against John Steven. Steven contested the claim and presented his defence. Steven stated that on Tuesday 23 December 1690, Cooke had declared that Mr Roads had been involved with a woman described as belonging to Cooke in a sexual sense. Isaac Slaughter was sworn and confirmed that he had heard Steven say that Cooke had made such a statement about Roads. Roads was then sworn and reported that Steven had told him that Cooke had claimed to have lain with a woman associated with Roads while she had been ill. Roads further stated that on the following morning Cooke had come to his house and said that no trouble should be taken over what had been said, as the story had been falsely attributed to William Wells. Thomas Dixon was also sworn and testified that he had heard Cooke tell Roads that the report concerning her had been fabricated by Wells. | |
298 | Upon Consideration of the whole: It was Whereupon. It was Ordered, That ye sd Andrw Cooke doe pay the Cost The sd Cooke Complains agt The sd Roads saith that when she went Mr John Lynes being Sworne Saith that Mr John Vernon being Sworne Saith Upon Consideration of ye Whole. It is Ordered That ye sd Roads be Cast in ye Suite and that | After full consideration of the case, judgement was given that Andrew Cooke had himself caused the report in question and therefore had no grounds for complaint against John Steven. An order was made that Cooke should bear the costs of the suit and pay Steven damages of 1s 6d. Cooke then brought a separate action of defamation against Elizabeth Roads. In response, Roads stated that she had gone to demand money owed to her by Cooke, which had been outstanding for a long period. During this encounter, abusive language had been directed at her by Cooke, which had provoked her to speak in return, though she could not clearly recall her exact words. John Lynes was sworn and testified that Roads had come into the court office intending to enter an action against Cooke. At that time, she had described Cooke as a rogue and stated that he had lain several times with Mrs Eden, and that she would prove him to be a cheat. John Vernon was sworn and confirmed that he had heard Roads call Cooke a cheat and declare that she would prove it. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that Roads should be cast in the suit and that the judgement against her would follow accordingly. | |
299 | M[rs] Grace Coulson Widd[o] Complaines of Robt The sd Exceter Produces a bill or acco of 4 : 6 : 3 So yt it appeared yt ye sd Exceter doth remaine It is Ordered. That a Judgmt be granted agst ye sd Exceter Edward Seaford Planter Complaines Elizabeth Suffolk Insists ye Action, Henry Kersey Planter being Sworne Saith yt Benjamin Ma[...] being Sworne saith Mr John Vernon Saith he heard ye sd Edward Seaford Confesseth yt he did put up | Grace Coulson brought a complaint against Robert Exceter for non-payment of £7 12s 0d. In response, Exceter produced an account showing payment of £4 6s 3d made on her order. Upon examination, it was determined that a balance of £3 5s 9d remained owed to Coulson, the debt having stood for a long time. As no assurance of prompt payment was given, judgement was ordered against Exceter for the remaining sum of £3 5s 9d. Edward Seaford then brought an action of defamation against Elizabeth Suffolk. Suffolk contested the claim. Henry Kersey was sworn and testified that Suffolk had stated that Seaford had stolen two of her turkeys for his Sunday dinner. Benjamin Ma[...], also sworn, confirmed the same account. John Vernon stated that he had heard Suffolk say that Seaford had stolen a pig belonging to Andrew Cooke. Seaford admitted that he had taken up a stray pig. Enquiries had been made among his neighbours, and when the owner was identified as Cooke, the matter had been addressed and the pig accounted for. | |
300 | It is Ordered, That the said Suffolk doe pay the sd Thomas Salmor Complaines of The sd Sunday Acknowledges the fact Salmor saith it was Drank among’st the It is Ordered, That ye sd Sunday be Cast in the Suite Marg Draper Widd[o] Complaines of It Appeared on the backside of sd Bond that It Is Ordered. That a Judgmt be granted agt ye sd | It was ordered that Elizabeth Suffolk should pay Edward Seaford damages of two dollars, together with the costs of the suit. Thomas Salmor brought a complaint against Henry Sunday for slander, alleging that he had been called a rogue and threatened with proof of the accusation. Sunday admitted the words. In his defence, it was stated that while both had been aboard a ship, a bottle of arrack of about one quart had been given to Salmor with permission to drink a dram, and that none had been returned. Salmor replied that the liquor had been shared among the boat’s crew according to Sunday’s own direction. Judgement was given against Sunday, and he was ordered to pay Salmor damages of one dollar. Margaret Draper brought an action of debt against Richard Sarham for the sum of £19 0s 0d. It was shown on the reverse of the bond that £6 0s 0d had already been paid. As no reliable promise had been made for payment of the remainder, judgement was granted against Sarham for the outstanding sum of £13 0s 0d. Interpretations The award of damages in dollars alongside court costs showed that multiple currencies circulated in practice. The court recognised such units as valid for compensation, reflecting a flexible monetary environment in which sterling and foreign coin were used interchangeably. The slander action demonstrated that spoken words damaging reputation could be formally prosecuted. Admission of the words was sufficient to establish liability, indicating that intent or justification carried less weight than the act of public accusation itself. The reference to a bond in the debt case indicated a written financial obligation enforceable through the court. Partial payment recorded on the document served as legal proof of the remaining liability, enabling judgement for the balance without further dispute. | |
301 | John Hemmonds Planter being formerly It is Ordered, That ye sd Hemmonds be Cleared of his Jo[ ] [ ]n | John Hemmonds had previously been bound to maintain good behaviour under a recognizance of £5 0s 0d, set to remain in force until the present sessions. A request was made by Hemmonds to be discharged from this obligation. It was ordered that Hemmonds should be released from the recognizance for the present time. Interpretations A recognizance functioned as a formal legal bond requiring an individual to maintain good behaviour under penalty of forfeiting a specified sum. Its discharge indicated that the court judged the individual to have complied sufficiently, or no longer required the financial guarantee as a means of enforcing conduct. | |
302 | Island St Helena At a Councill held on Tuesday Present Jos: Johnson Govr Whereas Mr John Lynes who was sent It is Ordered, That ye sd John Lynes be Dismised the | A council was held at Fort James on 7 April 1691. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. John Lynes had been sent to the island by the Right Honourable Company aboard the Royall Merch, commanded by Captain John Harding, arriving on 30 December 1687 to serve as a factor. During the time of the late governor, his conduct had been judged highly objectionable. Since that period, he had repeatedly given himself over for several days, and at times for whole weeks, to a disorderly manner of life, neglecting the Company’s business and failing to perform his duties with proper care. Consideration was also given to the fact that his contracted term of service with the Company had already expired. An order was made that Lynes should be dismissed from the Company’s pay and service. [...] Interpretations The position of factor involved responsibility for managing trade, accounts, and Company business on the island. Neglect in this role directly affected the Company’s commercial operations and administrative control. Dismissal from the Company’s pay and service represented formal termination of employment. This action removed both salary and official standing, and marked a clear severance from Company authority and protection. The reference to a contracted term showed that Company servants were bound by fixed periods of service. Expiry of such a term gave the council legal grounds to dismiss without breaching contractual obligation, especially when misconduct had been demonstrated. Speculations The decision to dismiss Lynes at the point when his contract had already expired probably avoided dispute over wrongful termination, while still addressing concerns about his behaviour and neglect of duty. | |
303 | Andren Cooke Armorer being desirous to be That in Consideracon yt ye sd Cooke Upon Consideracon of the great danger of It is Therefore Ordered That six persons be Chosen out of ye Inhabit[an]ts Accordingly Henry Coles — — } William Price Are Chosen who are speedily to meet and make | At a council held at Fort James on 7 April 1691, under Joshua Johnson with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present, further matters were addressed. Andrew Cooke requested dismissal from the service and pay of the Right Honourable Company. Consideration was given to his failure to maintain proper order and discipline. An order was made that he should be dismissed from the Company’s service in accordance with his request. Attention was then directed to a structural danger within the town at Fort James. Many chimneys had been built too low and stood directly beneath the thatch of several houses, creating a serious risk of fire. To address this hazard, it was ordered that six inhabitants should be appointed to inspect the town and identify those houses that were defective in this respect, so that prompt measures could be taken to raise the chimneys and prevent damage. Accordingly, Henry Coles, William Price, Richard Gurding, Thomas Allis, [...] Gardnworth, and Thomas Cudale were chosen. They were instructed to meet without delay and make their report. Interpretations The dismissal of a Company servant at his own request, combined with reference to misconduct, showed that resignation did not remove the need for formal judgement. The council’s order ensured that the termination was recorded as consistent with disciplinary expectations, preserving administrative authority. The inspection of chimneys reflected a form of local regulatory oversight exercised by the council. By appointing inhabitants to survey and report defects, responsibility for enforcement was extended into the community while remaining under central direction. The concern over chimney height in relation to thatched roofs revealed a practical approach to risk management. Fire posed a significant threat to densely built settlements, and preventative regulation formed part of the council’s role in protecting property and maintaining order. Speculations The decision to appoint multiple inhabitants to inspect the town probably aimed to ensure broader compliance and reduce resistance, as those selected would have local knowledge and influence over neighbours whose houses required alteration. | |
304 | There having bin Severall Complaints made It is Therefore, That a Proclamation be Issued forth Therefore such person or persons yt shall | At the same council held at Fort James on 7 April 1691, numerous complaints from the island’s inhabitants were considered. Reports had been made that stray cattle, hogs, and other livestock had been taken up by individuals without any public notice being given. As a result, the rightful owners had suffered loss and damage through the disappearance of their animals. An order was made that a proclamation should be issued to regulate this matter. For the future, any person finding stray livestock was required, within 48 hours of gaining knowledge of them, to give public notice. This was to be done by posting an advertisement either at the church in the country or at the market house in Chapel Valley. The notice was to describe the mark and type of the animal or animals. If no owner appeared within ten days, the livestock would be deemed to belong to the Right Honourable Company, as lords proprietors of the island. The animals were then to be delivered into custody for the Company’s use. Further provision was made that any person offending against this order in future would be liable to prosecution and treated as a felon for unlawful taking or conversion. Such offenders would be required to pay fourfold restitution in accordance with the Company’s orders. Interpretations The requirement to publish notice at recognised communal sites such as the church and market house showed how official communication was structured. These locations functioned as established points for public information, ensuring that claims of ownership could be widely known within a limited population. The designation of the Company as “lords proprietors” affirmed its legal authority over property on the island. In cases where ownership could not be established, unclaimed goods reverted to the Company, reinforcing its position as the ultimate holder of rights over land and resources. The treatment of unauthorised taking as a felony, combined with a fourfold penalty, reflected a strict regime of property enforcement. This approach discouraged concealment of found livestock and imposed a heavy financial consequence to deter misuse. Speculations The introduction of fixed time limits for notice and claims probably aimed to resolve disputes over stray livestock more quickly, reducing uncertainty and preventing prolonged loss to owners while also securing unclaimed animals for the Company’s benefit. | |
305 | Livt Richd Kellinge Desyring that he might Whereupon, It was thought but reasonable, that he his Circumstances Wherefore, It is Concluded & Ordered. That he have monthly allowed him two Gallons of Jo[ ] [ ]n | At the same council held at Fort James on 7 April 1691, Richard Keeling requested an allowance of liquor and sugar to meet his expenses while attending at the stores. He stated that, since the last pay day on 19 March 1691, he had already borne considerable costs over a period of sixteen months at his own charge. A large part of this expense had arisen directly from the service of the Right Honourable Company, particularly in the removal of store goods from the warehouse to the storeroom and in other immediate duties. No claim was made for reimbursement of past costs, but a request was made for future support. The matter was considered, and it was judged reasonable, given his circumstances, that he should receive an allowance beyond what was already provided at the general table, where all admitted shared equally. It was therefore ordered that he should receive a monthly allowance of two gallons of brandy and six pounds of sugar, to continue until further order. Interpretations The reference to the general table indicated a shared provisioning system within the Company’s establishment, where officials and servants received standard rations. Additional allowances marked a recognised deviation from this norm, granted to compensate for particular responsibilities or expenses. The grant of goods rather than money reflected a system in which remuneration and compensation could be provided in kind. Such allowances ensured immediate access to consumables while limiting the need for cash disbursement from Company funds. The mention of pay day and personal expenditure showed that Company servants were sometimes required to advance costs from their own resources when performing official duties. Subsequent allowances functioned as a partial adjustment for these outlays, even when no formal reimbursement for past expenses was made. Speculations The decision to grant a fixed monthly allowance in brandy and sugar probably aimed to regularise Keeling’s expenses and prevent further informal claims, while ensuring that his continued involvement in store management did not impose additional personal cost. | |
306 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Tuesday Present Joshua Johnson Govr Capt Borr[or] being necessitated for yames And understanding that John Sick planter had a parcell After much Debate with ye sd Sick It was agreed & ordered That the sd yames should be viewed, & if they The sd parcell of yames was accordingly viewed, & Jo[ ] [ ]n | A consultation was held at Fort James on 17 April 1691. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. Captain Borr[or] reported a continued need for yams to maintain his household, his servants, and the Right Honourable Company’s slaves at their large plantation. A request was made that provisions be secured for their supply. Information had been received that John Sick possessed a parcel of yams available for sale at a reasonable rate. He was called and entered into discussion. He expressed willingness to sell to the Company and undertook that the parcel would amount to 12,000. After extended negotiation, it was agreed that the yams should first be inspected. If the quantity was found to meet the stated amount of 12,000, payment would be made in the form of a credit of £15 0s 0d, to be applied toward sums owed by Sick for slaves previously purchased from the Company. If the quantity fell short, the deficiency was to be made up by an additional parcel. The yams were subsequently examined and were estimated to exceed the stated quantity of 12,000. On that basis, Sick was allowed the agreed credit of £15 0s 0d toward his outstanding debt. Interpretations The requirement that the yams be measured before payment showed the council’s use of verification procedures to control transactions. Payment was made conditional upon quantity, ensuring that valuation matched the goods received. The granting of a credit rather than cash payment reflected a system in which debts for slaves purchased from the Company could be reduced through the delivery of produce. This linked agricultural production directly to the financing of slave ownership. The inclusion of succory alongside yams indicated that both immediate food supply and supplementary produce were considered in provisioning decisions, supporting both consumption and cultivation needs. Speculations The condition that any shortfall be made good with an additional parcel probably aimed to eliminate dispute over valuation, ensuring that the agreed price corresponded exactly to the required quantity without further renegotiation. | |
307 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Wensday the Present Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas the Rt Honble Comp[a] our Masters, have given Now in pursuance of the above mentioned Orders & Instructions, | A consultation was held at Fort James on 22 April 1691. Joshua Johnson, Richard Keeling, and Captain Borr[…] were present. Instructions had been received from the East India Company, dated 14 April 1689 and 1 May 1689, and delivered by Leonard Browne of the ship Benjamin, which arrived on the island on 11 January 1690. These instructions reported that war existed between England and France. Directions had been given that the island was to be secured and defended against all threats, with constant vigilance to prevent surprise attack. Further intelligence indicated that six French warships of considerable strength were operating in India, creating concern that the island might also be threatened. The condition of the island was therefore reviewed, with particular attention given to the windward outposts used as lookouts. These positions were essential for detecting approaching ships and defending against attempted landings. It was found that these posts had been neglected. Those stationed there lacked proper shelter from the weather, a deficiency acknowledged as justified by experience. Measures were consequently prepared to remove these shortcomings, to address complaints, and to ensure that duties at these outposts were carried out more carefully and consistently, given their importance to the security of the island […] Interpretations The reference to Company instructions shows structured governance. Local authorities operated under directives issued from a higher commercial authority. The emphasis on vigilance reflects a defensive system. Surveillance of sea approaches formed a key part of security. The focus on windward lookouts highlights strategic positioning. Certain locations were critical for early detection of ships. The acknowledgement of inadequate shelter indicates administrative correction. Failures in infrastructure were recognised and addressed. The connection between duty and safety shows operational dependence. Effective performance at outposts was essential to defence. The mention of war situates local policy within global conflict. Decisions on the island were shaped by wider geopolitical conditions. Speculations The concern over French naval presence suggests perceived vulnerability. The island may have been viewed as a likely target. The recognition of neglect implies earlier complacency. Renewed effort may have been prompted by external threat rather than routine oversight. The move to improve conditions at outposts suggests practical motivation. Better accommodation may have been intended to ensure compliance and reliability among those stationed there. | |
308 | It is ordered That there be made both att Munden mount (or And for as much as there hath been for some time It is now ordered That there be added one more to Each of ye said posts The Forts of Banckses and Ruperts likewise, haveing It is now ordered That there be also Added to Banckses one, & to | Measures were taken to strengthen the island’s defence. It was ordered that suitable and convenient rooms should be constructed at Munden Mount, also called Village Stage, and at Prosperous Bay. These sites were identified as the places where the English had first landed when the island had been taken from the Dutch. The buildings were intended to protect the health of the soldiers stationed there and to secure the arms and ammunition kept at those posts. It was noted that only two soldiers had been stationed at each of these locations. An order was made that one additional soldier should be assigned to each post, to strengthen security and to ensure that early notice could be given when ships approached the island. Attention was then directed to Banks’s Fort and Rupert’s Fort, where only two soldiers had usually been maintained as a constant guard. It was ordered that one more soldier should be added to Banks’s Fort and four more to Rupert’s Fort. These forts were recognised as the first points encountered by ships arriving from the windward side of the island. Rupert’s Fort was identified as the largest fortification after Fort James. A constraint was acknowledged. The number of soldiers available remained small, and reinforcement of these outposts could not be achieved without reducing the strength of the main guard. That central force consisted of only 14 sentinels responsible for the principal fort and its outer posts. A conclusion was reached that further provision would be necessary to secure the safety of the island. Interpretations The construction of purpose-built rooms for soldiers and stores showed an administrative concern with sustaining a permanent military presence. Protection of ammunition and improvement of living conditions formed part of maintaining readiness over time. The increase in numbers at outlying posts reflected a system of distributed defence. These positions functioned as observation points, allowing early detection of approaching vessels and providing time to respond. The identification of windward approaches revealed the practical application of geographical knowledge in defence planning. Control of these entry routes allowed monitoring of maritime traffic before it reached the main settlement. The limitation of only 14 sentinels at the main guard demonstrated the narrow margin within which military decisions were made. Redistribution of manpower required careful balance between central security and frontier vigilance. Speculations The emphasis on strengthening Rupert’s Fort, with a larger increase than at other posts, probably reflected its exposure to incoming ships and its role as a primary defensive position, making it essential to reinforce despite the strain on overall manpower. | |
309 | for the present to Entertaine some of the planters (such And for the doing what in us lyes, to preserve & secure It is ordered That a good and sufficient paire of Gates be set up, and As likewise, It is ordered, If It may That a wall be built cross the passage at the western And for as much as all the boards that were in ye It is ordered That Richd Kellinge Store keeper, doe deliver out of | Consideration was given to the weakness of the island’s outlying defences. It was determined that some of the planters, judged most trustworthy, should be taken into the service and pay of the Right Honourable Company and added to the guards, in order to strengthen those exposed positions. Further measures were directed towards securing the principal fort, where the island’s main magazine of arms and ammunition was stored. It was ordered that a strong and sufficient pair of gates should be erected, together with a wall adjoining them, drawn across the passage leading from the landing rocks up towards the great fort. This was intended to prevent surprise attack by any boat’s crew landing unseen under cover of night, who might otherwise overcome the guards and disable the line of guns, thereby placing the fort in serious danger of loss. It was also ordered, if practicable, that another wall should be constructed across the western passage of the same line of guns, extending from the rocks to the sea. This was intended to obstruct any approach from that direction by persons attempting the same kind of attack. Attention was then drawn to a shortage of materials. All boards formerly held in the Company’s stores had been sold and used, and none remained for necessary purposes. Timber was required for the construction of the proposed gates. It was therefore ordered that Richard Keeling, acting as storekeeper, should issue from the Company’s stores such pieces as could be provided. Interpretations The enlistment of selected planters into Company pay showed the flexible use of civilian manpower to supplement a limited garrison. Trustworthiness was emphasised, indicating that loyalty was a key condition for extending military responsibility beyond regular soldiers. The reference to the grand magazine highlighted the central importance of stored arms and ammunition. Its protection was treated as critical to the island’s overall defence, as loss or sabotage would compromise all military capacity. The construction of gates and walls across defined passages demonstrated a controlled approach to fortification. Rather than relying solely on open guard, physical barriers were used to restrict movement and channel any approach into defensible points. The mention of stores being depleted of boards revealed the dependency of military works on limited local resources. Authority over distribution of materials rested with the storekeeper, showing the administrative link between supply control and defence infrastructure. Speculations The decision to block specific approaches from the landing rocks probably reflected prior awareness of vulnerable entry points, suggesting that the council aimed to counter a known risk of stealth landings rather than a purely hypothetical threat. | |
310 | as that of Timber, as may be thought fitt and necessary to be saw It is agreed That Carpenters and Sawyers be forth with sent As Likewise It is Further ordered That the said store keeper doe pay, and satisfy Jo[ ] [ ]n | Timber was to be issued from the Company’s stores in such quantity as might be judged necessary to be sawn into boards and planks for the construction of the gates and related works, so that the project could proceed without delay. It was agreed that carpenters and sawyers should be summoned and consulted at once, and then immediately employed to carry out the work with speed. It was further ordered that Richard Keeling, acting as storekeeper, should pay and satisfy the workmen for their labour out of the Right Honourable Company’s stores upon completion of the work. Authority for this payment was to be secured by a warrant issued by the governor and council. Interpretations The issue of timber from Company stores showed that control over raw materials was centralised, allowing the council to direct resources toward priority works such as fortification. The immediate engagement of carpenters and sawyers demonstrated a reliance on skilled labour for essential infrastructure, with urgency emphasised in matters affecting defence. The requirement for a warrant from the governor and council before payment indicated a formal system of financial authorisation. This ensured that expenditure from Company resources was recorded and sanctioned, linking labour compensation to administrative oversight. Speculations The decision to delay payment until completion of the work probably aimed to ensure that the construction was finished to satisfaction before Company resources were disbursed, reducing the risk of incomplete or substandard work. | |
311 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas Mr John Symes Factor Late in the It was thought but necessary to Consider of a And it was thought fitt to discourse with Thomas Goodwin | A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 April 1691. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain Borr[or] present as council members. Consideration was given to the absence of adequate clerical support within the service of the Right Honourable Company. John Symes had already been dismissed from Company pay and service for persistent intemperance and neglect of duty. As a result, no person remained in the role of writer except John Vernon. The governor required assistance for pressing and unforeseen business, while the storekeeper, Richard Keeling, required support in the issuing of goods from the Company’s stores. Attention was therefore directed to Thomas Goodwin, who was regarded as a sober and reliable man. He had previously assisted Robert Holden and had continued to assist Keeling in the stores without receiving any payment for his work. He was summoned, informed of the need, and invited to consider the role. | |
312 | [...] Willingne[s] to serve the Rt Hon[bl] Comp[a] in And Ordered That the sd Goodwin should have and receive for Whereas Mr John Symes hath been It is ordered That Mr John Vernon who was sent hither John Young orphan Aged 20 yeares Likewise Richd Wakefield delivered in a | Willingness was expressed by Thomas Goodwin to serve the Right Honourable Company in that or any other capacity within his ability. An agreement was therefore concluded. It was ordered that Goodwin should receive 10s 0d per month for writing on behalf of the governor and assisting Richard Keeling in the storehouse as required. This payment was to be issued from the Company’s stores and was to be an addition to his existing pay as gunner’s mate, which had previously been no more than what earlier gunner’s mates had received when provisions alone had been allowed. In consequence of the dismissal of John Symes, a vacancy had arisen. It was ordered that John Vernon, who had been sent to the island as a writer, should act in Symes’s place as clerk of the council and receive all profits attached to that office until further order. John Young, aged 20 years, presented a petition stating that he was able and willing to serve the Company as a private sentinel, and requested to be accepted as a soldier. Richard Wakefield also submitted a petition, with the consent of his father-in-law Thomas Carter, declaring his readiness and ability to serve the Company in the same capacity. Interpretations The addition of a fixed monthly payment to Goodwin’s existing role showed how Company servants could hold multiple functions, with compensation adjusted to reflect combined duties rather than separate appointments. The appointment of Vernon as clerk of the council demonstrated continuity within administrative offices. Profits attached to the role indicated that such positions carried financial benefits beyond basic pay, reinforcing their value within the Company’s structure. The submission of petitions for military service reflected a formal process of recruitment. Entry into the Company’s service required approval by the governor and council, even when the applicant was willing and able, indicating controlled expansion of the garrison. Speculations The reliance on an existing gunner’s mate to fulfil clerical duties probably reflected a shortage of skilled personnel on the island, requiring the council to combine roles rather than seek new arrivals from outside. | |
313 | Also one Edward delivered in Likewise a Petition [...] (with the Consent of The Govr and Councill having seriously considered Therefore it is agreed & Ordered. That the Sd young Wakefeild and Steward be received The Govr having bin Informed that Maste[ ] | A further petition was submitted by Edward [...], with the consent of his father-in-law Samuel Maxwell, declaring his ability and willingness to serve the Right Honourable Company as a soldier. Consideration was given to the condition of the garrison. The contracted terms of many soldiers on the island had expired, and it was expected that a number of them intended to return to England on the next available ships. This would have left the guards significantly weakened if no replacements were provided from England. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Richard Wakefield and Edward Steward should be accepted into the Company’s service and pay as soldiers, and that arms should be issued to them accordingly. The governor was informed that Barrett and Andrew Rooker intended to fight a duel on a plain known as Harper Plain on 18 April 1691. In response, Barrett was summoned and confined for several days beyond the appointed time, in order to prevent the meeting and any resulting harm. It was then ordered that both Barrett and Rooker should appear. Interpretations The admission of new soldiers in response to expiring contracts showed that military service operated on fixed terms, requiring continual renewal or replacement to maintain defensive strength. Recruitment on the island supplemented arrivals from England when shortages arose. The issuing of arms upon entry into service marked formal incorporation into the Company’s military structure. Possession of weapons was controlled and tied directly to recognised service status. The governor’s intervention to prevent a duel demonstrated the exercise of authority over personal disputes that threatened public order. Confinement functioned as a preventative measure rather than a punishment after the fact, aimed at stopping violence before it occurred. Speculations The decision to detain Barrett past the agreed meeting date probably ensured that the duel could not proceed even if Rooker appeared, indicating a deliberate strategy to disrupt the arrangement without relying on voluntary compliance. | |
314 | But upon Examination of the sd Rooker That on Saturday the sixth of this instant he Rooker having given this Information & Upon Consideration of the whole That they be all reproved for their Intemperance | Upon examination of Andrew Rooker, it was found that the earlier report of an intended duel had been incorrect. A full account of the matter was then given. On Saturday 6 April 1691, Rooker had gone to the house of his mother-in-law Prudence Shawin, where William Luke and Barrett had already been present and had been fighting, with Luke having been defeated. Rooker had questioned Barrett for causing disorder in the house and had accused him of not daring to face a sober opponent. A challenge had then been issued by Rooker for a meeting at a specified time and place, where the matter was to be decided first by wrestling and boxing. If no result had followed from these contests, it had been proposed that the matter should be settled by a single blow with backsword. Barrett had agreed to this arrangement. After this account had been given, Barrett was questioned and confirmed that the statement was accurate. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that all involved should be formally reproved for their disorderly conduct and intemperance. They were admonished and instructed to behave soberly in future, to avoid quarrelling and fighting, and to remain on good terms with one another. This was carried out, and they were reconciled accordingly. Interpretations The formal reprimand issued in place of harsher punishment showed the council’s preference, in certain cases, for restoring order through admonition rather than immediate penal sanction. This approach aimed to correct behaviour while maintaining stability among soldiers and inhabitants. The requirement that the parties be reconciled demonstrated the council’s role in enforcing social harmony. Disputes were not only judged but actively resolved, with authority extending into the regulation of personal conduct. The investigation of the alleged duel reflected a structured process of inquiry, in which testimony was taken and confirmed before judgement was reached. This ensured that decisions were based on verified accounts rather than initial reports. Speculations The decision to treat the matter as disorder rather than a formal duel probably reflected the absence of weapons having been used and the possibility of reconciliation, allowing the council to avoid imposing severe penalties while still asserting control over potentially dangerous behaviour. | |
315 | promised to the Govr and Councill to be more Carefull Lieut Richd Rellinge Store keeper acquaints It is Ordered That the said Symes have the sume of fifteen | A promise was given by those concerned to Joshua Johnson and the council that greater care and sobriety would be observed in future, after which they were dismissed. Richard Keeling reported that John Symes had requested payment of between £12 0s 0d and £15 0s 0d upon his bills of exchange. It was ordered that Symes should receive the sum of £15 0s 0d on his bills of exchange, supported by bond and letters of advice, the amount to be paid and satisfied to the Right Honourable Company or their order in England or elsewhere. Interpretations Bills of exchange functioned as financial instruments allowing money to be transferred across distance without the physical movement of coin. Their use here showed the integration of the island’s administration into wider Company financial networks. The requirement for a bond and letters of advice provided formal assurance of the validity of the claim. These documents acted as safeguards, confirming that payment made locally would be recognised and settled within the Company’s accounting system abroad. The direction that payment be satisfied to the Company or their order indicated that funds advanced locally were to be reconciled within a broader system of accounts, maintaining central control over financial obligations. Speculations The decision to grant the higher sum requested probably reflected confidence in the supporting documentation, suggesting that the council considered the claim secure enough to justify full payment rather than a reduced amount. | |
316 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Govr And Roosher late Armr who Now upon Consideration that Capt Borr[or] As Likewi[s]e Considering that there is no | A consultation was held at Fort James on 28 April 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, together with Richard Keelingo as deputy governor, Captain Borr[or] as a member of council, and Roosher, who had formerly served as armourer. Roosher had withdrawn himself from the pay and service of the East India Company on 7 February 1692 due to dissatisfaction. On 28 February 1692, his service was offered again to the governor and council. A request was made for re-entry into the Company’s pay and employment. A promise was given that duty as armourer would be performed more diligently than before. An undertaking was also offered to bind this promise by bond if required. Consideration was given to the needs of Captain Borr[or], who had extensive work pending, particularly the making of his necessary tools, without which work in the vineyards could not proceed. Attention was also given to the condition of the Company’s arms on the island, which required regular cleaning to prevent rapid deterioration and loss of serviceability. It was recognised that Roosher could perform this work. Further weight was given to the fact that no other person on St Helena was capable of undertaking smith’s work besides Roosher. Interpretations A bond was a formal legal instrument used to secure performance through financial obligation. By offering to bind himself in this way, Roosher proposed a mechanism through which his future conduct could be enforced, with the risk of monetary penalty if he failed in his duties. The armourer held responsibility for maintaining and repairing weapons held by the Company. This role carried institutional importance, as the operational readiness of arms directly affected the island’s defensive capacity and its ability to respond to threats. The reference to Company pay and service reflected a structured employment system under the East India Company. Re-entry into this system required approval from the governor and council, demonstrating centralised control over labour and the allocation of skilled workers. The mention of smith’s work indicated specialised technical labour essential to both military maintenance and agricultural productivity. The absence of alternative skilled workers placed practical pressure on the council to reinstate Roosher despite his earlier withdrawal. Speculations The willingness to consider Roosher’s return was probably shaped by the island’s acute dependence on his technical skills. His unique ability to perform smith’s work and maintain weapons suggests that practical necessity outweighed concerns about his earlier dissatisfaction, prompting the council to prioritise operational continuity over disciplinary strictness. | |
317 | It is agreed with ye sd Roosher That he be reinstated in the Service and pay Likewise it is agreed & ordered Whereas Wm Collins sould was Comitted by the Govr It is ordered That the sd Collins shall ride the wooden horse three sevrall Jo[...] | Roosher’s return to service was agreed and ordered. He was reinstated in the pay and employment of the East India Company as armourer. Attendance was required for three days each week. During this time, work was to be carried out both at Fort James and at the Great Plantation. All necessary tasks were to be undertaken, including the making of tools requested by Richard Kelinge, the Company’s storekeeper. These tools were to be produced for sale in the Company’s stores, and the proceeds were to benefit the Company alone. Payment was fixed at 30 s 0 d per month, in accordance with his former agreement. A further order required Roosher to enter into a bond to secure the performance of these duties. Attention was then given to William Collins, a soldier who had been committed to custody by the governor on Saturday 25 February 1692 while on guard duty. Drunkenness, swearing, profaning the name of God, and disobedience of command had been charged against him. A sentence was imposed that he should ride the wooden horse on three separate occasions, each at the relief of the guard, for one hour each time. The punishment was graduated. On the first occasion, three muskets were to be tied at each heel, on the second, two muskets, and on the third and final occasion, one musket at each heel. Confinement in the marshalsea was to continue until the punishment had been completed, after which release from custody was to follow. Interpretations The requirement that tools be made for sale through the Company’s stores shows how skilled labour was directed into a controlled commercial system. Production was not for private gain but was channelled into Company-managed distribution, reinforcing its monopoly over trade and supply on the island. The storekeeper acted as an intermediary between production and sale. By determining which tools were to be made, this role shaped both supply and pricing, ensuring that manufactured goods served the Company’s financial interests. The bond imposed on Roosher functioned as a legal safeguard to enforce compliance. It created a financial penalty for failure, turning an employment obligation into a binding contractual commitment backed by the threat of forfeiture. The wooden horse was a formal military punishment used to enforce discipline among soldiers. Its structured and escalating form demonstrates an intention not only to punish but to deter repeated misconduct through public and physically painful correction. The marshalsea operated as a custodial facility under military or civil authority. Its use here reflects a system in which confinement ensured that punishment would be carried out in full before release, linking detention directly to disciplinary enforcement. Speculations The decision to require Roosher to divide his time between locations and to produce goods for sale suggests that his labour was deliberately structured to serve multiple institutional needs at once. This arrangement probably maximised the value extracted from a scarce skilled worker while maintaining oversight of both military maintenance and commercial production. The graduated use of weighted muskets during Collins’s punishment was probably intended to intensify discomfort in a controlled sequence. This staged approach may have been designed to demonstrate authority publicly while allowing the punishment to be completed without causing permanent injury that would reduce his usefulness as a soldier. | |
318 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas on the 28th of Aprill last past Butt some dayes after the Govr was informed yt | A consultation was held at Fort James on 11 May 1691. Joshua Johnson presided as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[ie]r as a member of council. Reference was made to an event on 28 April 1692, when a sea cow came ashore on the windward side of the island. It was discovered by Simon Whalley and three of the East India Company’s Black labourers while they were fishing in the Company’s boat. Notice was given to the governor, who immediately supplied Whalley and the labourers with the necessary equipment to kill the animal. Thomas Goodwin was also ordered to accompany them and assist. Instructions were issued that, if the animal were killed, the blubber or fat was to be brought carefully to Fort James. The sea cow was killed that same evening. The blubber was then delivered to the fort as directed. At that time, it was believed by the governor that the whole had been brought without loss or deception. Information was later received that a substantial portion of the blubber had been secretly taken and concealed, causing loss to the Company. In response, the governor and Richard Kelinge summoned other Black labourers of the Company who had also been involved in transporting part of the blubber, in order to investigate the matter further. | |
319 | whom they were Examined, who then did Confess, yt they It was ordered That seeing he was confederate with the other slaves, yt Also It was then Ordered That the said Whalley, and the three Blacks aforemenc[i]on[ed] | Further examination was carried out of other Black labourers who had been involved in transporting the blubber. They confessed that several pieces had been left behind by Simon Whalley and the three labourers. Three pieces were found at a Company plantation in Chapel Valley near James Town, and four or five more were left at a house at the end of the town. Slaves belonging to that plantation were then brought to Fort James and examined. They admitted that two of the three labourers from the boat had each left a piece of blubber there. They refused to reveal where the oil [...] had been produced from it. One slave was identified as having acted in concert with others in both the removal of the blubber and the making of oil. A punishment of 40 lashes on his naked body was ordered and carried out. After receiving this punishment, he disclosed that some of the oil had been hidden at the plantation. This oil was then recovered. The slave was sent to the Great Plantation and was barred from further service at the former plantation. Another, considered more trustworthy, was to be appointed in his place. An order was then issued that Simon Whalley and the three labourers, who were at that time fishing in the boat, should be placed in marshalsea custody until a suitable time for their examination. This was carried out. On 11 May 1692, the three labourers were examined closely. They admitted that each had taken some of the blubber but denied theft, stating that it had been given to them by Whalley. No further evidence or proof was available against him beyond their statements. The three labourers were sentenced to be severely whipped at the flagstaff in accordance with established practice. Interpretations The recovery and accounting of blubber, and its conversion into oil, reflected the Company’s control over valuable natural resources. Whale products held economic importance, and their misappropriation was treated as a direct financial loss requiring investigation and restitution. The use of corporal punishment, including whipping and lashes, functioned as a disciplinary mechanism to enforce labour compliance and deter theft. Its public and physical nature reinforced authority and maintained order within a coerced workforce. The marshalsea served as a holding facility to secure individuals pending examination. Its use ensured that suspected persons could be detained and questioned within a controlled legal process overseen by the governor and council. Speculations The reliance on confessions extracted under threat or after punishment suggests that the investigation depended heavily on coercion in the absence of formal evidence. This approach was probably adopted because the remote setting and limited administrative resources made independent verification difficult, forcing reliance on controlled testimony to establish accountability. | |
320 | their demeritts, as they were found more, or less Guilty, After the examination of the aforesd 3 Blacks It was agreed & ordered That the said Whalley should in three months Simon Whalley being dismist from being Coxswain It was Agreed That he the said Leary should take care of ye | You’re right to flag that. Here is the fully corrected version with all sterling consistently formatted: Following the examination of the three labourers, their punishment was carried out in proportion to their respective offences, each being whipped according to the degree of guilt assigned. Simon Whalley was then brought forward, examined, and accused of stealing blubber belonging to the East India Company. The charge was firmly denied. Confrontation was made with the labourers, who spoke against him with confidence. This strengthened the council’s belief in his guilt. An order was made that Whalley should, within three months, pay or secure payment of £5 0s 0d to Richard Kelinge, for the Company’s use. He was removed from his post as coxswain. Continued confinement in the marshalsea was required until sufficient security had been given to guarantee payment within the specified time. With Whalley dismissed, the need arose to appoint a successor. No suitable candidate was found among those already in the Company’s service. Henry Leary, who had played an active role in the early establishment of the island, was approached and agreed to take the position. An agreement was made that Leary would oversee the Company’s boats and undertake fishing for the Company on days appointed by the governor. For this service, payment was fixed at 20s 0d per month, to be issued from the Company’s stores. This reduced rate reflected the fact that part of his time was already committed to another employer. Interpretations The imposition of a £5 0s 0d payment, secured by bond and enforced through detention, shows how financial penalties were used as a substitute for direct proof. In the absence of conclusive evidence, liability was still imposed through administrative judgment, with payment acting as restitution for suspected loss. Dismissal from the office of coxswain demonstrates that such positions carried both operational responsibility and fiduciary trust. Removal from office functioned not only as punishment but also as a means of protecting Company property and maintaining control over key logistical roles. The requirement to provide security before release from custody reveals a system in which imprisonment operated as leverage to enforce financial compliance. Freedom was made conditional upon guarantees of payment, linking legal detention directly to economic obligation. The payment to Henry Leary from the Company’s stores indicates a system in which wages could be issued in kind rather than solely in coin. This reflects the Company’s control over supply and its ability to regulate compensation through access to goods. Speculations The decision to appoint Henry Leary despite his prior commitments suggests that experience and reliability were valued above availability. His earlier involvement in establishing the island probably marked him as a trusted figure, making him a practical choice even at reduced pay and partial service. The reliance on testimony from labourers, despite the absence of corroborating evidence, implies that the council prioritised internal consistency of accounts over formal proof. This approach may have been driven by the need to resolve the matter swiftly and to reinforce authority in a context where delays or uncertainty could undermine discipline and control. | |
321 | Peter Williams Planter Do a petition to Govr It is agreed and Ordered That in Considerations mentioned in the Consultation held Johnathan Higham Planter also Do a petition to Jo[...] | A petition was laid before the governor and council by Peter Williams. A strong willingness to serve the East India Company as a private sentinel was declared, if he might be received. Reference was made to the consultation of 23 April 1691. War with France had been noted there. An attack was feared at any time. Williams held no land of his own. His ground was rented from the Company. On these grounds, he was admitted into service and pay as a private sentinel. A second petition was then presented by Jonathan Higham. A desire to serve as a private soldier was declared. A willingness to follow Company orders was also stated. One rule was clear. No man in possession of land could be taken into service. To meet this rule, Higham conveyed his land by deed of gift to his brother-in-law, Daniel Prince. The transfer was made in trust for the sole use of his child, to whom it belonged by right of succession. The act was done before the governor and council. A record was entered. Higham was then received into the Company’s service. His pay was ordered to begin on 14 May 1692. Interpretations The exclusion of landholders from service kept soldiers dependent on Company wages. This ensured readiness and reduced divided interests between farming and defence. The deed of gift operated as a legal device. Ownership was transferred in form, yet preserved within the family. The trust secured the child’s claim while allowing compliance with Company rules. The distinction between ownership and tenancy was maintained. A tenant such as Williams remained eligible. This reinforced Company control over both land and labour. Speculations The requirement that Higham give up his land suggests concern over divided loyalties. A soldier without property could be called at once and kept to duty. The admission of both men at this time points to urgency. Fear of attack probably drove the council to strengthen numbers without delay. | |
322 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Wednesday Present Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas Robt Addis Soldr was Comitted It is Ordered That on Consideration that the said Addis have Capt Borr[ie]r made his application to ye Govr | A consultation was held at Fort James on 27 May 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[ie]r as a member of council. Robert Addis had been committed to the marshalsea on 14 May 1692 for serious disorder. He had been drunk while on guard and had sworn. He was brought before the council. The charges were set out. They were not denied. Forgiveness was asked. A promise was made that such offences would not be repeated. Account was taken of the time already spent in prison. His apparent remorse was also weighed. A reduced punishment was ordered. He was to ride the wooden horse twice only, at the relief of the guard, each time for one hour. A whistle, tuberine shot, was to be tied at each heel. After this, release from the marshalsea was to follow. Captain Borr[ie]r then made application to the governor and deputy governor. A need for yams was declared. Provision was required for himself, his family, his servants, and the East India Company’s slaves at the Great Plantation. A request was made that yams be purchased for their support. Interpretations The reduction of punishment after imprisonment shows that time spent in custody could be treated as part of a sentence. This allowed the council to temper discipline with discretion, especially where submission and repentance were shown. The wooden horse remained a structured military punishment. Its measured use here, limited to two occasions, reflects a calibrated approach to discipline rather than automatic severity. The request for yams highlights the dependence of both private households and Company labourers on controlled food supply. The need to seek approval for purchase indicates that access to provisions was regulated within the island’s administrative system. Speculations The decision to lessen Addis’s punishment suggests that maintaining manpower was a concern. A soldier who admitted fault and promised obedience was perhaps seen as more useful restored to duty than subjected to harsher penalty. The appeal for yams points to strain on food resources. The inclusion of Company slaves in the request suggests that shortages at the Great Plantation may have affected labour output, prompting direct intervention to sustain both workforce and household. | |
323 | And understanding that Richard Griffen planter It was at Length agreed That the sd Griffen should deliver to Capt Borr[ie]r Thom Birch & John Coates Do a petition to Thomas Carles aged abt 17 years Do a petition It is Ordered That upon the Considerations mentioned in ye Consulta- | It was learned that Richard Griffen had a quantity of yams to sell. Discussion was held with him on price. An initial demand was made of 3s 0d per hundred. After debate, agreement was reached. A parcel of about 7,000 or 8,000 yams was to be delivered to Captain Borr[ie]r or his order at the rate of 2s 0d per hundred. Only the main yams were to be counted towards the number. All smaller yams were to be included without charge. Payment was not to be made in coin. Satisfaction was to be given by deduction from Griffen’s revenues. A petition was then presented by Thomas Birch and John Coates. A willingness was declared to serve the East India Company as private sentinels, if they might be admitted. Another petition followed from Thomas Carles, aged about 17 years. Leave had been granted by his father-in-law, Richard Hacady. A desire was expressed to serve as a private sentinel, if he might be received into service and pay. An order was then begun. Reference was made to the consultations of 23 April 1692 and 11 May 1692. The text breaks before the decision is completed. Interpretations The agreement with Richard Griffen shows how supply was secured through negotiation rather than fixed pricing. The reduction from 3s 0d to 2s 0d per hundred reflects active price control by the council, ensuring provisions were obtained at a rate judged acceptable for Company use. Payment by deduction from revenues reveals a system of internal accounting. Instead of immediate cash exchange, debts and obligations were offset within the Company’s financial structure, allowing resources to circulate without coin. The distinction between main and small yams shows an attempt to standardise value in bulk transactions. Only produce of recognised size was counted for payment, while lesser goods were absorbed into the bargain without additional cost. The petitions from multiple individuals indicate a continued effort to increase manpower. Service as a private sentinel remained open to those willing to submit to Company conditions, including younger men with family consent. Speculations The inclusion of small yams without charge suggests that the council sought to maximise supply in a time of need. This detail points to pressure on provisions, where even lesser produce was considered worth securing. The clustering of petitions from Birch, Coates, and Carles implies that recruitment demand was visible across the island. The willingness of a youth to enter service, with family approval, suggests that the need for defence was strong enough to draw in younger and less established individuals. | |
324 | Birch, Coates, & Carles be Entertayned in the Service James Castupe planter Likewise Do a petition Thomas Coates Planter of age abt 21 years It is ordered That ye sd Coates be Entertayned in the Service and pay Copy of this Councill Memerandum Jo[...] | An order was completed that Thomas Birch, John Coates, and Thomas Carles be received into the service and pay of the East India Company. Arms were to be issued to them on 28 May 1692. A petition was then presented by James Castupe. A strong desire was declared to serve as a private soldier. A willingness was also expressed to comply with Company orders, including the rule that no person in possession of land should be admitted. To meet this condition, Castupe conveyed his land by deed of gift to Thomas Harper, described as his partner in law, in trust for the use of his eldest son, Joseph Castupe. This was carried out. Castupe was then admitted into service and pay. His pay was ordered to begin on 30 May 1692. Another petition followed from Thomas Coates, aged about 21 years. A statement was made that he possessed neither land nor cattle. A willingness was declared to serve as a private sentinel. An order was made that he be admitted into service and pay. His pay was set to begin on 5 June 1692. A copy of the council proceedings, covering the period from October 1691 until [...], was prepared and sent to the Defence under Captain Wm [...], departing from St Helena on 1 July 1692. A memorandum was entered. Reference was made to 7 May 1692, noting that the Company remained in good health. A vessel set sail on Wednesday [...]. Interpretations The repeated requirement that land be transferred before entry into service shows a strict enforcement of Company labour policy. Ownership of land was treated as incompatible with military duty, and legal transfer through deed of gift became a necessary condition for enlistment. The use of trusts in these transfers preserved family inheritance while satisfying Company rules. Legal ownership was shifted, but beneficial use remained within the family line, ensuring continuity of property despite formal divestment. The issuing of arms upon entry into service marks the formal assumption of military responsibility. This act signified not only employment but readiness for defence under Company authority. The dispatch of council records to a Company ship demonstrates a system of communication and oversight. Regular transmission of proceedings ensured that decisions taken on the island were reported to higher authority, maintaining administrative accountability. Speculations The steady intake of new sentinels and soldiers suggests a deliberate strengthening of the island’s defensive force. The timing, following earlier concerns about war with France, indicates that recruitment was driven by fear of external attack. The insistence on legal formalities in land transfer, even under urgent conditions, suggests that the Company sought to maintain strict institutional order. Compliance with these procedures probably ensured that expanded recruitment did not weaken existing systems of property control. | |
325 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday Present Joshua Johnson Govr And Phillips Gunr made his application to It is agreed & ordered That on Consideration that the worke is great abt | A consultation was held at Fort James on 8 June 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[ie]r as a member of council. Phillips, the gunner, made application to the governor and council. Notice was given that extensive work was required on the guns across all the island’s forts. These forts lay far apart. More assistance was needed than had been allowed before. A request was made for an additional assistant to support the work. Without this help, the duties of his post could not be properly discharged. Recent damage was also reported. The forts had suffered from severe and unusual floods on the island. The matter was considered. The scale of work at the out-forts was acknowledged. The gunner’s advanced age was noted. The need for assistance, both at the Great Fort and elsewhere, was accepted. It was therefore agreed that a suitable person should be appointed as an additional assistant to the gunner, so that the necessary work might be carried out more effectively and with greater speed. Interpretations The gunner’s role extended beyond oversight of artillery to the maintenance of defensive infrastructure across multiple sites. The dispersed nature of the forts increased the logistical burden, making adequate staffing essential for effective defence. The reference to flood damage shows how environmental events directly affected military readiness. Repair of fortifications became an urgent administrative task, linking natural disruption to defensive vulnerability. The formal approval of an assistant demonstrates centralised control over labour allocation. Even routine support roles required council authorisation, reflecting tight regulation of manpower within the Company’s system. Speculations The emphasis on distance between forts suggests that delays in maintenance had become a risk. The appointment of an assistant was probably intended to prevent deterioration in defensive capacity at a time when external threat remained a concern. The mention of the gunner’s age indicates reliance on experienced personnel despite physical limitation. The addition of an assistant may have been a practical solution to preserve his expertise while compensating for reduced capacity. | |
326 | mana[gm]t of his Trust for securing y[e] Forts & preservation It is ordered That Robt Addis Souldr who hath served the Rt Jo: Johnson | The need for better management of the gunner’s charge was affirmed, with attention given to the security of the forts and the preservation of the island. An order was then made that Robert Addis, who had served the East India Company on the island for seven years, be appointed as assistant to the gunner in the role of quarter gunner. A fixed wage was assigned at 27s 0d per month, this being the established rate formerly allowed to quarter gunners. In return for this pay, Addis was required not only to assist the gunner in his duties but also to visit the outlying parts of the island as often as the governor should judge fit and convenient to direct. Interpretations The appointment of a quarter gunner shows a structured hierarchy within the artillery service. This role functioned as a subordinate but skilled position, supporting the gunner in both maintenance and operational oversight across dispersed fortifications. The fixed monthly wage of 27s 0d reflects a standardised pay scale for technical military roles. Such consistency indicates an established system for valuing skilled service within the Company’s employment framework. The requirement that Addis travel to outlying posts highlights the administrative reach of the governor. Orders could extend beyond central locations, ensuring inspection and maintenance across the island’s defensive network. Speculations The selection of Addis, despite his recent disciplinary record, suggests that experience was given weight over past misconduct. His seven years of service probably marked him as reliable enough for a technical role that required familiarity with the island’s defences. The inclusion of duties beyond simple assistance implies that the position was designed to extend the gunner’s effective reach. This arrangement may have been intended to improve response times and oversight following the recent flood damage to the forts. | |
327 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Joshua Johnson Gov[r] Mr John Symes late made the 2d time Upon Consideration that the said Mr Symes | A consultation was held at Fort James on 24 June 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[i]er as a member of council. John Symes made a second request to the governor and council. An increase in credit at the East India Company stores was sought, amounting to a further £28 0s 0d. Payment was to be made in England by bills of exchange, supported by bond and letter of advice. Leave was also requested to depart for England aboard the Prince Anne of Denmarke, commanded by Captain John Morris. Consideration was given to his position. Departure from the island could not be effected without sufficient funds to discharge debts already incurred there. These debts were described as considerable and were attributed to excessive spending. A need was also recognised for reasonable provision for the homeward voyage. It was judged that, without such support, further debt would probably be incurred, which would delay his departure for a significant time and might lead to serious financial harm or ruin. Interpretations Credit issued from the Company’s stores functioned as a controlled financial mechanism. Goods or funds could be advanced against future repayment, allowing individuals to manage immediate obligations while remaining within the Company’s economic system. Bills of exchange enabled repayment to be made in England rather than on the island. This instrument linked distant financial networks, allowing debt contracted locally to be settled through metropolitan credit channels. The requirement for bond and letter of advice provided security and verification. The bond created a legal obligation to repay, while the letter of advice served as formal notice to agents in England, ensuring that the transaction would be recognised and honoured. Permission to depart the island was subject to council approval. This reflects administrative control over movement, particularly where unresolved debts or obligations might affect the Company’s financial interests. Speculations The willingness to extend further credit despite Symes’s record of extravagance suggests that enabling his departure was seen as the lesser risk. By allowing him to leave with structured repayment in England, the council probably aimed to prevent the accumulation of unmanageable local debt that could not be recovered. The insistence on formal financial instruments indicates concern over enforcement across distance. The combination of bond, bills, and notice suggests that the council sought to secure repayment through multiple channels, reducing the chance of default once Symes had left the island. | |
328 | It is ordered That y[e] said Mr Symes have Credit according As also That he have leave and liberty to goe for Tho: Swallow planter, desired y[t] Elizabeth It is ordered That the said Swallows wife, have Tho: Balmer, James, & Blin petitioned It is ordered That the said Balmer have leave accordingly | An order was made that John Symes be granted credit as requested, in the sum of £28 0s 0d. This was added to a former allowance of £15 0s 0d granted on 23 April 1692, making a total of £43 0s 0d. This credit was to be issued in goods from the East India Company stores. It was to be used for the discharge of his debts and for provisions required on his voyage. Leave and liberty were also granted for him to depart for England aboard the Prince Anne of Denmarke, commanded by Captain John Morris. A request was then made by Thomas Swallow that his wife Elizabeth might be permitted to leave the island on the same ship. This leave and licence were granted. Further petitions were presented by Thomas Balmer, James [...], and Blin [...], seeking permission to depart on the Prince Anne of Denmarke. It was ordered that Balmer be allowed to go. His limited usefulness to the Company on the island was noted as the reason. Interpretations Credit issued in store goods rather than coin shows how the Company controlled both supply and finance. Goods functioned as currency within the island economy, allowing debts to be settled and provisions obtained without the need for cash. The aggregation of debts into a single total of £43 0s 0d reflects a formal accounting process. Previous and current allowances were combined, ensuring that obligations were clearly recorded and enforceable. Permission to leave the island was regulated by the governor and council. Movement was tied to economic and labour considerations, with departure allowed where it reduced burden or resolved outstanding obligations. The reference to usefulness indicates that labour was assessed in practical terms. Individuals judged to contribute little to the Company’s operations could be released, suggesting an active management of population based on utility. Speculations The decision to grant Symes both credit and passage suggests a coordinated effort to remove a debtor while securing repayment through external channels. This approach probably reduced local financial risk while transferring responsibility to networks in England. The approval of multiple departures on the same ship indicates an opportunity created by the vessel’s sailing. The council appears to have used this moment to adjust the island’s population, allowing those of limited value or with personal reasons to leave in a single movement. | |
329 | Beni[n] Wian Planter desired that Mary his Prudence y[e] wife of Tho: Thorvin planter It is ordered That Mary Want & Margrett Thorvin have Lycense William Luke Souldr, Do a petition to y[e] Gov[r] Isaac Miles Souldr delivered a petition likewise | A request was made by Benin Wian that his daughter Mary Wian, recently married to Richard Ware, might be permitted to leave the island. Her husband served aboard the Royall James & Mary, commanded by Captain Robert Buck. Leave and licence were sought for her departure on that vessel. A further request was made by Prudence, wife of Thomas Thorvin, who was absent. Permission was sought for her daughter Margrett to leave the island on the same ship. An order was made that Mary Wian and Margrett Thorvin be granted leave and licence to depart accordingly. A petition was then submitted by William Luke. A desire was expressed to return to England aboard the Sara, commanded by Captain John Loyer. It was proposed that a replacement could be provided. A man aboard that ship was said to be willing to come ashore and enter the service and pay of the East India Company in his place. This person was described as fit for service and willing to remain on the island for the remainder of Luke’s agreed term, which was about one year and a half. Another petition was presented by Isaac Miles. A similar request was made to return to England. An offer was also given to provide a substitute to serve the Company for the remainder of his contracted time, which was one year. Interpretations Permission for women to leave the island required formal approval, even when tied to marriage. This reflects administrative oversight of population movement, including dependants and family members. The use of replacement labour in petitions from soldiers shows a contractual system of service. Obligations could be transferred, but only with approval and the provision of a suitable substitute, ensuring continuity of manpower. The reference to contracted time indicates fixed-term service agreements. These terms bound individuals to the Company for specified periods, reinforcing a structured labour system governed by obligation and consent. Speculations The readiness of both Luke and Miles to provide substitutes suggests that departure was contingent on maintaining workforce numbers. This arrangement probably allowed the council to balance individual requests with the island’s need for defence and labour. The movement of Mary Wian following marriage indicates that family ties could shape patterns of departure. Her removal from the island may have been encouraged to consolidate households aboard Company ships, reducing dependants left behind. | |
330 | And half which said p[er]son belong’d to y[e] good It is ordered That Luke & Mills have Leave to Jo: Johnson | It was further stated that the proposed replacement for William Luke belonged to the Defence, commanded by Captain William Heath. A request was made that Luke might depart in that ship. An order was then made that Luke and Isaac Miles be permitted to leave the island according to their request. This was made conditional. Each was required to provide a replacement in his place. The substitute had to be as capable and sufficient for service to the East India Company as the man he replaced. This condition was fulfilled. Both men were then discharged from service. Interpretations The requirement for like-for-like replacement shows a strict equivalence principle in labour substitution. The Company did not accept any substitute but required one of equal capability, ensuring that operational strength was maintained without decline. Discharge from service was conditional upon compliance with contractual obligations. Release was not granted freely but depended on fulfilment of terms, reflecting a binding employment structure. The identification of the replacement as belonging to a specific ship indicates that Company vessels acted as labour reservoirs. Movement between ship and shore service was managed within a single administrative system. Speculations The acceptance of replacements drawn from ships suggests that maritime crews were seen as a flexible labour pool. This practice probably allowed the council to meet immediate staffing needs without waiting for new arrivals from England. The readiness to discharge Luke and Miles once substitutes were secured indicates that retention of manpower, rather than individual service, was the primary concern. This approach may have helped maintain stability while allowing turnover among personnel seeking to return home. | |
331 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday Present Joshua Johnson Gov[r] Information having been given the 24th Instant & when the said Mary Gutting with that her said Black Upon which Information y[e] Gov[r] did Immediately order | A consultation was held at Fort James on 27 July 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[i]er as a member of council. Information had been given on 24 July 1692 by Mary Gutting, wife of Richard Gutting. She reported that one of her slaves had revealed a plan. Andrew Rooker, together with his slave, a slave belonging to Hugh Bosby, and several others, in total about 14 or 15 persons, had conspired to escape from the island. The plan was to take the East India Company boat from its usual moorings during the night. It was said that information had been received from Lascars who had sailed in the Prince Anne of Denmarke. They had claimed that land could be reached within a few days after leaving the island. Mary Gutting further reported that the slave of Rooker had tried to persuade her own slave to join the attempt. Agreement had appeared to be given. Promises had been made that necessary items would be prepared. These included a mast, sails, and provisions for the voyage. Upon receiving this information, the governor acted at once. Orders were issued that the masters of the slaves be informed without delay. This was done so that the slaves might be secured and the escape prevented, it having been indicated that departure was intended for the night of 25 July 1692. | |
332 | Saturday at night, to Monday next 27th Instant The first examined, was the sd Guttings slave So that upon the whole, It was found that The whole being considered That the said Rooker Black being y[e] | The intended escape was said to be planned for Saturday night, before Monday 27 July 1692, which had been appointed as the day for the shooting and trial of the slaves. Before that time arrived, all those suspected were brought down to Fort James by their masters, in obedience to the governor’s order, so that examination and confession might be taken. It was understood that, if the design were not stopped at once, it would lead to serious consequence. The first examined was the slave of Richard Gutting. A full account was given. Knowledge of the conspiracy was admitted. It was stated that the slave of Andrew Rooker had intended to act as captain. At first, no admission was made by that man. When confronted with others who were later examined, he admitted at last that he had spoken to four or five others to join him. From the whole evidence, it was found that Rooker’s slave had been the leader. The scheme had first been set on foot by him. The slave of Hugh Bosby had been drawn in by him. It also appeared that he had approached many others to assist in taking away the East India Company boat and carrying out the escape. The matter was then considered. An order was made that Rooker’s slave, as the chief instigator, should be punished at the gallows. A sentence of 75 lashes on his naked body was to be carried out by two of the other guilty slaves. After this punishment, five drops of burning sealing wax were to be applied to his body. When this had been done, he was to be released. Interpretations The identification of a “ring leader” shows a structured attribution of responsibility within collective offences. Punishment was concentrated on the principal organiser, reinforcing hierarchy within both the conspiracy and its suppression. The requirement that other slaves carry out the whipping reveals a disciplinary system that enforced authority through the labour of the punished group itself. This method extended control by making participants in the conspiracy act in the punishment of one another. The use of the gallows as the site of punishment, even where execution did not follow, indicates its symbolic role as a place of ultimate authority. Corporal punishment carried out there reinforced the association between disobedience and the threat of death. The application of burning sealing wax after whipping shows an additional layer of physical penalty. This act functioned as both punishment and mark, intensifying the severity of discipline beyond standard lashes. Speculations The decision to stop short of execution, while imposing severe corporal punishment, suggests a calculated balance. The council probably sought to deter further attempts without reducing the available labour force through death. The rapid gathering and examination of all suspected individuals indicates urgency. The authorities appear to have acted quickly to prevent coordination, suggesting that even a small delay might have allowed the escape attempt to proceed. | |
333 | Also It is ordered That the s[ai]d Bosbyes Black be likewise Further It is ordered That the rest of the slaves (Excepting Richd Jo: Johnson | A further order was made that the slave of Hugh Bosby be taken to the gallows and there receive 45 lashes on his naked body. After this, three drops of burning sealing wax were to be applied to his body. When this punishment had been carried out, he was to be released. It was also ordered that the remaining slaves involved in the design, except for the slave of Richard Gutting who had first revealed the plot, be brought to the gallows and punished. The severity of punishment was to vary according to the degree of guilt found in each case. After punishment, all were to be released. Interpretations The graded punishment imposed on different individuals reflects a system that distinguished degrees of involvement. Authority was exercised through measured penalties rather than uniform treatment, reinforcing both hierarchy and accountability. The exemption granted to the slave who revealed the plot shows that cooperation with authority could mitigate punishment. This created an incentive structure within the enslaved population, encouraging disclosure of resistance in exchange for leniency. The repeated use of the gallows as the place of punishment underscores its role as a central site of coercive authority. Even without execution, it served as a visible instrument of control and deterrence. The combination of whipping and burning sealing wax indicates a layered approach to punishment. Physical pain was used not only to penalise but to mark the seriousness of the offence and reinforce submission. Speculations The decision to spare the informing slave suggests that the authorities sought to encourage internal division among those involved in resistance. By rewarding disclosure, future plots may have been weakened before they could develop. The variation in punishment among the group implies that the council aimed to calibrate discipline carefully. This approach probably balanced deterrence with the need to preserve labour, avoiding excessive severity that might reduce the workforce while still asserting firm control. | |
334 | Islan[d] St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Pr Sent Joshua Johnson Gov[er] John Downinge Mr Carpenter who John Bagley Journey man Carpenter Butt the Gov[er] & Council takeing to | A consultation was held at Fort James on 19 July 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Bowrier as a member of council. John Downinge, master carpenter, had been employed in making a pair of gates, as recorded in the consultation of 22 April 1691. By order, he presented his bill for this work. A charge of £4 11s 0d was made for thirteen days’ labour by himself and his boy. His own rate was set at 5s 0d per day, and his boy’s at 2s 0d per day. John Bagley, who had also worked on the same gates, presented his bill. He had been employed for thirteen days. A sum of £2 19s 6d was demanded, calculated at a rate of 4s 6d per day. These demands were considered by the governor and council. Both were judged to be unreasonable. Interpretations The submission of bills for work performed shows a formal system of accounting for labour. Skilled workers were required to present detailed claims, which were then subject to review and approval by the council. The distinction between a master carpenter, a journeyman, and a boy reflects a structured hierarchy of skilled labour. Payment rates varied according to status and experience, indicating an established scale of wages. The council’s rejection of the claimed sums demonstrates active oversight of expenditure. Payment was not automatic but depended on assessment, allowing the Company to regulate costs and prevent overcharging. Speculations The decision to reject the bills as unreasonable suggests tension between skilled workers and the Company over wages. The carpenters may have set rates based on scarcity of skill, while the council probably sought to impose stricter control over costs in a resource-limited setting. The involvement of multiple workers on the same task indicates that the construction of the gates was of importance. The council’s scrutiny of payment may reflect concern over rising expenses tied to essential infrastructure work. | |
335 | Therefore It is agreed That the said Downinge & Bagleyes paym[en]ts to John Steevens Chirurgeon who had It was Agreed & Ordered That he should have and receive for the Cure of As also It is Further agreed with That in Case the said negro should fall into It is Further Ordered That Lt Rich Reling[e] Store keeper doe pay & [...] | It was agreed that the payments claimed by John Downinge and John Bagley for the making of the gates should not be settled at that time. Their demands were set aside for further consideration. John Steevens then presented his account. About a year earlier, one of the East India Company’s male slaves had been placed under his care for treatment of a disease. The Company’s current surgeon, Henry Manning, had declared himself unable to cure the condition. Steevens reported that the man had now been restored to health. A charge of £7 0s 0d was made for physic, diet, and labour. After debate, the sum was reduced. Payment was fixed at £6 0s 0d for the cure. A further condition was imposed. If the slave were to relapse through any remaining trace of the disease, and the cure proved incomplete, Steevens was required to take him again into care and continue treatment until full recovery was achieved. No additional payment was to be made beyond the £6 0s 0d already agreed. An order was then made that Richard Kelinge, acting as storekeeper, should pay Steevens the £6 0s 0d from the Company’s stores. Interpretations The decision to defer payment to the carpenters shows that claims for labour could be withheld pending review. This reflects a system in which expenditure was tightly controlled, and payment depended on approval rather than immediate settlement. The reduction of the surgeon’s bill demonstrates negotiated valuation of professional services. Even where a cure had been achieved, the council retained authority to set the final price, balancing recognition of skill against cost control. The condition requiring further treatment without additional pay imposed a form of performance guarantee. Payment was tied not only to initial success but to the durability of the cure, extending the surgeon’s obligation beyond the point of treatment. The use of Company stores as the source of payment shows that institutional resources were centrally managed. Compensation could be issued from these stores, reinforcing the Company’s role as both employer and provider. Speculations The insistence on a fixed sum with no further payment in case of relapse suggests concern over repeated costs. The council probably aimed to avoid ongoing expense by placing full responsibility for the outcome on the surgeon. The refusal to settle the carpenters’ bills at once may indicate doubt about the scale of their charges. This delay suggests that the council intended to reassess labour costs more broadly, perhaps in response to rising expenditure on skilled work. | |
336 | The Gover[n]o[r] having been Informed yt W[illia]m Price Which accordingly they did & they being both To w[hi]ch Price utterly denyed what was said to Then the said Burnam was Commanded to The said Burnam not being sworne said yt | Information was given to Joshua Johnson that William Price had told Thomas Burnam that Captain Worp and Joshua Johnson were no governors and held no authority to act as such. These words were judged dangerous, as they might weaken government and lead to harmful consequence. An order was made that Price and Burnam attend at Fort James and appear before the governor and council on that day. Both attended as required. Price was first called and questioned. The charge was put to him. He denied it fully. No admission was made. He stated that he had never spoken such words, nor anything of similar meaning. Burnam was then called and required to give evidence. He was not sworn. A statement was made that he had heard Price say that the governor was no governor and had no authority. Further support was claimed. William Borman, Thomas Hensdale, and Joseph Davis were named as having heard the same words. It was also said that Margret, wife of Burnam, had heard similar statements made by Price at another time and place. To confirm this, she, Harper [...], Mary his wife, and Robert Begamore were offered as further witnesses. Interpretations The treatment of spoken words as a matter for formal inquiry shows that speech could be treated as a threat to authority. Statements denying the governor’s legitimacy were handled as potential offences against governance rather than private disputes. The summoning of individuals before the council reflects a judicial function exercised by the governor and council. They acted not only as administrators but also as a court, examining accusations and hearing testimony. The use of unsworn testimony indicates a flexible evidentiary practice. Statements could be received and weighed even without formal oath, suggesting a pragmatic approach to proof in a small and controlled community. The calling of multiple witnesses demonstrates an effort to establish credibility through repetition and corroboration. Testimony was strengthened by the number of voices rather than strict legal procedure. Speculations The concern shown over Price’s alleged words suggests sensitivity to challenges against authority. Even informal remarks were treated seriously, which may indicate underlying tensions or uncertainty about governance on the island. The reliance on several witnesses, including family members, suggests that the case depended heavily on social networks. This may reflect the limited means of formal investigation, where reputation and collective testimony carried decisive weight. | |
337 | The said p[er]sons who were nominated by y[e] s[ai]d Who being all Comanded to declare what they had All Replyed they had been Inde[e]d in the said Prices Upon which declarations the Gov[er]n[o]r & Councell was It is therefore Ordered: That the said Burnam doe pay the Charge of the | The persons named by Thomas Burnam to confirm his accusation, together with others named by William Price to give contrary evidence, were ordered to attend at Fort James the following morning. All appeared as summoned. Each was required to declare what had been heard. All stated that they had been in Price’s company at the time referred to by Burnam. They denied hearing Price mention the name of Joshua Johnson in any way. They further declared that they had not heard him say that the governor was no governor. These statements were offered under oath. On this evidence, the governor and council were satisfied that Price was innocent of the charge brought against him. It was accepted that no words had been spoken by him against the governor or the government. An order was then made against Burnam. He was required to pay the costs incurred by summoning the witnesses. He was also required to acknowledge, before the governor, council, and those present, that he had wronged Price and was sorry for it. A further order required that the same acknowledgment be made publicly at the next general rendezvous before the whole settlement. Interpretations The summoning of witnesses and the weighing of testimony show the council acting in a judicial capacity. Disputes over speech and reputation were formally examined, with evidence gathered and assessed before judgment was given. The requirement that Burnam pay the costs of witnesses reflects a principle of liability for false accusation. Financial responsibility was imposed as a consequence of bringing an unfounded charge, discouraging misuse of the council’s authority. The enforced public apology at a general rendezvous indicates that reputation was treated as a matter of public order. Restoration of status required not only private acknowledgment but open correction before the wider community. The acceptance of sworn statements demonstrates that oath-taking served as a key mechanism of proof. Credibility rested on collective testimony reinforced by willingness to swear to its truth. Speculations The decision to require a public apology suggests that the harm extended beyond the individuals involved. The accusation touched on the authority of the governor, so its correction was made visible to prevent doubt or unrest within the settlement. The reliance on multiple witnesses who denied the claim indicates that the council sought clear consensus before dismissing the charge. This approach probably aimed to close the matter firmly and prevent its revival through further dispute. | |
338 | H[e]n[ry] Jackson [e]sq[re] desired that he It is Agreed & ordered That the said Jackson shall have the worke Jane the wife of Tho: Smout planter | Henry Jackson requested that he might hire for one further year a young slave girl named Molle, belonging to the East India Company. He had held her labour during the past year, which ended on 30 July 1691, at a rate of 32s 0d per year. A request was also made that payment of this sum be deferred, as he had incurred greater than usual expense. An offer was made to pay both years together at a later date, with an additional allowance for the delay if required. It was agreed that Jackson should retain the labour of Molle for one further year, from 30 July 1691 until 30 July 1692. A payment of 36s 0d was set for the second year. It was further ordered that the 32s 0d owed for the previous year be deferred until the end of the new term. At that time, both sums were to be paid together, amounting in total to £3 8s 0d. During this period, Jackson was required to provide Molle with sufficient food and clothing. Jane Smout, wife of Thomas Smout, who had been absent for some time, then made application to the governor and council. A request was made that she might hire and have the labour of a slave girl named Doll for the current year. Interpretations The hiring of slaves from the Company shows that labour was treated as a rentable asset. Control of enslaved workers remained with the Company, while their labour could be leased to private individuals under fixed terms. The increase from 32s 0d to 36s 0d reflects a charge for deferred payment. This functioned as a form of interest, compensating the Company for delayed receipt of money. The requirement that the hirer provide food and clothing indicates transfer of maintenance responsibility during the term. While ownership remained with the Company, the cost of upkeep was shifted to the user of the labour. The consolidation of two years’ payment into a single future obligation shows a flexible but controlled credit system. Debts could be extended, but only under revised terms that secured the Company’s financial interest. Speculations The agreement to defer payment suggests that the Company preferred to maintain continuous use of its labour assets rather than enforce immediate payment. This approach probably ensured steady income while avoiding disruption to agricultural or domestic work. The willingness of Jackson to accept higher payment for delay indicates that access to labour was valuable enough to justify additional cost. This suggests that such labour was in demand and not easily replaced. | |
339 | Gi[r]le shee formerly hired for the year past Ending y[e] 24[th] Day of June last, as also two Cows, for the Said Terme, for which said Black Girles labour & y[e] milke of the Said two Cows & the the said Jane Smout did Agree to pay the sume of [...] for y[e] yeare aforesaid. It is agreed & Ordered That the said Jane Smout should have the use & labour of the said Doll a Female Black of the Rt Hono[ble] Comp[a] for one yeare more Commencing from the feast of St John Baptist being the 24[th] Day of June last past at 40[ s ] hire, & that shee have from y[e] Said time, the milke & Increase of two Cows still in her possession at the Rente of 40[ s ] p Ann[o]. And [...] Booker Esqr having engaged to pay out of his growing Salary the sume of four pounds at y[e] years End which shall be on acct of the hire of the said Black Girle & the Said two Cows Jo: Johnson Kelinge Borr[i]er | The request made by Jane Smout was considered. She had previously held the labour of a slave girl named Doll, together with the use of two cows, for the year ending 24 June 1692. An agreement had been made to pay [...] for that term, covering both the girl’s labour and the milk of the two cows. It was agreed that she should continue to have the use and labour of Doll, a female slave belonging to the East India Company, for one further year. This term was set to run from 24 June 1692, being the feast of St John the Baptist. A hire of 40s 0d was fixed for the girl. She was also to retain the milk and increase of the two cows already in her possession, at a further rent of 40s 0d per year. Booker undertook to pay £4 0s 0d at the end of the year out of his growing salary. This payment was to be applied towards the hire of the slave girl and the two cows. Interpretations The combined hiring of a slave and livestock shows how labour and productive assets were managed together. Both human labour and animal output were treated as revenue-generating resources, leased under structured terms. The reference to “increase” of the cows indicates entitlement not only to current yield but to future offspring. This extended the value of the lease beyond immediate production, embedding longer-term economic benefit within the agreement. The use of a third party to guarantee payment demonstrates a system of financial security. Booker’s undertaking linked his salary to the obligation, ensuring that the Company had a reliable source of payment even if the hirer failed. The fixing of separate rents for labour and livestock shows a differentiated valuation of assets. Each element was priced individually, reflecting its distinct contribution to economic output. Speculations The involvement of Booker as guarantor suggests that Jane Smout may not have been considered fully secure in her own credit. This arrangement probably allowed her to continue access to valuable resources while protecting the Company against default. The continued leasing of both the slave and the cows indicates that this combination was productive and worth maintaining. The agreement may reflect a stable arrangement that supported household subsistence or small-scale production on the island. | |
340 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thurs= Present Joshua Johnson Govr The Govern[or] & Councell having taken unto their Accordingly It was ordered That Ten of the planters of the last Division Which said Order was put in Execution & | A consultation was held at Fort James on [...] July 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[i]er as a member of council. The governor and council gave close attention to the state of revenues due to the East India Company stores, together with profits owed by the inhabitants of the island. A decision was taken to summon [...] to Fort James. The purpose was to examine and settle outstanding accounts, which had been left unresolved for several years. Measures were also planned to secure payment of these debts. Where rent could not be paid in money, obligations were to be placed upon the planters’ land. Payment might then be taken in cattle or other agreed goods. An order was issued that ten planters from the last division should attend at the fort on 10 August 1692. A further group from the next division was to attend on the following Thursday, being [...] September 1692. This pattern was to continue, with groups called every two days each week, until all planters had appeared and their accounts had been completed. This order was carried out. Compliance was given across the island by all inhabitants, except for Grace Coulson, widow of [...]. Interpretations The summoning of planters in divisions shows a structured administrative process for debt recovery. By organising attendance in groups, the council imposed order on what had been neglected accounts, ensuring systematic review. The use of land obligations as security reveals a mechanism for enforcing payment. Where cash was lacking, property was bound to the debt, allowing the Company to claim value through other means such as livestock. The acceptance of payment in cattle or goods indicates a flexible economic system. In the absence of sufficient coin, material assets were treated as equivalent forms of revenue. The reference to long-standing omissions shows that arrears had accumulated over time. This action reflects a deliberate effort to restore financial control and regularise income. Speculations The decision to enforce settlement after several years of neglect suggests growing concern over lost revenue. The council probably acted at this point because the accumulation of unpaid dues had reached a level that threatened the Company’s financial stability on the island. The structured schedule of appearances implies that the number of debtors was large. This approach may have been designed to avoid disruption while still ensuring compliance, spreading the process over time rather than enforcing it all at once. | |
341 | John Couleson late planter (one of those Executed for Upon which Contempt; y[e] Rt Hon[ble] Comp[a]’s Now being Informed that shee the s[a]id Grace It is ordered That M[aste]r Gate & Borr[i]er with Serj[ean]t Hailes & Corp[ora]ll | Reference was made to John Couleson, who had been executed for rebellion on the island. His widow, Grace Couleson, refused either to pay what she owed to the East India Company or to enter into an obligation to do so, as others had done. After prolonged discussion, an offer was made by her to pay in beans. This was refused. Such produce had proved of no use. A previous payment of 40 bushels of beans had been accepted the year before, but these still lay in the storehouse, decaying and unsold. It was judged unwise to accept the same again, especially given her quarrelsome and unyielding manner. Her conduct was treated as contempt. The Company’s instructions regarding the collection of revenues were then reviewed with care. These required that all dues be enforced and that any who refused payment, or who gave false or incomplete accounts of their cattle grazing on Company wasteland, be compelled to meet their obligations. Information was then received that Grace Couleson had, in the previous year, given a false account of her cattle grazing on the Company’s waste. In response, an order was made that Gate and Captain Borr[i]er, together with Sergeant Hailes and Corporal Dixon, should be employed to take a full account of her cattle, as many as could be found, and to report their number to the governor and council. Interpretations The refusal to accept payment in beans shows that not all goods were treated as equal forms of revenue. Perishable or unsaleable produce could be rejected, indicating that the Company assessed not only value but also usability and marketability. The requirement to give a true account of cattle grazing on Company wasteland reflects a system of indirect taxation. Livestock numbers determined liability, making accurate reporting essential to revenue collection. The use of obligations under hand demonstrates a legal mechanism for securing debt. Written commitments bound individuals to future payment, allowing enforcement even where immediate settlement was not possible. The deployment of officers to count cattle shows direct intervention in private property to enforce fiscal compliance. Authority extended into inspection and verification, not merely reliance on declared accounts. Speculations The refusal to accept beans a second time suggests that earlier flexibility had led to loss. The council probably hardened its stance after experiencing the practical failure of such payment, shifting towards stricter control over acceptable forms of revenue. The decision to investigate her cattle directly indicates distrust of her declarations. This action may have been intended not only to recover dues but to set an example, discouraging others from underreporting livestock. | |
342 | Councill [...] whom [...] to be likewise [...] According to which Order the said p[er]sons Upon which It was Further That the further prosecution of the said Grace And then also to Consider what Method to take Jo: Johnson | An order was made that the account of Grace Couleson’s cattle should be returned to the governor and council, and that it be confirmed on oath when required. In obedience to this order, Gate, Captain Borr[i]er, Sergeant Hailes, and Corporal Dixon presented their report. A total of 55 cattle was recorded. It was also stated that more were believed to exist, though their number could not be fully determined. Further action was then ordered. Proceedings against Grace Couleson were postponed until the next court day, to be held at the beginning of October 1692. She was to be arrested and brought before the court. The charge was contempt of the East India Company’s orders, together with the submission of a false account of her cattle. It was considered that she had not only defrauded the Company in the previous year by allowing her cattle to graze on Company wasteland without payment of dues, but had probably done so over several years. Earlier returns submitted by her were thought unlikely to match the number of cattle now discovered. At the same time, consideration was to be given to the method by which her outstanding revenues should be collected and her fine imposed when it became due. Interpretations The requirement that the cattle count be confirmed on oath shows reliance on sworn verification in administrative enforcement. This strengthened the evidential basis for financial claims and penalties. The postponement to a formal court day indicates a structured legal process. Serious disputes involving fraud and contempt were reserved for scheduled judicial proceedings rather than resolved immediately by council order. The charge of giving a false account reflects a system dependent on self-reporting. Enforcement mechanisms were triggered when discrepancies between declared and observed assets were identified. The reference to grazing on Company wasteland reveals a form of resource-based revenue. Use of common land generated obligations, making access to grazing subject to payment and regulation. Speculations The delay until October suggests that the council intended to build a stronger case before proceeding. This pause may have allowed time to gather further evidence and ensure that the charge could be fully sustained in court. The suspicion of long-term underreporting indicates that this case was treated as more than an isolated offence. The council probably used it as an opportunity to reinforce compliance across the island by demonstrating that past discrepancies could be revisited and punished. | |
343 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Fryday Present Joshua Johnson Govr The Govr & Councill having Considered y[e] house And accordingly It was Ordered That the said house be sett up in Out cry there to on | A consultation was held at Fort James on 28 August 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[i]er as a member of council. Consideration was given to a house in Chapel Valley belonging to the East India Company. It had been purchased from Matthew Browney, who had left the island with his family for Bombay aboard the Benjamin, commanded by Captain Leonard Browne. The house was in need of repair. It was also judged at risk from fire. Like others in that row, it was low built and thatched, despite recent orders intended to prevent such danger. For the protection of the Company’s interest, it was decided that the house should be sold by public outcry. An order was made that the house be put up for auction on 3 September 1692. To encourage bidders, a plot of ground was to be marked out behind the house, measuring 15 feet in depth and extending the full width of the frontage, to serve as a yard or garden. This land was to be included in the sale. The house and ground were to be set at an opening value of £40 0s 0d, with each bid to advance by 10s 0d. Notice of the sale was to be given on the following Monday at the head of the [...] Interpretations The decision to sell by public outcry shows the use of open auction as a method of disposal. This allowed the Company to realise value while ensuring transparency in the sale of its property. The inclusion of additional land as an incentive indicates an effort to increase attractiveness and sale price. Property value was enhanced through controlled allocation of adjacent ground. The fixed starting price and bidding increments demonstrate a regulated auction process. Terms were set in advance to structure competition and prevent arbitrary negotiation. The concern over fire risk reflects broader regulatory efforts to manage urban safety. Thatched buildings were recognised as hazardous, and their continued presence prompted intervention through sale and redevelopment. Speculations The decision to sell rather than repair suggests that the Company preferred to transfer risk to a private owner. This may have reduced maintenance costs while still securing revenue from the sale. The addition of a garden plot implies that demand for such property might otherwise have been weak. The council probably sought to make the lot more desirable in order to ensure successful bidding. | |
344 | whole Island, when in their Armes (it being Jo: Johnson | Notice of the sale was ordered to be given across the whole island when the inhabitants were assembled in arms, this being a general rendezvous of both soldiers and planters. Those who wished to purchase the house and ground were required to attend at the beat of drum at the public market house. The Joshua Johnson and council were to be present there to conduct the sale. Interpretations The use of a general rendezvous for public notice shows how administrative communication was tied to military assembly. By gathering both soldiers and planters in one place, orders could be widely and efficiently proclaimed. The requirement to attend at the beat of drum reflects a formal method of summoning the community. Sound signals served as an official means of communication, ensuring that announcements reached a broad audience. The holding of the auction at the market house indicates its role as a central civic space. Commercial transactions under Company authority were conducted in public settings, reinforcing oversight and legitimacy. The presence of the governor and council at the sale demonstrates direct administrative control over property disposal. Such transactions were not delegated but managed at the highest local level to secure the Company’s interest. Speculations The choice to announce the sale at a full assembly suggests that the council sought maximum participation. This approach probably aimed to increase competition and achieve a higher sale price. The combination of military gathering and commercial activity indicates an efficient use of limited opportunities for large assemblies. The council may have used this moment to combine governance, defence readiness, and economic management in a single event. | |
345 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held att Present Joshua Johnson Gov[er] Accor[d]ing to an Order made in y[e] Which accordingly was sett up by publique out It is therefore Ordered Jo: Johnson | A consultation was held at Fort James on 3 September 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Borr[i]er as a member of council. In accordance with the order made on 28 August 1692, the house formerly belonging to Matthew Bonner, who had departed the island aboard the Benjamin under Captain Leonard Browne, was offered for sale by public outcry. The house and attached ground were included, and it had been announced that each bid should advance by 10s 0d. The sale was conducted in the presence of the governor and council. James Taylor, who had previously rented the house, offered £40 10s 0d. No higher bid was made, the price being judged too high by others present. An order was made that Taylor should take the house and ground at the price of £40 10s 0d. Payment was to be made within one year, by quarterly instalments beginning on 3 September 1692. A bond was required to secure performance. Additional security was to be provided through assignment of the future salaries and pay of Taylor, Ismaell Kiles, and Simon Leech for the year during which payment would be made. Upon these conditions, a deed for the house and ground was to be granted to Taylor by the East India Company. Interpretations The use of public outcry confirms an open auction system under Company authority. Property was disposed of through competitive bidding, ensuring transparency and maximising return. The requirement for quarterly instalments shows a structured payment plan. Large sums could be paid over time, allowing purchasers to acquire property without immediate full payment while still binding them to a fixed schedule. The bond and collateral assignment of salaries demonstrate layered financial security. Obligations were backed not only by promise but by enforceable claims on income, reducing the risk of default. The issuance of a deed formalised the transfer of property rights. Ownership passed under documented authority, reinforcing the Company’s control over land transactions on the island. Speculations The absence of competing bids suggests limited liquidity among planters. The price may have been beyond the ready means of most, which explains the need to allow staged payment. The requirement that others assign their salaries as security implies that Taylor’s own resources were insufficient to guarantee the full sum. This arrangement probably spread the risk while ensuring the Company retained strong leverage over repayment. | |
346 | Island St. Helena Att a Court of Justice held on Present Mr Richard K[e]l[i]nge attorney Gen[er] The said Attorney Gen[er] alledges that Contrary The said G[u]tling Denyes the acc[o]n averring Robt Leech[?] | A court of justice was held near Fort James on 5 October 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Captain Borr[i]er of council and Richard Kelinge present as attorney general. A complaint was brought by the attorney general against Richard Gutling. A licence had been granted to him, by special favour, to sell punch, wine, and other strong liquors by retail. This licence was subject to strict conditions. All liquor sold was to be purchased from the East India Company stores whenever stock was available. No punch was to be sold on the Sabbath. It was alleged that Gutling had broken these conditions. Sales of punch had been made on the Sabbath. Liquor had also been sold that had been distilled by himself from potatoes. This had been done at a time when liquor distilled by the Company at its plantation was available for sale in the stores. Gutling denied the charge. He stated that, if any arrack of his own making had been sold, it had not been sold by retail. | |
347 | Robt Exeter being Sworne saith, that Mary Then the said Attorney Gen[er] Produced Therefore, In Consideration of what have been Evidenc[e]d by y[e] s[a]id Which the said Gutling could not Deny; It is Ordered That the said Gutling’s Lycense be taken from Mr Rich[ar]d K[e]linge att[o]rney Gen[er] The s[a]id Coles Denyes the acc[o]n but | Robert Exeter was sworn and gave evidence. He stated that on 17 May 1692, being the Lord’s Day, Mary, wife of Richard Gutling, sold him seven pennyworth of punch. He further stated that on the Friday and Saturday before, he had purchased fifteen pennyworth of punch from Gutling, made from potato arrack. Richard Kelinge then produced an account of the quantity of potato arrack Gutling had purchased from the East India Company stores. This amounted to only half a leaguer. It was judged that such a quantity could not have produced the number of bottles of punch that had been sold. On this evidence, which Gutling could not refute, an order was made. His licence to retail liquor was revoked. A forfeiture of £3 0s 0d, being the value of his bond, was imposed, together with costs of suit. The attorney general then brought a further complaint against Henry Coles. He was accused of killing a goat belonging to the Company. Coles denied the charge. He admitted killing a wild goat but maintained that it had been his own, which had strayed and become feral. Interpretations The use of sworn testimony shows formal legal procedure in the court. Evidence given under oath carried weight in determining guilt and enforcing Company regulations. The licence to sell liquor operated under strict conditions. Control over supply ensured that private trade did not compete with Company production, maintaining a monopoly over profitable goods. The forfeiture of the bond functioned as a financial penalty for breach of licence. This created a direct link between compliance and economic consequence, reinforcing regulatory authority. The use of store records to challenge Gutling’s claim demonstrates administrative accounting as evidence. Quantities purchased were used to assess plausibility, integrating record-keeping into judicial process. Speculations The revocation of Gutling’s licence suggests that control over alcohol trade was closely guarded. Breaches may have been treated firmly to protect Company revenue from unauthorised production and sale. The dispute over the goat indicates difficulty in distinguishing private from Company property once animals became wild. This case probably reflects ongoing tension over ownership and use of resources on the island. | |
348 | John Atwood Planter being sworne Tho: Allis Planter being Examined Isaac Leach Planter also being Tho: Coales s[o]n of y[e] s[a]id Now on Consideration that it was neare | John Atwood was sworn and examined. He stated that, in conversation with Henry Coles about goats, Coles had said that he had killed one of the East India Company’s wild goats. It was also said that either his children or his slaves had driven goats from their usual range to his house or enclosure in the countryside. Thomas Allis was examined. He reported that one of his slaves had told him that Coles had killed a wild goat. Isaac Leach was also examined. He stated that a son of Coles had told him that his father had killed a wild goat. Thomas Coles was then examined. He acknowledged that his father had killed several wild goats. He maintained, however, that none had been killed except those belonging to his father, which had strayed from his flock and become wild. He offered to confirm this on oath. Consideration was then given to the matter. It was noted that nearly two years had passed since the goat had been killed, and that no witness had sworn that it belonged to the Company. Interpretations The reliance on spoken admissions shows that informal statements could be treated as evidence. Testimony about conversations was accepted alongside direct observation, reflecting a flexible evidentiary standard. The distinction between Company wild goats and privately owned goats that had strayed indicates contested ownership over animals roaming common land. Property rights depended on origin rather than current condition. The use of testimony from slaves, reported through others, shows indirect evidence being admitted. Information could pass through several layers before reaching the court, yet still be considered relevant. The offer to swear an oath by Thomas Coles highlights the importance of sworn declaration in establishing credibility. Willingness to take an oath strengthened a claim in the absence of clear proof. Speculations The difficulty in proving ownership after two years suggests that enforcement over roaming livestock was weak. This case may reflect broader uncertainty in distinguishing Company property from private stock once animals mixed on open land. The repeated references to statements made by family members and slaves indicate reliance on community knowledge. The court probably depended on local networks to reconstruct events where direct evidence was lacking. | |
349 | did only sweare yt ye sd Coales did say it was ye Rt It is therefore Ordered That in Regard ye sd Coales had offered to put That the sd Coales be cast in suite, But Mr Rich: Kelinge Attorney Genr | No witness swore that Henry Coles had killed a goat belonging to the East India Company. Only Mudge swore that he had heard Coles say that the goat he killed was the Company’s. It was therefore ordered that, since Coles had offered to submit the matter to proof, and Mudge had sworn that he heard him make such a statement, judgment should be given against Coles. However, damages were limited to 12d 0s 0d. This reduced penalty was imposed because the information had been judged to arise from ill will. It had also been brought long after the event, and after the words were said to have been spoken. This was contrary to an order of council which required that complaints be brought within three months of the alleged injury, except in cases of felony or treason. Despite this, the complaint was allowed to proceed. It was considered that the Company’s interest was involved, and that if the matter had been dismissed entirely, others might have been discouraged from reporting similar offences. Richard Kelinge then brought a further complaint against Coles. He was charged with trespass, having encroached upon the Company’s wasteland and enclosed part of it within his plantation. Interpretations The limitation of damages despite a finding against Coles shows judicial discretion in balancing proof with fairness. Even where liability was established, penalties could be moderated based on the circumstances of the complaint. The enforcement of a three-month limit for bringing complaints demonstrates procedural regulation within the court. This rule restricted delayed claims, helping to prevent stale or malicious accusations from being pursued. The exception made in this case highlights the primacy of Company interest. Where property or revenue was at stake, procedural rules could be relaxed to allow enforcement. The use of sworn testimony about spoken words shows that verbal admission could be sufficient for judgment. Statements attributed to a defendant carried legal weight when confirmed under oath. The charge of encroachment on wasteland reflects Company control over unallocated land. Such land remained a source of revenue and was protected from private appropriation. Speculations The small damages awarded suggest that the court recognised weakness in the case but still wished to assert authority. This outcome may have been intended to acknowledge the complaint without encouraging further dubious claims. The decision to proceed despite procedural limits indicates concern over maintaining vigilance in protecting Company property. The court probably aimed to signal that offences against Company assets would be pursued even where evidence was imperfect. | |
350 | The said Coales Denyes the accon John Mudge Planter being The whole being seriously Considered That a jury be Impaneled of y[e] neighbour[hood] The Attorney Gen[er] having had | Henry Coles denied the charge of trespass. He stated that he held no more land than had been granted to him by deed from the East India Company, issued by the governor and council under the authority of the Company’s proprietors. John Mudge was examined. He declared that Coles had encroached upon the Company’s wasteland. He stated that several rods of land had been taken beyond the limits of Coles’s original boundary, as measured by Anthony Beale. The matter was considered. An order was made that a jury be formed from neighbours who knew the original boundary and had been present when the land was measured by Beale. The case was to be determined according to the verdict returned by this jury. The attorney general, Richard Kelinge, had also held a case against Grace Couleson, arising from the order of 27 July 1692. Before the court sat, she came to Fort James, about ten or twelve days in advance, suspecting that proceedings would be brought. A composition was then entered into with the governor and attorney general for her offence. Interpretations The reference to land granted by deed shows formal legal title as the basis of property rights. Boundaries established by survey and confirmed by deed defined the limits of lawful possession. The use of a jury drawn from neighbours indicates reliance on local knowledge in resolving disputes. Those familiar with the original measurement acted as arbiters of fact, grounding judgment in shared experience. The role of the surveyor was central in defining property boundaries. Measurement created the legal framework for landholding, and disputes were resolved by reference to that original act. The composition entered into by Grace Couleson reflects a negotiated settlement outside formal trial. Such arrangements allowed disputes to be resolved through agreement, often involving payment, without proceeding to full judgment. Speculations The decision to refer the land dispute to a jury suggests uncertainty in documentary or recorded boundaries. The council probably relied on communal memory to resolve ambiguities that written records could not fully settle. The early approach by Grace Couleson indicates awareness of impending enforcement. Her willingness to settle in advance may reflect an attempt to reduce penalty, suggesting that negotiated outcomes were seen as preferable to formal prosecution in certain cases. | |
351 | [...] shee paying six [...] Breach of ord[e]r [...] 2:0:0 Beside her revenues now Due to y[e] Rt Hon[ora] Comp[a] Livt Rich[ar]d K[e]linge acquainted the Whereupon it was Evident | A composition was made with Grace Couleson. Payment was agreed for breach of order at £2 0s 0d, and for [...] at £1 2s 0d, making in total £3 2s 0d. In addition, all revenues then due to the East India Company were to be paid, together with incidental charges. The persons who had taken the account of her cattle were first to be satisfied, along with work fees, amounting to about 20s 0d or 30s 0d more. Richard Kelinge then informed the governor and council that Captain William Heath, commander of the Defence, had authorised him to collect certain debts. These debts were owed to Ann Preston, widow of Captain John Preston, who had commanded the ship Prates. This authority was granted by letter of attorney, which Captain Heath had received from Ann Preston. A request was made that the letter be read and recorded in court. For proof, Goodwin and Thomas Dixon gave sworn evidence. They confirmed that Captain Heath had empowered Kelinge, by virtue of the letter of attorney, to receive the debts. This authority was also endorsed on the back of the document, which had been sent by Ann Preston and was read in court. It was thereby established that Kelinge held full authority to demand and collect all such debts from any person on the island, for the use of Ann Preston. Interpretations The composition with Grace Couleson shows the use of negotiated settlement to resolve disputes involving debt and misconduct. Payment of fixed sums, alongside outstanding revenues and fees, allowed the matter to be concluded without full trial. The inclusion of incidental charges and fees demonstrates that enforcement carried additional costs. Officials involved in investigation and administration were entitled to compensation, which formed part of the total financial burden. The use of a letter of attorney reflects a legal mechanism for delegated authority. It allowed one person to act on behalf of another in financial matters, extending legal capacity across distance. The endorsement and reading of the document in court show the importance of formal validation. Authority had to be publicly confirmed and recorded to ensure its legitimacy. Speculations The structured breakdown of payments in the composition suggests careful calculation to recover both direct and indirect losses. The council probably aimed to secure not only revenue but also the costs of enforcement, ensuring that the process did not burden Company resources. The reliance on a letter of attorney carried by a ship’s captain indicates the fluid movement of legal authority within maritime networks. This arrangement may have been necessary due to the absence of the principal, requiring trusted intermediaries to manage financial affairs across distant locations. | |
352 | Lt K[e]linge Added to y[e] Court as a mem[be]r thereof Edw: Willson Planter Complains The sd Smith Denys y[e] accom Hen: Cocks Planter saith that M: Edw: Dun[ca]ns Planter being | Richard Kelinge was added to the court as a member. Edward Willson brought a complaint against John Smith for a debt of 13s 0d, which had not been paid. Smith denied the claim. Henry Cocks gave evidence. He stated that, before Nathaniel Cox left the island, a note had been delivered to him. This note had been drawn by Sergeant Haines and directed to Captain Hobden for payment. Out of this sum, Willson was to receive £4 3s 0d, and Smith the remaining £9 0s 0d. The note was then given to Smith by Cox before his departure, with instructions that the full amount be paid to Smith, as Willson had already been satisfied by other means. This was recorded by Hobden in his book before the governor and council. Payment of £27 0s 0d was then made to Smith by Hobden. Edward Duncan was examined. He stated that Cox had been indebted to Smith before leaving the island. It was therefore believed that the note had been intended for Smith. He also reported that Willson had said Smith had never promised to pay him the sum on Cox’s behalf. It was further stated that Willson had repeatedly demanded the debt from Cox’s wife, as though it were owed by Cox rather than Smith. Interpretations The admission of Kelinge as a member of the court shows the flexible composition of judicial authority. Officials could be added as required, combining administrative and legal roles within the same body. The dispute over debt reveals the use of written notes as instruments of payment. Such notes functioned as transferable claims, directing the storekeeper to disburse funds according to specified instructions. The involvement of the storekeeper in recording and executing payment shows the central role of Company officials in financial transactions. Accounts were tracked and verified through official record-keeping. The conflicting claims demonstrate the complexity of debt assignment. Obligations could shift between parties depending on prior settlement, requiring the court to determine the true direction of liability. Speculations The confusion over the note suggests that informal arrangements between individuals could conflict with formal records. The court probably had to reconcile personal agreements with documented instructions, highlighting tension between private dealings and official accounting. The repeated demands made by Willson to Cox’s wife indicate uncertainty over who held responsibility for the debt. This may reflect the fluid nature of credit relationships on the island, where obligations could be reassigned without clear documentation. | |
353 | Upon the whole It is Ordered That the said Willson do pay the Cost of Tho: Hown Planter Complaines of Owen The said Bevian Denyes y[e] accom saying The said Hown not Denying what y[e] sd It is Ordered That the said Hown do pay The said Hown Complaines of John But the said Hown not being able It is | Upon full consideration, it was ordered that Edward Willson should pay the costs of suit, as no valid cause of action had been established. Thomas Hown then brought a complaint against Owen Bevian. The claim concerned an agreement for the delivery of 20 burdens of rushes, which Hown alleged had not been performed. Bevian denied the claim. He stated that an agreement had been made and that the rushes had been delivered as promised. He further explained that Hown later complained of their quality. In response, an offer had been made to supply five or six additional burdens if required. This statement was not denied by Hown. It was therefore ordered that Hown should pay the costs of suit. Hown then brought a further complaint against John Goodwin. A claim of trespass was made, alleging that a slave belonging to Goodwin had killed his horse during the night. No proof was provided to support this claim. Proceedings ended at that point. Interpretations The repeated award of costs against unsuccessful complainants shows that the court imposed financial consequences for unfounded actions. This discouraged weak or speculative claims and protected defendants from unnecessary expense. The treatment of the rushes dispute illustrates enforcement of agreements based on performance rather than complaint. Once delivery had been made, dissatisfaction with quality did not void the contract unless breach could be proven. The dismissal of the trespass claim due to lack of evidence highlights the importance of proof in court proceedings. Allegations alone were insufficient, and the burden of proof rested on the complainant. The attribution of liability to a slave in the trespass claim shows how responsibility for damage could extend through ownership. Actions of slaves were treated as matters for which their owners might be held accountable, if proven. Speculations The pattern of unsuccessful claims by Hown suggests that the court may have been reinforcing stricter standards of evidence. This approach probably aimed to reduce frivolous litigation and maintain efficiency in proceedings. The offer by Bevian to supply additional rushes indicates a practical approach to dispute resolution outside formal judgment. Such offers may have been common, reflecting a preference for informal settlement before resorting to court. | |
354 | It is Ordered That the said Hown Be cast In the Suite Hen: Coales Planter Complaines of Tho After Much Debate on both It was Agreed That [...] they put the Difference J J Johnson Kelinge | It was ordered that Thomas Hown be cast in the suit, having no cause of action, and that he pay the costs. Henry Coles then brought a complaint against Thomas Mudge. A claim for damages was made. It was alleged that Mudge had caused harm by building a back room adjoining his house in James Town, which had in part obstructed the use of Coles’s back door. After extended discussion on both sides, agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to arbitration. Each party was to choose one person. If no agreement could be reached between them, a third person, already nominated, was to act as umpire and give a final decision. Both parties accepted these terms, and the matter was settled accordingly. Interpretations The dismissal of Hown’s claim with costs reinforces the principle that unsuccessful litigants bore financial responsibility. This acted as a deterrent against weak or unsubstantiated actions. The referral to arbitration shows an alternative to formal court judgment. Disputes could be resolved through agreed intermediaries, reducing the burden on the court and allowing more flexible settlement. The structure of arbitration, with each party choosing a representative and a third acting as umpire, reflects a balanced mechanism. It ensured that both sides had influence while providing a means to reach a final decision if disagreement persisted. The dispute over building and access highlights recognition of property use rights. Construction affecting neighbouring access could give rise to claims, showing that spatial rights were acknowledged and could be contested. Speculations The decision to move the case to arbitration suggests that the court preferred negotiated resolution where possible. This may have been intended to preserve relations between neighbours while still providing a clear outcome. The involvement of an umpire indicates anticipation of continued disagreement. The structure was probably designed to prevent deadlock and ensure that the dispute would be brought to a definite conclusion. | |
355 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas John Draper of the sd Now the Govr & Councill for the preven= It was Ordered That the Govr Mr Mare & Fraise | A consultation was held at Fort James on 6 October 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Bowyer as a member of council. Reference was made to John Draper, now deceased. In September 1684, a lease had been taken and signed before the governor and council for ten acres of land belonging to Robert Ord’s orphans. This land lay in a valley and had been held for a term of seven years, which expired on 29 September 1691. Under the terms of that lease, Draper had been required to leave 1,000 yams growing on the land at the end of the term. He had also been obliged to leave one house standing on the property, measuring 24 feet in length and 14 feet in breadth. Concern was raised by the governor and council that these conditions might not have been fulfilled, either by Draper during his lifetime or by his widow, Margaret Draper, after his death. This raised the risk of loss to the orphans. An order was therefore made that the governor, together with Mr Mare and Fraise Fletcher Sumner, should take action. Gregory, one of the orphans, was bound apprentice to Sumner, and the land and its produce belonged to the orphans. Interpretations The lease agreement shows structured tenancy under Company oversight. Land held by orphans was protected through formal contracts, ensuring that its value was maintained over time. The requirement to leave crops and a house at the end of the term reflects a system of improvement obligations. Tenants were expected not only to use the land but to enhance or at least preserve its productive capacity. The involvement of the governor and council in enforcing lease terms demonstrates central oversight of property rights. Even private agreements were subject to official supervision to protect vulnerable parties. The reference to an apprentice arrangement indicates how guardianship and labour were linked. The orphan’s placement with a planter connected care, training, and management of inherited property. Speculations The intervention by the council suggests concern that the widow might not fulfil the lease conditions. This action was probably intended to secure the orphans’ interests before any further deterioration of the property occurred. The emphasis on crops and buildings implies that the land’s value lay in its productive readiness. The council may have acted quickly to ensure that the transition at the end of the lease did not disrupt ongoing agricultural use. | |
356 | According to the Will of Robt Orchard his Father Which according they all Did, and Now upon Consideration that the sd Draper It is Ordered & Agreed with That shee Leave the aforesd 15000 of yams | According to the will of Robert Orchard, the plantation was to be viewed on behalf of the orphans. Margaret Draper was given notice so that she might appoint two persons to attend at the same time and act on her behalf. Both sides were to inspect and survey the plantation and its produce. A return of the fruits standing on the land was then to be made to the governor and council. This was carried out. The persons appointed gave their account. They stated that 15,000 yams were standing on the ground, in addition to the 10,000 which John Draper had been required to leave under the lease. They also reported that no house remained standing on the ten acres. The matter was considered. Draper had been obliged to leave a house on the land, and the widow was now indebted to the orphans in the sum of £4 18s 6d for rent and other accounts. An agreement was then made with Margaret Draper. She was to leave the 15,000 yams on the plantation for the use of the orphans. Of these, 5,000 were to be taken in satisfaction of the £4 18s 6d owed. The remaining 10,000 were accepted in place of the house that had not been left standing. Upon these terms, she was to receive a full discharge from the governor and council, acting for the orphans, from all debts, dues, and demands up to that day. Interpretations The joint survey by representatives of both parties shows a structured method for resolving disputes over lease obligations. Mutual inspection ensured that the condition of the property and its produce was agreed upon and recorded. The substitution of produce for a missing building demonstrates flexibility in enforcing contractual terms. Where a physical obligation could not be fulfilled, an equivalent value was accepted in kind. The valuation of yams as a medium of settlement reflects their role as a recognised unit of economic exchange. Agricultural produce could be directly converted into satisfaction of monetary debt. The granting of a discharge shows formal closure of liability. Once the agreed compensation was delivered, all prior claims were extinguished, preventing further dispute. Speculations The acceptance of yams in place of the house suggests that rebuilding may have been impractical or too costly. The council probably chose a solution that preserved value without requiring further labour or delay. The structured allocation of yams between debt and compensation indicates careful balancing of obligations. This approach may have been intended to ensure fairness while securing the orphans’ interest without prolonged conflict. | |
357 | Will[i]am Price Planter standing It is Ordered That on Consideration y[e] Orphans Stock of J J Johnson Kelinge | William Price stood indebted by bond, under his hand and seal, to the estate of John Greentree’s orphans in the sum of £8 0s 0d. This sum was to be paid in Spanish pieces of eight at a rate of 5s 0d each. He now offered to discharge the principal by delivering cattle equal in value, to be assessed by impartial persons. The interest due was to be paid in cash. The matter was considered. It was judged that cattle would be more beneficial to the orphans than money, as their increase would add to the value of the estate. The offer was therefore accepted. It was ordered that, once payment had been made in this form, Price should receive a discharge from Marchand Edmunds, who acted on behalf of the orphans’ stock. Interpretations The use of a bond under hand and seal shows a formal legal obligation. Debt was secured through written instruments that could be enforced by the court. The specification of payment in Spanish pieces of eight reflects the circulation of foreign coin as a standard medium of exchange. Value was fixed by conversion into local accounting units. The acceptance of cattle in place of money demonstrates flexibility in settlement. Assets capable of growth were treated as advantageous, especially in managing estates. The requirement for impartial valuation indicates a controlled process for converting goods into monetary equivalent. This ensured fairness in satisfying the debt. The role of a designated person to receive and account for the stock shows structured management of orphaned estates. Assets were overseen by appointed individuals acting in a fiduciary capacity. Speculations The preference for cattle over cash suggests that long-term value was prioritised over immediate liquidity. The council probably saw livestock as a means to increase the estate rather than simply settle accounts. The willingness of Price to offer cattle instead of coin may indicate limited access to currency. This arrangement likely allowed debts to be cleared without requiring scarce cash resources. | |
358 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Gov[r] Richard Gurling Planter who It is agreed with the said That he the said Gurling doe hold the said | A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 October 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Wri[…] as a member of council. Richard Gurling had previously taken a lease from the East India Company for 30 acres of land lying on Horse Pasture Plain. This lease had been granted in March 1689 for a term of 18 months. The land had earlier been held by [...] Powell. With the original term now expired, Gurling requested that he be allowed to continue in possession for a further 12 months. The request was granted. It was agreed that Gurling should hold the land for one additional year, beginning from 29 September 1691. Payment was fixed at 37s 0d every three half-months throughout the term. At the end of the lease, the land, including its fence, was to be returned in the same condition as when it had been taken. Interpretations The extension of the lease shows a flexible approach to land tenure. Existing tenants could continue in occupation subject to renewed terms, ensuring continuity of use. The requirement for periodic payment demonstrates structured rent collection. Regular instalments ensured steady income and allowed oversight of compliance. The obligation to return the land in its original condition reflects a duty of maintenance. Tenants were responsible for preserving improvements, particularly enclosure, as part of their lease terms. The reference to previous occupation indicates continuity of landholding under Company control. Land passed between tenants through formal agreements rather than private transfer. Speculations The approval of the extension suggests that Gurling was considered a reliable tenant. Continued occupation may have been preferred to avoid disruption or vacancy of productive land. The emphasis on maintaining the fence indicates its importance for managing livestock and boundaries. The council likely aimed to prevent deterioration that could affect neighbouring holdings or Company interests. | |
359 | [...] [...] it is [...] agreed w[...] y[e] said Which Lease was accordingly Drawne and y[e] It was ordered That Record be made of y[e] forementioned John Danning M[r] Carpenter who had | A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 October 1691. Joshua Johnson, Richard Keling, and Captain Wriner were present. An additional condition was agreed with Richard Gurling that he was not to cut, or permit to be cut or removed, any wood growing on the 30 acres of land. A lease was drawn up on that basis, with the expectation that the East India Company would issue further instructions regarding the land before the end of the term. When called to sign the lease, Gurling attended but refused to execute it. He objected to the requirement that he should surrender the land at the end of the term. He claimed that he had purchased the land from […] Powell while Powell was on the island and therefore considered himself to have a right to retain it. A decision was made that a formal record should be entered of both the agreement and Gurling’s refusal to sign the lease. Despite his refusal, it was ordered that rent should continue to be collected from him according to the agreed terms. John Danning, who had been employed in constructing a pair of gates for the Company near Fort James, as recorded in the consultation of 17 July, was then brought under consideration […] Interpretations The restriction on cutting wood shows resource control. Timber on leased land remained under Company protection. The drafting of a lease reflects formalisation of tenure. Agreements were recorded in written legal form. The refusal to sign indicates dispute over ownership. Competing claims between Company authority and private purchase were asserted. The decision to record both agreement and refusal shows administrative precaution. Documentation preserved the Company’s position in case of dispute. The continued collection of rent despite refusal demonstrates enforcement. Financial obligations were upheld regardless of contractual disagreement. The reference to prior employment of a carpenter shows continuity of recorded work. Labour tasks were tracked across consultations. Speculations The prohibition on cutting wood suggests scarcity or value of timber. The Company may have sought to prevent depletion of resources. The claim of purchase from Powell indicates informal land transactions. Private dealings may have conflicted with Company ownership rules. The insistence on collecting rent despite refusal suggests assertion of authority. The council may have aimed to reinforce control over land tenure. The expectation of further Company instruction implies uncertainty. Final authority over land rights may have rested outside the island. | |
360 | at which time he made his Demands for the It was At length Agreed That the said Danning shall have and John Bagley Joyner Carpenter | John Downinge appeared before the governor and council and made his demands for the work he had carried out. These demands were judged unreasonable and were set aside for further consideration. Since that time, he had been employed on several additional tasks. Repairs had been made to the bridges near the gates. A guardhouse had been built. Work had also been carried out on the fort house, and repairs had been made to the East India Company boats. He was then called again before Joshua Johnson and Richard Kelinge, together with the council, in order that satisfaction might be given for all this work. Further discussion took place concerning his earlier claims and their excess. An agreement was reached. It was ordered that Downinge should receive £7 15s 0d from the Company’s stores. This sum was to stand in full settlement of all his demands for the gates and for all other work performed as described. John Bagley, who had also been employed on the same work, had previously been dismissed, his demand of £2 19s 0d having been judged excessive. He now appeared again before the governor and council. After extended discussion, his case was reconsidered. | |
361 | It is Agreed w[i]th the sd That he have and receive for the said worke It is Further Ordered That Lt Richard Kelinge Store Keeper Jn[o] Foster Lyme Burner who had But after words past & Time It is Agreed & Ordered That the said Foster have But the sume of 2 : 10 : 0 As Also it is ordered | It was agreed with John Bagley that he should receive £2 5s 0d in full satisfaction for his work. An order was made accordingly. It was further ordered that Richard Kelinge, acting as storekeeper, should issue a warrant for payment to the workmen in accordance with these agreements. John Foster, who had been employed by the governor and council in burning chalk into lime, then presented his account. It showed that he had worked at this task for nearly six weeks. A demand of £4 0s 0d was made. After discussion, this sum was reduced. It was agreed that Foster should receive £2 10s 0d in full payment for the work. Interpretations The reduction of Bagley’s and Foster’s claims shows continued control over labour costs. Payment was not determined solely by the worker’s demand but by the council’s assessment of reasonable value. The issuing of a warrant by the storekeeper reflects a formal payment process. Disbursement from Company stores required authorised instruction, ensuring accountability. The employment of a lime burner indicates organised provision of construction materials. Lime production was essential for building and maintenance, and labour for such work was directly managed. The consolidation of payment into a single agreed sum demonstrates final settlement practice. Once accepted, no further claims could be made for the same work. Speculations The consistent reduction of claims suggests that workers may have tested higher rates in expectation of negotiation. The council probably anticipated this and set lower final payments to maintain budget control. The relatively low payment for nearly six weeks of labour implies either abundant labour supply or limited bargaining power among workers. This may reflect the constrained economic conditions of the island. | |
362 | That Lt Rich[ar]d Kelinge have likewise Likewise It is Further That the said Lt Kelinge Do sell and vend Rich[ar]d Stacy Planter who hath It is ordered That the said Stacy have the said J J[oh]nson Kelinge | It was further ordered that Richard Kelinge, acting as storekeeper, should issue a warrant for payment of the agreed sum to John Foster. A further order was made that the lime produced be sold for the use of the East India Company at a rate of 18d per bushel. Richard Stacy, who had for several years hired a slave boy named Herry from the Company, made request to purchase him. It was ordered that Stacy should have the boy for the sum of £14 0s 0d. A term of twelve months was allowed for payment, to be made in four quarterly instalments. Articles of agreement were to be drawn accordingly. Interpretations The sale of lime at a fixed rate shows direct commercial activity by the Company. Materials produced under its authority were marketed at controlled prices, contributing to revenue. The transition from hiring to purchase of a slave reflects the commodification of labour. Individuals could move from temporary use to permanent ownership through formal transaction. The allowance of payment by instalments indicates structured credit arrangements. Large purchases could be financed over time, increasing accessibility while maintaining enforceable obligations. The requirement for written articles of agreement demonstrates formalisation of sale. Transactions involving valuable property were documented to secure rights and responsibilities. Speculations The decision to sell the slave rather than continue hiring suggests that long-term demand for his labour had been established. The Company may have preferred a lump-sum return over continued rental income in this case. The pricing of lime at a standard rate indicates an effort to regulate supply and demand. This may have been intended to stabilise construction costs while ensuring steady income from production. | |
363 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Gov[r] Whereas one French sould[ier] was by the It is ordered That the said French do pay for the said Fire Therefore It is ordered That he nominate another p[er]son more ab[le] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 26 October 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. A French soldier had been committed to prison by the governor on Saturday 27 October 1691 for disorderly conduct while on guard. The offences included drunkenness, swearing, abuse of his officer, and breaking a musket. He was brought forward and the charges were put to him. These were not denied. He asked forgiveness, stating that he remembered nothing of the events due to drink. A promise was made that such behaviour would not be repeated and that he would conduct himself properly in future. An order was made that he should pay 19s 0d for the damaged firearm. It was considered that he was not able to meet this payment. A further order was made that he should nominate another person of greater ability to satisfy the sum on his behalf. Interpretations The requirement to pay for the damaged musket shows that military equipment was treated as accountable property. Loss or damage was charged directly to the individual responsible, reinforcing personal liability within the garrison. The allowance for a substitute payer indicates that financial responsibility could be transferred. Where a soldier lacked means, another person could be bound to satisfy the debt, ensuring recovery without delay. The combination of imprisonment, confession, and conditional leniency reflects a disciplinary system aimed at correction as well as punishment. Admission of fault and promise of reform could mitigate harsher penalties. Speculations The decision not to impose corporal punishment suggests that restitution of property may have been prioritised over physical discipline in this case. The council probably sought to recover the cost of the musket while maintaining the soldier’s usefulness in service. The requirement to nominate a more able payer implies reliance on social or professional networks within the garrison. This arrangement may have encouraged mutual responsibility among soldiers, as individuals could be called upon to answer for one another’s debts. | |
364 | [...] himselfe for the paym[en]t of the said [...]. Likewise It is Further That the said French Do Ride y[e] Tho: Swallow, & Benj: Scale Also Informed that the Roofs of the Att a[ls]o | John Inston was nominated by the French soldier and undertook to pay the sum owed to the East India Company to Richard Kelinge, acting as storekeeper. A further order was made that the French soldier should ride the wooden horse for one hour at the time of relieving the guards, with a whole culverin shot fastened at each heel. After this punishment, he was to be released from the marshalsea custody. Thomas Swallow and Benjamin Scale, serving as churchwardens for the year 1691, had been ordered to meet at the church in the country on the previous Thursday. They were to inspect and survey what repairs were needed. A carpenter had also been ordered to attend them and report on the condition. They appeared before the governor and council and gave their account. The wooden structure of the church was found to be much decayed. The boarding had become rotten through age. The roof was reported to be leaking and in poor condition, and a new roof was required. Interpretations The requirement that another soldier assume payment shows a transferable liability mechanism within the garrison. Financial responsibility for damage could be secured through guarantors, ensuring recovery even where the offender lacked means. The use of the wooden horse with weighted shot reflects a formalised system of corporal punishment. The addition of weight increased the severity, reinforcing discipline through physical deterrence. The role of churchwardens in surveying the church demonstrates local administrative responsibility for communal infrastructure. Maintenance of religious buildings was organised through designated lay officials acting under Company authority. The involvement of a carpenter to assess repairs shows reliance on skilled evaluation in planning works. Decisions on maintenance were based on inspection and reported condition rather than assumption. Speculations The combination of financial penalty and corporal punishment suggests a dual approach to discipline. The council probably aimed both to recover material loss and to deter misconduct through visible punishment. The reported decay of the church indicates neglect over time. The need for inspection and repair may reflect limited resources or competing priorities, with maintenance deferred until deterioration became severe. | |
365 | The said Church wardens Informed y[e] Chap[p]ell The whole Being Seriously Considered It is Ordered That the Church up In the Country though Butt That the Chappell in Fort James Towne be Hen: Manning [s]ho[re] person who hath | Thomas Swallow and Benjamin Scale further reported that the chapel in Fort James Town was also in urgent need of repair. The walls were defective in several places, and parts of the roof timbers were broken and in danger of collapse. The matter was considered. It was judged that the church in the country, though much decayed, was not in immediate danger of falling. Its repair was therefore deferred for further consideration by the governor and council. An order was made that the chapel in Fort James Town be repaired without delay, as it was likely to fall if not promptly attended to. Henry Manning, who had served for several years as surveyor of the garrison, was then brought under review. He was described as unskilful and unfit for the trust placed in him. His conduct was further characterised as extravagant, negligent, and careless in the discharge of his duties. He had long been tolerated in this role, in expectation that a more capable person might be sent from England by the East India Company. Interpretations The prioritisation of repairs shows a graded approach to infrastructure maintenance. Immediate action was directed where structural failure was likely, while less urgent cases were deferred. The role of churchwardens in reporting structural condition reflects delegated responsibility for inspection. Their findings informed official decision-making at the council level. The criticism of the surveyor demonstrates formal evaluation of office-holders. Competence and conduct were assessed against expectations of trust and responsibility. The reference to replacement from England indicates reliance on metropolitan supply of skilled personnel. Local offices could remain filled by unsuitable individuals until a qualified successor was sent. Speculations The decision to prioritise the chapel over the country church suggests that location influenced urgency. The chapel in the town may have been more heavily used or more visible, making its repair more pressing. The continued tolerance of an unfit surveyor implies limited availability of skilled labour on the island. The council probably retained him despite deficiencies because no immediate replacement was available locally. | |
366 | [...] hither bound, but none being as It is Ordered That the said Hen: Manning be It is also Ordered That John Stevens Chirurgeon & planter | It was observed that no suitable replacement had yet arrived from England, nor was it known when one might be expected. In regard to the interests of the East India Company and the welfare of the garrison, it was judged necessary to act. An order was made that Henry Manning be removed from office. He was discharged from serving as surgeon to the Company on the island. He was reduced to the guards as a private sentinel, as he had been when he first arrived. He was required to attend at Rupert’s Fort upon any alarm of ships approaching the island, taking the place formerly held by John Stevens. No additional salary was to be given for this duty, though some allowance was made in consideration of his age by easing his guard duties. A further order was made that Stevens be reinstated and received into the Company’s pay and service in place of Manning. He had previously been employed in treating the Company’s sick, often at considerable cost, and had achieved successful outcomes in cases that Manning had left as incurable. A salary of 30s 0d per month was assigned. In return, he was required to give full attendance according to the demands of the role. Interpretations The removal of Manning shows formal accountability in office. Failure in skill and duty could result in demotion rather than dismissal from service altogether, preserving manpower while correcting administration. The reassignment to guard duty reflects flexible use of personnel. Individuals could be moved between roles according to need, regardless of previous rank or function. The reinstatement of Stevens demonstrates performance-based appointment. Proven success in treating the sick outweighed prior displacement, indicating that practical results influenced official decisions. The fixed monthly salary shows standardised remuneration for skilled roles. Payment was tied to ongoing service obligations rather than individual cases. The requirement to attend alarms at Rupert’s Fort indicates integration of medical and military responsibilities. Personnel were expected to contribute to defence as well as their primary duties. Speculations The decision to demote rather than dismiss Manning suggests limited availability of personnel. The council likely retained him in a reduced capacity to avoid losing a man entirely in a constrained labour environment. The reinstatement of Stevens despite his higher cost implies that effective medical care was prioritised. The council probably judged that improved health outcomes would benefit the garrison more than the savings from retaining a less capable surgeon. | |
367 | Butt in Regard there is No Minister It is Ordered That the said Manning doe Continue to read J[os] Jo[h]nson | It was noted that no minister was present on the island to read the public prayers of the Church. Henry Manning had previously performed this duty within the garrison. An order was made that Manning should continue to read the prayers as before. He was also to read the funeral service at the grave when any person belonging to the East India Company died. For these duties, he was to receive 2s 0d per week. This arrangement was to continue until a minister arrived, or until further order was given. Interpretations The assignment of religious duties to a lay official shows administrative substitution in the absence of clergy. Essential functions of worship and burial were maintained through available personnel rather than left unperformed. The provision of weekly payment for reading prayers and funeral rites indicates that religious service was treated as a remunerated duty. Spiritual functions were incorporated into the Company’s structured system of labour and pay. The reference to the minister’s office underscores a recognised institutional role distinct from other duties. Manning’s service was temporary and conditional, reinforcing that formal religious authority remained separate from administrative necessity. Speculations The continuation of Manning in this role despite his removal from other offices suggests that competence in religious duties was judged differently from professional skill. The council probably valued continuity in communal practices even while addressing failures in other responsibilities. The fixed weekly payment implies that the frequency of deaths and services was expected to be regular. This arrangement may have ensured stability in ritual observance during a period without ordained clergy. | |
368 | Island St Helena Att A Consultation Held on Present Joshua Johnson Gov[r] Whereas an Information Exhibited by It was Ordered That a Jury of the Neighbourhood that might | A consultation was held at Fort James on 30 December 1691. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. An information had been laid by John Mudge before Richard Kelinge against Henry Coles. The charge was that Coles had encroached upon land belonging to the East India Company. This matter had first arisen in the court of judicature held on 5 October 1691, where the attorney general had entered an action against him. In preparation for the prosecution, the Company’s orders and instructions, brought to the island by Thomas Grantham, were reviewed. These required that all causes concerning land be tried and decided by juries. An order was therefore made that a jury be impanelled from among the neighbouring inhabitants. These men were to be chosen for their knowledge of the boundaries and marks of Coles’s land, as originally measured by Anthony Beale. The jury was accordingly assembled on that day, and their names were recorded. Interpretations The reference to Company instructions shows the application of external authority in local governance. Rules issued from higher authority structured legal procedure on the island. The requirement for jury trial in land cases indicates formalisation of property disputes. Decision-making was delegated to a body of peers rather than determined solely by officials. The selection of jurors from the neighbourhood reflects reliance on local knowledge. Boundary disputes depended on shared understanding of land marks rather than solely on written record. The role of the attorney general in initiating action demonstrates the integration of prosecution within the administrative system. Legal proceedings were conducted under official oversight rather than private initiative alone. Speculations The emphasis on jury trial suggests an effort to standardise legal practice and reduce arbitrary judgment. This may have been intended to increase confidence in the fairness of decisions regarding land. The reliance on neighbours as jurors implies that formal surveying records may have been insufficient on their own. The council probably recognised that practical knowledge of the land was essential to resolving such disputes. | |
369 | Orlando Bagley foreman - - - 1 Who were all sworn, And after their Charge given Robert Lester who had Ten It was Also Ordered That it be refered to the sd Jury for | A jury was impanelled, with Orlando Bagley serving as foreman. The other jurors were John Cottgrave, Josiah Charlesworth, Thomas Edmonds, Richard Gurling, Isaac Sutton, John Lufkin, William Marsh, Owen Quincy, Thomas Swallow, Griffin Wills, and Richard Back. All were sworn. Instructions were given. They were directed to go to the land of Henry Coles, to view it and make observations based on the evidence presented. They were then to deliver their verdict at the next sessions, set for 4 January 1692. Robert Lester, who had previously been granted ten acres of land by the governor and council near land formerly held by Anthony Beale, was also brought under consideration. He had enclosed part of this land, but it was suspected that he had extended beyond his proper bounds. An order was made that this matter also be referred to the same jury. They were to view Lester’s land, together with the land formerly held by Beale which Lester now claimed, and to report upon it. Interpretations The swearing of jurors indicates formal legal procedure. Oath-taking reinforced the obligation to deliver an honest verdict, giving authority to their findings. The direction for jurors to inspect land directly shows reliance on physical examination. Evidence was not limited to testimony but extended to on-site observation. The use of a single jury for multiple disputes demonstrates administrative efficiency. The same body could address related issues of land boundaries within a defined area. The inclusion of Lester’s case alongside that of Coles shows that boundary enforcement was systematic. Encroachment was monitored across multiple holdings, not treated as isolated incidents. Speculations The referral of both disputes to one jury suggests that the boundaries in that area were broadly uncertain. The council probably aimed to resolve overlapping claims in a coordinated manner. The scheduling of a later session for the verdict indicates that thorough inspection was expected. The jury was likely given time to examine the land carefully rather than reach an immediate decision. | |
370 | their better understanding therein the sd Land Tho: Burch Peti[ti]oned, that It is ordered That the sd Burches Peti[ti]on be granted J[o] Jo[h]nson | The jury was further instructed that the land in question be measured, so that a clearer understanding might be reached. Their verdict on the whole matter was to be delivered at the appointed session. Thomas Burch then submitted a petition to become tenant to the East India Company for 10 acres of the Company’s wasteland, lying in Sandy Bay, for a term of 21 years. The petition was granted. It was ordered that Burch should hold the land according to the established custom for such leases. Richard Kelinge, acting as surveyor general, was directed to measure out the 10 acres. A lease was then to be drawn accordingly. J. Johnson Interpretations The requirement that land be measured before judgment shows reliance on survey as a basis for legal decision. Physical measurement provided the standard for resolving disputes over boundaries. The granting of a 21-year lease reflects long-term tenancy arrangements under Company control. Such leases provided stability while preserving ultimate ownership. The reference to customary terms indicates an established framework for landholding. Leases followed recognised patterns rather than being negotiated afresh in each case. The role of the surveyor general in allocating land demonstrates centralised authority over distribution. Measurement and grant of land were administered through official channels. Speculations The decision to measure land before verdict suggests that earlier boundaries were insufficiently precise. The council probably sought to reduce future disputes by establishing clearer limits. The granting of a long lease to Burch may indicate an effort to encourage settlement or cultivation in Sandy Bay. Providing secure tenure could have been intended to promote development of less occupied areas. | |
371 | Island St. Helena — Att a Court of Judicature Held Present Joshua Johnson Govr According to an Order of Councill Held Isaac Leach being Sworne, saith, that Further Anne the wife of John Midge | A court of judicature was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on a day in January 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. In accordance with an order made on 30 December 1691, the jury that had been impanelled appeared before the court. They reported that they had visited the plantation of Henry Coles and carried out their inspection as directed. They were asked whether a verdict had been agreed or whether further evidence was required. A request was made that Isaac Leach be sworn. Leach was sworn and gave evidence. He stated that Coles had enclosed part of the East India Company wasteland which had not been measured out to him by Anthony Beale. Anne Midge, wife of John Midge, was then sworn. She stated that some years earlier she and Bridget [...] had […] Interpretations The recall of the jury and their report shows a staged legal process. Investigation, evidence gathering, and verdict were separated into distinct steps, allowing for reconsideration and additional testimony. The use of sworn witnesses indicates reliance on oath-bound testimony. Statements carried legal weight through formal swearing, reinforcing accountability for truth. The reference to land measured by a surveyor highlights the importance of official surveys in defining property rights. Encroachment was judged against these recorded boundaries. The involvement of neighbours and local residents as witnesses reflects reliance on community knowledge. Practical familiarity with land use supported formal adjudication. Speculations The jury’s request for additional testimony suggests uncertainty in the initial evidence. The court probably allowed further examination to strengthen the basis for judgment rather than proceed with an incomplete record. The focus on whether land had been measured to Coles indicates that disputes may have arisen from unclear or poorly marked boundaries. The court likely aimed to confirm limits precisely before issuing a verdict. | |
372 | Hen[ry] Coales, passing by, & neare the said Coales The above mentioned Leach And Mudge being That the said Coales had Trespassed on the Then Lt Rich[ar]d Kelinge the pr[ese]nt The Jury forementioned, pursuant to the Hen[ry] Coales Planter being Sworne | Henry Coles, passing near his boundary mark, was described by Anne Midge as having had his former marks pointed out to her by John Midge. It was stated that Coles had now enclosed land beyond those marks, taking in part of the East India Company wasteland. After the depositions of Isaac Leach and Anne Midge, the jury considered what they had seen and heard. No further evidence was produced. A verdict was returned that Coles had trespassed on the Company’s wasteland by enclosing a small part within his plantation. Richard Kelinge, acting as surveyor and present during the inspection, stated that in his judgment the land enclosed by Coles did not exceed 14 rods. This estimate was based on the corner mark referred to by Midge and Leach, though neither had stated this point with certainty. In accordance with the earlier order of 30 December 1691, the jury also went to inspect the land of Allen Beale’s widow and that of Robert Exeter. The boundary lines were viewed at the several corner marks of Beale’s land, and observations were made as clearly as possible. Coles was then sworn and stated that he had been present when the land of Beale had been measured by her […] Interpretations The jury’s verdict shows that even minor encroachments were formally recognised as trespass. Enforcement of boundaries did not depend on scale but on principle of ownership. The estimate of 14 rods demonstrates the use of measurement as evidence. Quantification of encroachment allowed proportional judgment rather than broad accusation. The reliance on corner marks indicates how boundaries were practically defined. Physical markers served as reference points in the absence of precise mapping. The involvement of the surveyor alongside the jury shows integration of technical assessment within legal process. Professional judgment supplemented witness testimony. The extension of inspection to neighbouring lands reflects systematic boundary verification. Disputes were used as opportunities to clarify adjacent claims. Speculations The finding that only a small area had been enclosed suggests that the dispute may have arisen from gradual or uncertain boundary movement rather than deliberate expansion. The court likely aimed to correct rather than severely punish. The surveyor’s cautious estimate indicates uncertainty in the original marking. The council probably recognised that earlier measurements were not exact, which may have contributed to overlapping claims. | |
373 | La[s]t husband Cap[t] Antho: Beale Late Survey[o]r William Duston Planter being Then L[ieute] Rich[ar]d Kelinge pr[ese]nt Survey[o]r W[hi]ch Deposition | Henry Coles stated on oath that he had been present when the land of Anthony Beale, then husband to Mrs Beale, had been measured. According to that measurement, Robert Exeter was a trespasser upon Mrs Beale’s land. William Duston was sworn. He stated that when he had been servant to John Coulson, who had also been present at the measuring of Mrs Beale’s land, his master had shown him a corner mark of that land. According to that mark, Exeter had encroached upon Mrs Beale’s property. Richard Kelinge, acting as surveyor, was then asked to give his account. He affirmed positively, based on the map made by Captain Beale and now in his custody, that Exeter had mislaid the bounds of his land. This was contrary to the grant made by council on 30 July 1683. That grant had directed that the land should run between the lot of Benjamin Miller and that of Captain Beale. Instead, Exeter had carried his boundary in another direction, passing entirely across the line and taking in part of the land belonging to the orphans of John Moore. These depositions were taken together with the earlier evidence, and with the statement made by Lieutenant Kelinge as surveyor general to the East India Company […] Interpretations The reliance on prior measurement by an official surveyor shows that original surveys held continuing legal authority. Later disputes were judged against these earlier determinations. The use of witness memory alongside physical marks demonstrates a hybrid evidentiary system. Boundaries were validated through both recorded maps and lived knowledge. The reference to a council grant from 30 July 1683 indicates that land rights were rooted in formal allocation. Deviation from those terms constituted actionable encroachment. The surveyor’s use of a retained map shows the importance of documentary records in governance. Custody of such records enabled authoritative interpretation of land boundaries. The involvement of multiple adjoining properties, including that of Benjamin Miller and the orphans of John Moore, shows how one encroachment could affect several holdings. Boundary disputes were interconnected rather than isolated. Speculations The consistency between witness testimony and the surveyor’s map suggests that the encroachment by Exeter was widely recognised. The court likely saw little ambiguity in the direction of the boundary. The fact that Exeter’s land crossed into that of orphans implies heightened concern. The council may have been particularly attentive to protecting such estates, as they were under its oversight and considered vulnerable. | |
374 | The Jury brought in their Verdict that John Smith Complaines of Isaac Leach The said Leach doth not Deny the acco[n]t William Coales being Examined saith It is ordered | The jury delivered their verdict. Robert Exeter was found to be a trespasser upon the land of Mrs Beale. John Smith then brought a complaint against Isaac Leach. A claim for damages was made on the grounds that Leach had hamstrung one of Smith’s swine upon Smith’s own land. Leach did not deny the claim. It was admitted that the act had been done upon Smith’s ground. William Coles was examined. He stated that he had seen several of Smith’s swine within Leach’s plantation, where there had been no fence to prevent their entry. He had then seen them driven out again onto Smith’s land. At that time, cries had been heard from the swine, though the act itself had not been directly seen. He further stated that Leach had told him that he had hamstrung one of Smith’s swine. An order was made. In consideration that Leach had acknowledged the act, and that his plantation lacked a lawful fence, he was cast in the suit. Satisfaction was to be made to Smith for the injured swine, the value to be assessed. Interpretations The jury’s verdict against Exeter confirms the enforcement of property boundaries through formal adjudication. Encroachment was treated as a legal offence requiring determination by peers. The admission by Leach shows that confession could substitute for extended proof. Acknowledgment of wrongdoing simplified the court’s decision-making process. The emphasis on the absence of a lawful fence indicates shared responsibility for animal control. Failure to maintain proper enclosure weakened a planter’s position and contributed to liability. The order for valuation reflects a structured approach to compensation. Damage was converted into monetary equivalent through assessment rather than fixed penalty. The classification of the act as actionable damage demonstrates protection of livestock as property. Injury to animals was treated as harm requiring restitution. Speculations The decision to hold Leach liable partly on the basis of inadequate fencing suggests that boundary maintenance was expected as a preventative measure. The court likely aimed to discourage negligence in enclosure. The reliance on partial witness observation combined with admission indicates a practical evidentiary standard. The court probably prioritised resolution over strict proof where the essential facts were not disputed. | |
375 | And appraised between two indifferent p[er]sons, And M[rs] Alison Complaines of Rich[ar]d Gurling The said Gurling Denys the acco[n]t, And Anne Whitly Orphan being Examined James Greenh[e]e Orphan being Examined It is Ordered Rob[er]t Lightfoot | It was further ordered that Isaac Leach should have the damaged swine valued by two impartial persons, make his fence lawful without delay, and pay the costs of suit. Mrs Alison then brought a complaint against Richard Gurling. It was alleged that Gurling’s dogs had killed three of her turkeys on her own land, and that no satisfaction had been made. Gurling denied the claim and called for proof. Anne Whitly was examined. She stated that she had seen one of Gurling’s dogs among Alison’s turkeys but could not say whether any had been killed, as she had not been close enough to see clearly. James Greenhee was then examined. He stated that he had seen one of Gurling’s dogs seize a lamb, injure one of Alison’s turkeys, and leave another almost dead. An order was made that Gurling should give Alison one turkey and pay the costs of suit. Robert Lightfoot Interpretations The requirement that Leach repair his fence shows that enclosure was a legal obligation. Failure to maintain proper boundaries contributed directly to liability for damage. The use of impartial appraisers demonstrates a structured method for determining compensation. Value was assigned through neutral assessment rather than unilateral claim. The handling of Alison’s complaint shows reliance on partial but credible evidence. Even where proof of full loss was uncertain, observed harm justified limited restitution. The reduction of compensation to one turkey indicates proportional judgment. Awards were calibrated to the strength of evidence rather than the full extent of the allegation. The inclusion of costs of suit reinforces the financial consequences of unsuccessful defence. Parties found liable bore both damages and procedural expense. Speculations The limited award suggests that the court aimed to resolve the dispute pragmatically where evidence was incomplete. A smaller penalty may have been seen as sufficient to settle the matter without prolonging conflict. The emphasis on fencing in the preceding order implies a broader concern with livestock control. The court likely intended to prevent recurring disputes by enforcing clearer physical boundaries. | |
376 | Rob[er]t Lightfoot P[er]t[r] hath in his It is ordered Hen[ry] Hersey Planter petitioned It is ordered J[oshua] Johnson | Robert Lightfoot submitted a petition to Joshua Johnson and Richard Kelinge, stating that he wished to become a tenant to the East India Company. A request was made to hire ten acres of the Company’s wasteland in Sandy Bay for a term of 21 years. The request was granted. Payment was set at 4s 0d per acre each year, together with duties of 12d per acre payable to the Company’s proprietors. Richard Kelinge was directed to measure the land, after which a lease was to be drawn. Henry Hersey submitted a petition requesting leave, together with his wife, to depart for England on the next returning ships. It was stated that they had lived on the island for many years. The matter was considered. In view of their age and Hersey’s unfitness for service, permission was granted for their departure. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The fixed rent of 4s 0d per acre alongside an additional duty of 12d per acre shows a layered revenue structure. Tenants were required to meet both rental obligations and separate proprietary dues, reflecting multiple streams of income tied to landholding. The requirement that the land be measured before lease confirms the central role of survey in land allocation. Formal measurement ensured that grants were defined precisely and could be enforced. The granting of leave to depart illustrates administrative control over movement. Permission from the governing authority was required before inhabitants could leave the island, indicating regulation of population and labour. Speculations The approval of Lightfoot’s lease in Sandy Bay suggests continued expansion or formalisation of settlement in that area. The council probably sought to secure revenue while encouraging cultivation of unused land. The acceptance of Hersey’s request points to a practical decision shaped by age and reduced capacity. Retaining him in service may have offered little benefit, so departure was allowed to reduce obligation on local resources. | |
377 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Fryday Present Joshua Johnson Gov[r] John Foster Peti[ti]oned to y[e] It is Ordered Benj[amin] Meachine Peti[ti]oned who was | A consultation was held at Fort James on 8 January 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. John Foster submitted a petition. A request was made to become a tenant to the East India Company for ten acres of wasteland in Sandy Bay, to be held for a term of 21 years. The request was granted. Payment was to be made according to the Company’s established rules for such leases. Richard Kelinge, acting as surveyor general, was directed to measure the land. A lease was then to be drawn accordingly. Benjamin Meachine, who had been received into the Company’s service about seven years earlier by the governor and council then in office, submitted a petition. A request was made for leave and licence to depart from the island with […] Interpretations The repetition of 21-year leases for wasteland shows a consistent policy of long-term tenancy. This structure provided stability for tenants while securing ongoing revenue for the Company. The reference to payment according to standing orders indicates standardisation of lease terms. Individual negotiation was limited, and uniform conditions were applied across grants. The requirement for survey before lease confirms the administrative sequence of allocation. Measurement preceded legal documentation, ensuring defined boundaries. The petition for leave to depart demonstrates continued regulation of movement. Service under the Company bound individuals to the island unless formal permission was granted. Joshua Johnson | |
378 | with his [...] father In law, Hen[ry] Kersey, & It is Ordered That on Consideration that y[e] s[ai]d Meachine Marg[are]t Draper widd[ow] Peti[ti]oned, put in It is ordered | Benjamin Meachine requested permission to leave the island for England on the next returning ship, together with his father-in-law Henry Kersey and his own mother, who was Kersey’s wife. He offered John Gates to serve in his place, stating that Gates was capable of performing the duty of a private sentinel. Approval was granted on the grounds of his past service to the East India Company and the provision of a suitable replacement. He was required to remain in Company pay and service until the next general garrison pay day, which was set for 18 February. At that time, John Gates was to be taken into Company pay and service in his place. Margaret Draper submitted a petition requesting a grant of Company waste land situated in Sandy Bay for a term of twenty one years. A decision was then made on her request […] Interpretations The substitution of one soldier for another shows flexible manpower management. Service obligations could be transferred with approval. The requirement to remain until a fixed pay day reflects administrative timing. Personnel changes were aligned with established payment cycles. The grant of permission to leave indicates regulated movement. Departure from the island depended on official consent. The petition for land shows structured access to property. Waste land was distributed through formal application. Speculations The acceptance of a replacement suggests concern over maintaining numbers. The garrison may have required steady staffing levels. The linkage of departure to pay day may have simplified accounts. Wages could be settled before release from service. The request for land by a widow may indicate opportunity for settlement. Authorities may have encouraged occupation of unused land. | |
379 | That she the said Margrett Draper’s It is ordered Whereas a proclamation was Issued out And for the prevention of such Irregular | Margaret Draper was granted her request for Company waste land in Sandy Bay for a term of twenty one years. She was required to pay rent at the rate of 4s per acre, together with duties of 12d per £ to the East India Company. Richard Kelinge was instructed to measure the land for her. A further order directed that a proclamation be issued. Reference was made to an earlier proclamation dated 2 April 1688, issued under Company instructions, which prohibited any person without licence from selling or distributing distilled strong liquors, sugar, or tobacco. That earlier order had been poorly observed and widely disregarded. This neglect was attributed to the lack of incentive for individuals to report such offences. To prevent continued irregular practice, the earlier proclamation was reaffirmed and strengthened. It was declared in the names of Their Majesties that no person, except through the Company’s stores, was to sell or distribute such goods […] Interpretations The grant of land to Margaret Draper shows regulated tenancy. Rent and duties were clearly defined as part of the agreement. The role of the surveyor general reflects administrative oversight. Measurement ensured proper allocation and record of land. The reference to duties of 12d per £ indicates fiscal extraction. Transactions involving land carried additional financial obligations. The renewal of the proclamation shows enforcement of trade regulation. The Company sought to control distribution of key commodities. The restriction on sale without licence demonstrates monopoly control. Trade in certain goods was reserved to authorised channels. The identification of weak compliance highlights enforcement challenges. Regulation required active monitoring and incentives. Speculations The introduction of incentives for informers suggests reliance on community enforcement. Authorities may have lacked sufficient capacity to police violations directly. The reaffirmation of the proclamation implies persistent illicit trade. Demand for restricted goods may have encouraged continued breaches. The exemption of Company stores indicates centralised supply control. The Company may have aimed to secure both revenue and authority through monopoly distribution. | |
380 | any sort of Arrack Brandy Wine Punch or any J[os] Johnson R[el]inge Bonner | The renewed order applied to arrack, brandy, wine, punch, all other strong liquor, sugar and tobacco. Anyone selling these goods without licence was to pay a penalty of £2 0s 0d. Of that penalty, £0 10s 0d was to go to the person who proved the offence, provided proof was made within ten days. In such cases, the informer’s own oath was to count as sufficient evidence. The remaining £1 10s 0d was to go to the poor and to Company property. Clear wholesale thresholds were set so that no one could plead ignorance. Three gallons of any strong liquor, twelve pounds of sugar and six pounds of tobacco were to count as wholesale quantities. These amounts could be sold without incurring the penalty. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The informer’s reward created a direct incentive to report illicit trade. Enforcement was partly outsourced to inhabitants through financial reward. The acceptance of the informer’s oath as sufficient evidence lowered the barrier to prosecution. This made the proclamation easier to enforce. The division of the fine between the informer, the poor and Company property shows that penalties served several purposes at once. They punished unlicensed sale, funded welfare and supported Company interests. The definition of wholesale quantities narrowed the scope for evasion. Retail trade was targeted, while larger sales above the stated thresholds were treated differently. | |
381 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Wednes Pr[e]s[en]t Joshua Johnson Gov[r] Whereas [...][...] Blest Peti[ti]on[e]d had a Lease for 20 | A consultation was held at Fort James on 20 January 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Bonner as a member of council. [...] Blest had previously petitioned. A lease had been taken in November 1688 for 20 acres of land belonging to the East India Company. A house had also been built on that land at the Company’s expense for his use and habitation. Rent had been set at £8 0s 0d per year, which he had agreed to pay. A slave had also been purchased from the Company. A debt of about £28 0s 0d had been incurred. Payment had been repeatedly demanded by the governor and council. No satisfaction had been offered beyond his grinding pay. A request had then been made that he be eased and discharged from the burden, as he was unable to pay either the debt or future rent. A proposal was made that the Company take back possession of the house and land. It was stated that he lacked the means to provide necessities for himself and his family […] Interpretations The combination of rent, purchase of a slave, and accumulated debt shows how tenancy could quickly produce financial obligation. Multiple liabilities were tied to occupation of Company land. The construction of a house at Company expense indicates investment tied to tenancy. Such improvements were provided to support settlement but remained linked to rent obligations. The repeated demands for payment demonstrate active enforcement of debt. Obligations were monitored and pursued by the governing authority rather than left dormant. The offer to surrender land and housing in place of payment reflects a recognised mechanism of debt resolution. Property could be returned to offset inability to meet financial commitments. The reference to grinding pay suggests that labour earnings could be applied toward debt. Income streams were directly connected to repayment expectations. Speculations The request to surrender the holding suggests that the tenant’s position had become unsustainable. The council probably faced a choice between enforcing payment and recovering the asset. The willingness to consider repossession indicates that maintaining productive use of land may have been prioritised over pursuing an unrecoverable debt. | |
382 | The Gov[r] & Councill tooke his petition, & Oration It was Agreed & Ordered Whereas Hen[ry] Manning late Surgeon | The petition and statements of […] Blest were taken into full consideration. He was judged to be extremely poor, with little or no stock, and unfit to manage a plantation. No realistic prospect was seen that he could repay his debt, even over several years. It was also noted that he had attempted to escape from the island. The land he occupied was considered especially suitable for Company use, being close to the main plantation and capable of improvement, which could reduce the cost of purchasing yams for the plantation workforce. A decision was made that the East India Company should resume possession of the house and the 20 acres of land. The yams growing on the land were to be valued and applied toward payment of his outstanding debt. He was required to enter into a bond for payment of any remaining balance if the value of the yams proved insufficient. Henry Manning, formerly surgeon to the Company, had previously been appointed in the consultation of 26 October to reside there […] Interpretations The resumption of land shows enforcement of conditional tenure. Occupation depended on the ability to meet financial and productive expectations. The valuation of crops for debt repayment indicates conversion of assets. Agricultural produce was treated as a recoverable financial resource. The requirement to give bond reflects formal legal enforcement. Outstanding debt was secured through binding obligation. The assessment of personal capacity shows administrative judgement. Tenancy decisions were influenced by perceived competence and productivity. The proximity of the land to the Company plantation highlights strategic land use. Location influenced decisions about control and management. Speculations The decision to take back the land suggests consolidation of resources. The Company may have sought tighter control over productive areas. The emphasis on yam production implies pressure on food supply. Reducing reliance on purchased provisions may have been a priority. The mention of attempted escape indicates instability. Economic hardship may have contributed to efforts to leave the island. The expectation of improved output suggests underperformance. Reassignment may have been intended to increase productivity. | |
383 | Service in yᵉ Fort on Lords Dayes, as also yᵉ Funerall Service It is Ordered That the said Manning be Dismist from reading yᵉ J J Johnson | Service in the fort on Sundays, together with funeral service at the grave for those belonging to the East India Company, had been performed by Henry Manning. He had been allowed £0 2s 0d per week for this duty on condition that he amended his behaviour, he having previously been noted for scandalous conduct. His conduct was reviewed and he was found to have continued in habitual drunkenness despite repeated reproof by Joshua Johnson. No improvement had been observed, and he was judged worse rather than better, with no expectation of reform. An order was made that Henry Manning be removed from reading the service and return to duty as a private sentinel. William Clifton was appointed to read divine service in the garrison on Sundays and at funerals when required. He was to receive £0 2s 0d per week, as previously allowed to Henry Manning. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The removal from religious duty shows moral regulation tied to office. Behaviour directly affected eligibility for semi-clerical roles. The conditional payment indicates performance-based reward. Wages were linked to both duty and conduct. The reassignment to sentinel duty reflects labour reallocation. Personnel could be shifted between roles according to need and suitability. The appointment of a schoolmaster to conduct services shows functional substitution. Religious duties were not restricted to ordained clergy. Speculations The insistence on moral reform suggests concern over public example. The person conducting services perhaps needed to embody acceptable behaviour. The reassignment rather than dismissal indicates labour retention. Even unsuitable individuals were redirected rather than removed entirely. The dual role of William Clifton implies scarcity of qualified personnel. Multiple functions may have been combined out of necessity. | |
384 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Saturday Prsᵗ. Joshua Johnson Govʳ Anne Whitt[e]y orphan humbly made her The said Addis also at the same Time made The Govʳ & Councill takeing yᵉ whole into their Provided that a settlemᵗ be made first on the said That an Exact Accᵗ be Taken of the said | A consultation was held at Fort James on 30 January 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. Anne Whitey submitted an application. She asked to be allowed to make her own decisions about her life and marriage. She explained that she had agreed to marry Robert Addis and now sought official consent. Addis also applied. Approval was requested so that the marriage could proceed. The matter was examined. Reproof was given because the agreement had been made before consent was obtained, Whitey being an orphan under government care. Permission for the marriage was granted, but only on condition that part of her estate be formally secured for her before the marriage took place. An exact account of her property was ordered and an appraisal made. This was carried out and reported. Her estate was valued at £150 0s 0d. Joshua Johnson Interpretations Control over marriage for an orphan shows direct administrative authority over dependants. Personal decisions required formal approval when the individual was under government care. The requirement for a settlement before marriage ensured that property remained protected. Assets were secured in advance to prevent loss through the legal transfer that followed marriage. The valuation of the estate demonstrates a formal process for establishing worth. Property was assessed in monetary terms to guide legal arrangements. Speculations The insistence on securing part of the estate suggests concern that marriage could place Whitey’s property at risk. The council probably acted to protect her financial position before allowing the union. | |
385 | It is Agreed & Ordered That the said Addis doe give in sec[ur]e for yᵉ Also it is ordered That the said Settlemᵗ be kept & left J J Johnson | A condition was imposed that Robert Addis provide security for one half of Anne Whittey’s estate, that portion being set aside as her marriage settlement. Responsibility was placed on him to ensure that this portion remained available when required by the East India Company authorities. This requirement was fulfilled. A further order directed that the settlement be retained in the custody of the governor for the time being. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The requirement to give security shows formal protection of marital property. A financial guarantee was used to safeguard the woman’s portion within the marriage. The division of the estate indicates structured settlement practice. Only part of the estate was secured, allowing controlled transfer of assets. The retention of the settlement by the governor reflects administrative oversight. Property arrangements were held under official control rather than private custody. The obligation placed on Addis demonstrates legal accountability. He was made responsible for preserving the settlement against future claim. Speculations The insistence on holding the settlement centrally suggests concern over mismanagement. Control by the governor perhaps reduced the risk of loss or misuse. The requirement for security implies distrust of informal arrangements. Formal guarantees may have been necessary to enforce compliance. | |
386 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Fryday Prsᵗ. Joshua Johnson Govʳ John Sin[n]eck Souldʳ petitioned Govʳ & The said Wormall Denys Sinnecks Complaint, After much Debate between them It is Agreed & Ordered That the said Sinneck chuse 2 men of yᵉ J J Johnson | A consultation was held at Fort James on 26 February 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. John Sinneck submitted a petition seeking a hearing against John Wormall. The dispute concerned a house and plantation that Sinneck’s mother-in-law had left to Wormall. Wormall had undertaken to repair and maintain the property and to leave it in as good condition as when he received it. Sinneck stated that Wormall’s term on the plantation was nearly ended and raised concern over the condition in which it would be returned. Wormall denied the complaint and affirmed that he would perform his agreement. The matter was debated. A decision was made that arbitration be used. Sinneck was to choose two men from the neighbourhood of the plantation, formerly held by Wormall and now his, to judge the dispute. The decision was to be given on the following Wednesday. John Leister and Sinneck were to appoint John Colgrave. Wormall was to appoint Henry Cary and Orlando Bagley. J. J. Johnson Interpretations The use of arbitration shows reliance on local judgement rather than formal court ruling. Disputes over property condition were delegated to selected members of the community. The requirement that each party nominate arbiters reflects a balanced procedure. Both sides were given influence over the composition of the decision-making body. The obligation to return property in equal condition demonstrates enforceable tenancy terms. Maintenance duties formed part of the contractual relationship. The involvement of neighbours indicates dependence on local knowledge. Familiarity with the land and its condition gave authority to the arbiters’ judgement. Speculations The choice of arbitration suggests a desire to resolve the dispute quickly without prolonged proceedings. The council probably aimed to avoid escalation while still enforcing the agreement. The emphasis on condition at the end of tenure implies recurring issues with neglected property. The council likely relied on such mechanisms to maintain standards without direct oversight. | |
387 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Mon- Prsᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳ Robᵗ Addis Petitioned Govʳ & Councill It is Ordered That on Consideration that yᵉ sd Addis Land joynes to yᵉ John Smith Souldʳ desired that he might Rent It is ordered That the sd Smiths request be granted & he to pay J J Johnson | A consultation was held at Fort James on 28 March 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain Poirier as a member of council. Robert Addis submitted a petition. It was stated that through marriage he had come into possession of a parcel of land adjoining the East India Company enclosed land, formerly belonging to Anne Whitey. This land was estimated to contain about 20 acres of high ground. In return, he asked for an equivalent quantity of land in Sandy Bay. The matter was considered. The land in question lay next to the Company’s plantation and contained a large amount of standing timber, which Captain Poirier was expected to need. The Company had also issued orders to acquire or exchange land adjoining its plantation. For these reasons, the request was granted. Addis was allowed to exchange the land obtained through Whitey for land in Sandy Bay. John Smith then requested to rent ten acres of Company wasteland for a term of 21 years. The request was granted. Rent was to be paid according to Company rules for such cases. A lease was to be drawn, beginning from 25 March 1692. J. J. Johnson Interpretations The exchange of land shows active management of estate layout. The Company consolidated land near its plantation to improve control and use of resources. The mention of timber highlights its economic value. Wood was treated as a strategic asset tied to construction, fuel, or supply needs. The reference to prior Company orders indicates central direction of land policy. Local decisions followed broader instructions rather than being made in isolation. The fixed 21-year lease term reflects a standard tenure system. Long leases secured revenue while encouraging sustained cultivation. The backdating of the lease to 25 March 1692 aligns with administrative or financial cycles. Tenancy agreements were tied to set annual periods rather than the date of approval. Speculations The decision to exchange Addis’s land suggests that timber supply was a priority. The council probably aimed to bring wooded land under direct control for planned use. The grant of land in Sandy Bay in return may indicate that this area was less critical to immediate Company operations. It was likely used to accommodate private tenants while preserving more valuable land near the plantation. | |
388 | Island St Helena Att a [...] Court of Justice Prsᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳ Mr Richᵈ Kelinge Attorney The said Mudge doth not Deny that Contrary John Smith [...] being sworne saith Stephen Lancaster being sworne saith | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Captain Poirier as a member of council, and Richard Kelinge acting as attorney general. Kelinge brought a complaint against John Mudge. It was alleged that Mudge had given a false account of the number of his cattle grazing on the East India Company wasteland in March 1691. Under Company orders, a payment of 7d per head was due for such cattle. Mudge had declared only eight head at that time. Kelinge stated that about 26 head had in fact been chargeable. Mudge admitted that his account had been incorrect and contrary to Company orders. He maintained, however, that the number was lower than that alleged and disputed the figure of 26. John Smith was sworn. He stated that while travelling to Proctors Bay he had seen Mudge’s cattle numbering […] head. Two days later, at another place, he had seen 14 head in addition to the earlier group of 17 head. Stephen Lancaster was also sworn. He stated that about eight months earlier he had seen around 20 head of Mudge’s cattle at a place known as the Dry Gutts, all liable to payment to the Company’s proprietors. Interpretations The requirement to declare cattle numbers shows a regulated system of common grazing. Charges were imposed per head, turning access to wasteland into a source of revenue. The complaint for a false account demonstrates enforcement through formal prosecution. Under-reporting was treated as a financial offence against Company interests. The reliance on witness observation indicates practical methods of verification. Direct counting by others supplemented official declarations. The fixed rate of 7d per head reflects a standardised levy. Livestock numbers were converted into predictable income through uniform charges. Speculations The discrepancy between declared and observed numbers suggests that under-reporting may have been common. The court probably acted to deter others by pursuing this case. The use of witnesses who had seen cattle at different locations indicates that grazing was dispersed. Monitoring likely depended on informal observation rather than continuous oversight. Joshua Johnson | |
389 | [...] which Evidence It is Ordered That the said Mudge be cast in Suite & pay to yᵉ The said Attorney Genᵗ exhibited his complaint The said Smith doth not Deny that he hath The said [...] being Examined saith that the Trees Isaack Leach Planter saith that yᵉ said Smith It is Ordered That the said Smith be cast in Suite & pay Damages to | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Captain Poirier and Richard Kelinge. Proceedings against John Mudge were concluded. On the strength of the evidence, he was found liable for giving a false account of his cattle. A fine of 7s 6d was imposed for the offence. An additional 12d was charged for the excess cattle. The total sum came to £1 8s 6d, payable to the Company’s proprietors. Richard Kelinge then brought a complaint against John Smith for encroaching on the East India Company wasteland and for cutting timber belonging to the Company. Smith admitted that he had encroached slightly on the wasteland. He explained that this had been done to secure his ground from damage by animals, as part of his boundary lay against rock and stone where stakes could not be driven. He denied cutting Company timber and stated that the trees in question had belonged to his father, who had received licence from the governor to cut them, having agreed to pay the Company for their use. [...] was examined and confirmed that the trees had been cut by his order under that licence. Isaac Leach gave evidence that Smith had made a small encroachment onto the Company’s wasteland. A decision was made. Smith was found liable for encroachment and was ordered to pay damages of ten dollars to the Company. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The fixed fine of 7s 6d for a false return shows a standard penalty applied to breaches of reporting rules. Financial punishment reinforced compliance with Company regulations. The added charge per excess animal demonstrates that liability increased with the scale of under-reporting. Payment was calculated in proportion to the offence. The licence to cut timber shows controlled access to natural resources. Timber remained Company property and could only be used with permission and payment. The ruling against encroachment despite practical difficulty shows strict protection of Company land. Physical obstacles did not excuse taking in wasteland. The award of damages in dollars shows that different currencies were used in practice. Payments were not confined to sterling and could reflect available means of exchange. Speculations The limited penalty suggests that the offence was treated as routine rather than severe. The court probably aimed to enforce compliance without imposing excessive hardship. The dismissal of Smith’s justification indicates concern over gradual loss of Company land. Even small encroachments were likely checked to prevent wider expansion by others. | |
390 | It. Richᵈ Kelinge Attorney Genᵗ Gracie Coulson widdᵒ Complains of Joᵒ The said Downing Denys that he laid any Thom: Garger being Examined saith yt he It is Ordered That on Consideration yt yᵉ said Dogg had done John Madge Complaines of Henry Coale The said Coale Denys the Accion & Alledgeth | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Captain Poirier. Richard Kelinge was added to the court as a member. Grace Coulson brought a complaint against John Downing. She alleged that Downing had entered her house and laid violent hands upon her. Her dog had then bitten Downing on the leg, after which Downing killed the dog. Downing denied laying hands on her but admitted that he had killed the dog. He stated that the dog had bitten him on the leg as soon as he entered the house. Thomas Garger was examined. He stated that he had not seen Downing touch Coulson but had heard her tell him to stand further off. The dog had then bitten Downing, who immediately took a knife and killed it. The matter was considered. The dog was known to have bitten others passing along the highway near Coulson’s house, and no steps had been taken to restrain it. No proof was given that Downing had assaulted her. Downing had already suffered injury from the bite. A decision was made that Coulson was to lose the case and pay the costs of court. John Mudge then brought a complaint against Henry Coles. A claim was made that Coles’s swine had entered Mudge’s plantation and destroyed three roods of potatoes. Coles denied the claim and argued that Mudge’s fence was not lawful, which he stated could be proven by evidence. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The addition of the attorney general to the court shows flexibility in judicial composition. Officials could take on dual roles in both prosecution and judgment. The ruling against Coulson highlights responsibility for controlling animals. Failure to restrain a known dangerous dog shifted liability onto its owner. The consideration of behaviour on the public highway shows concern for wider safety. Harm to passers-by influenced the court’s judgment beyond the immediate dispute. The defence based on an unlawful fence indicates that property protection depended on proper enclosure. Damage claims could fail if boundaries were not maintained to required standards. Speculations The decision to dismiss Coulson’s claim suggests that public safety concerns outweighed her complaint. The court probably aimed to discourage keeping uncontrolled animals near common routes. The reliance on fencing standards in Coles’s defence implies recurring disputes over livestock damage. The court likely used such cases to reinforce expectations of proper enclosure. | |
391 | Abram Goodwin, [...] make being Exami- After much Debate between yᵉ said Coales It was Ordered That the said Mudge be Cast, & pay Cost of suite The said Mudge complains of the said Coales, that The said Coales Denys yᵉ Accon, But It is Ordered That being the said Mudge hath not Sustained damage It was demanded of yᵉ said Mudge & Coales John | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Captain Poirier and Richard Kelinge. John Mudge continued his complaint against Henry Coles concerning damage to his plantation by swine. Abram Goodwin was examined on behalf of Coles. He stated that the fence around Mudge’s plantation was in many places little more than one foot high. By order of the governor and council, such fences ought to have been five feet high. The matter was debated. A decision was made that Mudge had no cause of action. He was cast in the suit and ordered to pay the costs. Mudge then brought a further complaint against Coles, alleging that Coles had threatened to kill his cattle if they came into the valley where Coles lived. Coles denied making such a threat. He stated that he had only said that if Mudge’s cattle came into or near his plantation, he would drive them away. The matter was considered. No damage had been suffered by Mudge as a result of these words. A decision was made that he was again cast in the suit and required to pay the costs. A question was then put to both parties as to whether they would grant each other a general release. Both agreed. A mutual release was entered, covering all claims between them up to that date. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The requirement that fences be five feet high shows a formal standard for enclosure. Compliance determined liability in disputes over livestock damage. The dismissal of the claim on the basis of an inadequate fence demonstrates conditional property protection. Owners were expected to secure their land before seeking compensation. The refusal to act on a threat without resulting damage shows that harm had to be actual rather than potential. Words alone did not constitute a punishable offence in this context. The mutual release reflects a legal mechanism to end ongoing disputes. By agreeing to release all prior claims, both parties were prevented from reopening the matter. Speculations The repeated failure of Mudge’s claims suggests that fencing standards were strictly enforced to limit disputes. The court probably aimed to encourage proper enclosure as a primary defence against damage. The use of a general release indicates a desire to settle continuing conflict between neighbours. The court likely sought to prevent further litigation by closing all existing grievances at once. | |
392 | John Smith Complaines of Isaac The said Leach Deny yᵉ Accon Bridgett the wife of Matthew It is Ordered That the said Leach doe ask yᵉ Memorandum that the Coppy of this I. S. J[...][...] R[...][...] B[...] [...] | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Captain Poirier and Richard Kelinge. John Smith brought a complaint against Isaac Leach. It was alleged that Leach had used harsh and abusive language against Smith’s wife. Leach denied the accusation. Bridgett [...] was examined. She stated that she had heard Leach speak abusively about Smith’s wife in the manner described in the complaint. A decision was made that Leach must ask Smith’s wife for forgiveness in court and promise not to abuse her again. This was carried out. He was also ordered to pay the costs of suit. A memorandum was then entered. A copy of this record, covering the period from 8 June 1691 to 25 April 1692, was sent to the East India Company aboard the ship Hemsthorne, commanded by John Hempsthorne. The vessel departed from the island on 8 May 1692. I. S. J[…] Interpretations The requirement for a public apology shows that verbal offences were addressed through reconciliation rather than financial penalty alone. Restoration of social order was prioritised. The reliance on witness testimony in cases of speech indicates that reputation and conduct were subject to communal oversight. Spoken words could form the basis of legal action when confirmed by others. The inclusion of a memorandum about transmission of records shows regular communication with Company authorities. Administrative records were formally compiled and sent to higher levels of governance. The dispatch of records by ship demonstrates dependence on maritime links for oversight. Information flow between the island and Company leadership relied on scheduled voyages. Speculations The decision to require an apology instead of imposing a fine suggests that the court aimed to resolve personal conflict directly. The outcome likely sought to prevent escalation within a small community. The formal recording and dispatch of the book imply an expectation of review by Company authorities. The council probably maintained detailed records to demonstrate compliance with instructions and proper governance. | |
393 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Presᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳ Information haveing been given by Stephen The said Lancaster being Called saith that he did see William Tobury Foᵗᵗ being likewise examined | A consultation was held at Fort James on 25 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present as governor, with Richard Kelinge as deputy governor, and Captain [...] as a member of council. Information had been given by Stephen Lancaster on Saturday 16 April 1692. While keeping the Company storehouse, he had seen one of the East India Company slaves grinding glass in a mortar. Suspicion arose that harm might be intended, either against the Burrion family or against the slave’s master. It was noted that such use of glass had previously been associated with serious offences on the island, for which individuals had been executed. Notice was given to Captain Burrion. The slave was sent to Fort James and placed in the custody of the marshal. He remained in irons until this day for examination. Lancaster was called and confirmed that he had seen the slave grinding glass. He stated that he had questioned him about his intention. The slave had replied that it was to remove hair. Lancaster then threw the glass away and struck the slave two or three times with a cane before leaving him. William Tobury was also examined. He stated that Dnno Bagley, who had been present with Lancaster, had told him the same account as Lancaster had now given. Interpretations The grinding of glass was treated as a serious warning sign. It had an established association with harmful practices that could threaten life or authority. The immediate confinement of the slave shows rapid preventive action. Suspicion alone was enough to justify detention under strict conditions. The involvement of the storehouse highlights the importance of Company-controlled spaces. Activities within such locations were closely monitored. The reference to past executions demonstrates enforcement through severe punishment. Memory of earlier cases shaped present responses. Speculations The strong reaction suggests fear of poisoning or covert harm. The council probably viewed ground glass as a known method of attack within the island’s experience. The decision to hold the slave in irons before full examination indicates a precautionary approach. Preventing any possible act was likely prioritised over waiting for proof. | |
394 | The said slave being sent for & Examined saith Upon the whole it was Thought, yᵗ It was Ordered That in Order to the Extorting of an acknow- Bond Domingos Accᵗ to the Estate | The slave was brought in and examined. He stated that while watching […] he had found a piece of glass and broken it simply to keep himself awake, having fallen asleep several times while attending the hogs. The glass was taken from him. The matter was considered and no deliberate intent to cause harm was found. This judgement was supported by the view that he was ignorant and of limited understanding. An order was made that he be pressed to confess whether any accomplices had encouraged the act. No further admission was obtained. He was then whipped as a warning against repeating such behaviour and returned to his labour. Domingos presented an account on behalf of the estate of John Greentree’s orphans. It was alleged that Thomas Ferndale, who had been appointed executor of Greentree’s will, retained possession of part of the orphans’ stock of cattle and other items listed in their yearly account. He was said to have refused to deliver both the goods and the cattle to John Greentree, one of the heirs […] Interpretations The whipping shows summary punishment without formal conviction. Discipline was applied even where intent to harm was not proven. The attempt to extract a confession indicates coercive interrogation. Physical pressure was used to test whether others were involved. The role of an executor shows delegated control of estate assets. Property of orphans could be managed by appointed individuals. The refusal to deliver goods highlights disputes over custody. Executors could be challenged over their handling of inherited property. Speculations The punishment despite lack of intent suggests emphasis on deterrence. Authorities perhaps aimed to discourage suspicious behaviour regardless of outcome. The insistence on identifying accomplices implies concern over conspiracy. Harmful acts may have been feared as coordinated rather than individual. The dispute over estate property suggests weak enforcement of fiduciary duty. Executors may have exercised considerable control before being compelled to account. | |
395 | who was appointed by Govʳ & Councill to be Receiver to yᵉ said stock of Cattle, Except he might have a Genᶫ Discharge of the said Estate, but it was alledged, that the said Ferndale stood Indebted to the said Estate, so could not have a full & Finall Release, but that he the said Dm[un]ds would give him a Recᵗ for what he should Receive of him In his Custody of yᵉ sd Orphans The said Ferndale being sent for was demanded of him the reason why he would not deliver the pticulars aforesᵈ to the said Dm[un]ds Account; & John Greentree Receivᵉ But at Length after much Debate The said Ferndale saith that he would deliver what pticulars he had In his Custody Immediately, provided he had a Recᵗ Given to him for them, & that he would deliver the sd Orphans stock of Cattle on Friday next to the said Greenstree provided he might have a Recᵗ for them also It is Ordered That the said Ferndale deliver the sd pticulars to the sd Dm[un]ds & Dm[un]ds doe give a Recᵗ to the sd Ferndale for wᶜʰ he rec[eiv]ᵉd on the Behalfe of yᵉ sd Orphans & accordingly the sd Ferndale the pticulars hereafter mentioned & the sd Dm[un]ds gave the sd Ferndale a Recᵗ for one winnow mill, flower Six seed Hoes four silver spoones whereof one is Broken fifteen silver Buttons for a Coat 3 Iron for slaves one gold Ring wᵗʰ a Madero Stone Jᵒ J[on][s][on] R[mo] Bonner | A consultation was held at Fort James on 25 April 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Kelinge and Captain Bonner. Proceedings continued concerning the estate of John Greentree. Edmunds had been appointed by the governor and council to receive the stock of cattle belonging to the orphans. Thomas Ferndale had refused to deliver the cattle and other goods unless he was granted a full discharge from all obligations relating to the estate. It was argued that Ferndale himself was indebted to the estate and therefore could not receive a complete and final release. Instead, Edmunds offered to provide receipts for any items delivered. Ferndale was called before the council and questioned as to why he had not handed over the property to Edmunds and to John Greentree. After extended discussion, Ferndale agreed to deliver all items in his custody at once, on condition that receipts be issued. He also agreed to hand over the cattle on the following Friday, again provided that a receipt be given. A decision was made that Ferndale must deliver the goods to Edmunds, and that Edmunds must issue receipts for everything received on behalf of the orphans. This was carried out. The items delivered were recorded as follows: one winnowing mill, one flour […], six seed hoes, four silver spoons of which one was broken, fifteen silver buttons for a coat, three irons for slaves, and one gold ring set with a Madero stone. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The refusal to grant a full discharge shows that liability remained until all debts were settled. Executors could not escape obligation while still owing to the estate. The use of receipts demonstrates formal accounting practice. Written acknowledgement protected both parties and created a verifiable record of transfer. The appointment of a receiver indicates structured estate administration. Control of assets was placed in designated hands to ensure proper management for the benefit of orphans. The detailed inventory reflects the breadth of estate property. Both agricultural tools and personal valuables were treated as accountable assets within the estate. The inclusion of “irons for slaves” shows that equipment for labour control formed part of estate value. Such items were recognised as property with financial and functional significance. Speculations The insistence on receipts suggests distrust between the parties. The council probably sought to prevent future disputes by ensuring clear documentation of every transfer. The staged delivery of cattle suggests practical limits in immediate transfer. The council perhaps balanced enforcement with the logistical realities of gathering livestock. | |
396 | Island Stᵗ Helena Att a Consultation Held on P[re]sᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳᵗ Wm Tibury Foᵗᵈ put in a petition It is Ordered That the said Tibury have Lycence according Robᵗ Degarny planter delivered It is Ordered That the said Degarny have Lycence to returne | A consultation was held at Fort James on 4 May 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Kelinge and Captain Bourier. William Tibury submitted a petition. It was stated that he had served the East India Company on the island for more than eight years. Permission was requested to return to England aboard the ship Kempsthorne, commanded by John Kempsthorne. Approval was granted in recognition of his service. Robert Degarny also submitted a petition. He requested permission to return to England on the same ship, having lived on the island for nearly twenty years. Approval was granted according to his request. Joshua Johnson Interpretations Permission to leave the island shows that movement was regulated. Departure required formal approval from the governing authority. Length of service was taken into account when granting leave. Continued labour for the Company influenced decisions over mobility. The naming of the ship and its commander indicates controlled passage. Travel was tied to specific vessels operating under recognised authority. Speculations The granting of leave in both cases suggests that retaining these individuals was no longer essential. The council probably balanced labour needs with requests to depart when service had been fulfilled. | |
397 | Whereas John Eastermouth Late souldᵣ hath It is Ordered That on Consideration that the sd Comandᵣ Jᵒ J[oh][n][s][o][n] R[el][in][g][e] B[on][n][e][r] | John Eastermouth had previously been committed to the custody of the marshal for a crime for which he had been sentenced to banishment. John Kempsthorne, commander of the Kempsthorne, requested that Eastermouth be released and allowed to embark, stating that he would be useful on the homeward voyage, especially if enemies were encountered. A decision was made to grant permission for Eastermouth to travel to England on the same ship. This was allowed on the grounds that the commander required additional men and that no outward-bound vessel might arrive soon to carry him. A condition was imposed that he remain under restraint on board the ship until the East India Company determined his case, his offence having already been reported to them. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The suspension of a banishment sentence shows discretionary justice. Punishment could be altered in response to practical needs. The transfer of custody from marshal to ship indicates flexible detention. Authority over prisoners could shift between institutions. The requirement to remain confined on board reflects continued legal control. Movement did not equate to freedom from sentence. The reference to Company decision shows hierarchical authority. Final judgement rested with distant central administration. Speculations The decision to release him for service suggests prioritisation of manpower. Immediate military need perhaps outweighed strict enforcement of punishment. The insistence on confinement during the voyage indicates caution. Authorities may have sought to balance utility with risk. The delay in final judgement implies slow communication. Dependence on distant authority may have required interim solutions. | |
398 | Island Stᵗ Helena Att a Consultation Held on Pr[e]sᵗ Jos: Johnson Govʳᵗ Whereas there was an order published It is therefore Ordered That | A consultation was held at Fort James on 19 May 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. An earlier order had required the inhabitants to assemble at the church on 16 May 1692. They were to nominate individuals to serve as churchwardens and as overseers of the highways for the coming year. The meeting took place as directed. For churchwardens, Stephen Wills and William Andrews were chosen for the East Division. John Lufkin and James Ryer were chosen for the rest of the island. For overseers of the highways, Braine Ledger and William Dusson were chosen for the East Division. John Nicholls and John Peverton were chosen for the rest. These nominations were presented to the governor and council on 19 May 1692. From these names, final appointments were made. Stephen Wills and John Lufkin were appointed as churchwardens for the year. Braine Ledger and John Nicholls were appointed as overseers of the highways. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The requirement for inhabitants to nominate officers shows a participatory element within local governance. Selection began at community level before final approval by authority. The division into East Division and the rest indicates structured administrative geography. Offices were distributed to ensure coverage across different parts of the island. The final selection by the governor and council demonstrates central control. Community choice was subject to confirmation and adjustment by governing authority. The offices of churchwarden and overseer of highways reflect combined civil and ecclesiastical administration. Responsibility extended to both religious organisation and maintenance of infrastructure. Speculations The two-stage process of nomination and selection suggests an attempt to balance local input with oversight. Authority was maintained while allowing inhabitants a role in choosing candidates. The distribution of roles across divisions indicates concern for practical management. Appointments were probably arranged to ensure that no area lacked supervision or maintenance. | |
399 | That the officers aforemenc[i]oned have warra[nt] It is further Ordered That Mr Richᵈ Kelinge Store keeper who hath Whereas the glass windows of the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ It is | Warrants were directed to be issued to the officers named, empowering them to perform their duties. Stephen Wills, as churchwarden, was required to take into his custody the utensils belonging to the church and to give a receipt for them to the former churchwardens, Benjamin Leale and Thomas Snowdon. They were to be discharged from office once they had submitted a full account of all receipts and disbursements for the previous year. An account was accordingly produced, showing that £34 19s 10½d had been spent on the chapel at Fort James, including the making of forms and benches. This account was examined, approved, and the former churchwardens were discharged. Richard Kelinge, acting as storekeeper, held £4 7s 0d collected for church use. A warrant was issued directing payment of £34 19s 10½d to the several persons involved in the work. Repairs were then addressed to the windows of the Company house at the great plantation. Much of the glass had become broken over time, and with winter approaching, repair was considered necessary. A glazier had been engaged for the work and presented a bill of £9 8s 3d, which was examined and approved […] Interpretations The issuing of warrants shows formal delegation of authority. Officeholders required written authorisation to act in their roles. The transfer of church utensils reflects continuity of office. Material responsibility passed formally between successive officials. The requirement to submit accounts demonstrates financial accountability. Officeholders were obliged to justify expenditure before discharge. The examination and approval of accounts indicate audit procedure. Public funds were reviewed before acceptance. The role of the storekeeper in disbursing funds shows centralised financial control. Collected money remained under official custody until authorised payment. The payment exceeding funds held suggests coordinated financing. Additional resources beyond the collected sum were required to meet expenses. Speculations The formal discharge after accounting suggests concern over mismanagement. Officials may have been required to prove proper conduct before release. The repair of the plantation house windows indicates maintenance priority. Protection against weather may have been essential for preserving Company property. The engagement of a specialist glazier implies limited local skill. Certain trades perhaps required specific expertise not widely available. | |
400 | It is Ordered That the said Gla[s]ier doe Receive for doing Whereas the Glass windows of Fort house And It is Ordered That the said Gla[s]ier doe Receive for doing J[...][...] | Payment was directed to be made to the glazier for work already completed on the Company house at the great plantation. Richard Kelinge was authorised by warrant to pay the agreed sum for that work. Further repairs were then addressed to the glass windows of the fort house and store room, which were found to be broken and in urgent need of repair with winter approaching. The same glazier had been engaged and completed the work. His bill was examined and allowed at £2 2s 8d. An order was made that the glazier receive £2 2s 8d from Richard Kelinge in his capacity as storekeeper, and that a warrant be issued authorising the payment. Interpretations The use of warrants shows formal control over expenditure. Payments required written authorisation before funds could be released. The repeated engagement of the same glazier indicates reliance on specialised labour. Skilled trades were retained for multiple tasks. The examination of bills reflects financial oversight. Costs were reviewed before approval and payment. The role of the storekeeper in making payments shows centralised fiscal management. Funds were disbursed through a designated official. Speculations The timing of repairs suggests seasonal planning. Work was perhaps prioritised to prevent damage during winter conditions. The approval of multiple repair bills implies ongoing maintenance needs. Buildings may have required continual attention due to wear and climate. | |
401 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Pr[e]sᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳ Information having been Given to the Govʳ William Du[fton] being examined saith yt [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 2 June 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier Information had been given by William Dufton. While looking for his swine, he had seen one of the East India Company slaves […] using a saw belonging to Mr Phillips Gurnt. The slave was immediately committed to prison and placed in irons, where he remained until this day for examination. William Dufton was examined. He stated that on Saturday 14 May 1692 he had seen the slave near the saw belonging to Gurnt. He had watched him without interference, suspecting that theft might be intended. After taking the saw, the slave tied its leg and began using it. Dufton then called out to him, though he was too far away to be heard, and declared that he would have him hanged. The slave then ran off, and Dufton was unable to see which direction he took due to thick weed in the area […] Interpretations The immediate imprisonment of the slave shows rapid enforcement in response to suspected misuse of tools. Authority acted before full investigation when property or security was at risk. The reference to ownership of the saw demonstrates recognition of individual property within the wider Company structure. Tools were treated as accountable assets. The act of observing before intervening indicates reliance on witness testimony. Evidence was gathered through direct observation rather than immediate seizure. The use of irons reflects standard custodial practice. Physical restraint was applied to secure individuals pending examination. Speculations The suspicion of theft suggests concern over loss of tools critical to labour. The authorities perhaps prioritised control of equipment as essential to maintaining order and productivity. The strong verbal threat by Dufton indicates how quickly such incidents were treated as serious offences. The response perhaps reflects a wider fear of disorder among the labour force. | |
402 | She said Du[fton] being sworne did affirme Upon which yᵉ [...][...] being the said slave was On Consideration of what hath past in yᵉ | William Dufton was sworn and confirmed the truth of his earlier statement regarding the slave’s use of the saw. The slave was examined again and at first denied both the use of the saw and even seeing any swine that day. After further questioning and extended examination, he admitted that he had taken the saw, tied it, and used it as described, though he stated that this had occurred only on that single occasion. The matter was reviewed and it was noted that only one witness had given evidence against him. It was also observed that persons of limited understanding in similar situations had sometimes confessed under fear or threat to acts they had not committed. Consideration was also given to the instructions of the East India Company, which directed that, even where the law prescribed death for felony, punishment might instead be remitted and satisfaction made at fourfold for the damage done. Interpretations The reliance on a single witness shows evidentiary limitation. Decisions could proceed on minimal testimony but were treated with caution. The reconsideration of confession reflects awareness of coercion. Admissions obtained under pressure were recognised as potentially unreliable. The reference to Company instructions demonstrates moderated justice. Central authority imposed limits on the application of capital punishment. The requirement of fourfold satisfaction indicates compensatory penalty. Financial restitution replaced harsher legal sanction in certain cases. Speculations The hesitation to rely on confession suggests concern over wrongful punishment. Authorities perhaps sought to avoid executing individuals on uncertain grounds. The emphasis on Company clemency implies policy direction. Governance may have been shaped to reduce severity while maintaining control. The substitution of restitution for death suggests practical reasoning. Recovering value may have been preferred to eliminating labour resources. | |
403 | It is Ordered That although the said slave deserve death J[...][...] | A decision was made that, although the slave was liable to death under strict law, the sentence should be reduced in light of the considerations already stated and on the grounds that he was not within the Church. A punishment short of death was imposed, and it was directed that he be castrated on 8 June 1692. A proclamation was ordered requiring all inhabitants of the island to bring their male slaves, except young children, to witness the execution of the sentence. This measure was intended to deter similar offences in the future. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The mitigation of a capital sentence shows discretionary justice. Punishment was adjusted according to circumstance and governing instruction rather than applied rigidly. The reference to exclusion from the Church reflects religious distinction in legal treatment. Status outside the Christian community influenced the form of punishment. The imposition of corporal punishment in place of execution indicates graded penalties. Severe bodily punishment could substitute for death in certain cases. The requirement for public attendance demonstrates organised deterrence. Punishment was used as a visible example to regulate behaviour among slaves. Speculations The choice of castration suggests targeted punishment. The penalty perhaps aimed to mark the offender permanently while preserving labour value. The enforced attendance implies deliberate spectacle. Authorities may have intended to instil fear and reinforce control through collective witnessing. The distinction drawn from Church membership indicates moral framing. Religious status may have been used to justify differentiated treatment. | |
404 | Att a Consultation Held on Pr[e]sᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳ Jane Smout widdᵒ made her application It is Agreed & Ordered That the sd Jane Smout have yᵉ use & John | A consultation was held at Fort James on 8 June 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier Jane Smout submitted a request. She sought to continue hiring the labour and service of a slave girl named Doll, whom she had employed for several years. She also asked to retain two boys whom she had previously hired, for a further term of one year. Approval was granted. The labour and service of Doll, belonging to the East India Company, were assigned to Jane Smout for the coming year beginning on 24 June 1692. The two boys were likewise granted to her for the same period. Payment was fixed at £4 0s 0d for each quarter. Security for payment was required. Thomas Alki and Thomas Nicholls entered into bond to guarantee payment of the agreed sum. Interpretations The hiring of slaves from Company ownership shows structured leasing of labour. Human labour was treated as a rentable asset under formal agreement. Quarterly payment indicates regularised financial scheduling. Income from such arrangements was managed through fixed intervals rather than lump sums. The requirement for sureties demonstrates enforcement of financial obligation. Third parties assumed liability to secure payment and reduce risk to the Company. The continuation of prior hiring arrangements shows stability in labour allocation. Existing relationships were maintained when terms were fulfilled. Speculations The need for guarantors suggests concern over default. The authorities perhaps relied on bonds to ensure steady income from hired labour. The repeated hiring of the same individuals indicates reliance on familiar labour. Continuity may have been valued for efficiency and control within the plantation system. | |
405 | John Smith [...], who hath hired | John Smith, who had hired a slave boy named […] from the East India Company for several years, applied to purchase him. Approval was given for the purchase at a price of £16 0s 0d. One year was allowed for payment, to be made in four quarterly instalments. Formal articles of agreement were drawn, and he provided two sufficient […] to enter into bond with him to guarantee performance of the terms. John […] […], who had likewise hired a slave boy named […] from the Company for several years, applied to purchase him. Approval was given for the purchase at a price of […] with one year allowed for payment from that date. Articles of agreement were drawn, and he provided two sufficient […] to enter into bond to secure the terms. J S J[…] Interpretations The conversion of hired labour into ownership shows a structured path from lease to purchase. Long-term hirers were permitted to acquire slaves outright. The use of instalment payments reflects credit arrangements. Purchases were financed over time rather than paid immediately. The requirement for bonds indicates enforced contractual security. Third parties guaranteed compliance with payment terms. The drafting of articles of agreement shows formal legal process. Transactions were recorded and regulated through written instruments. Speculations The allowance of purchase after years of hire suggests incentive for continuity. Long-term use may have encouraged eventual ownership. The need for sureties implies concern over default. Credit sales may have carried risk that required mitigation. The repetition of similar transactions indicates established practice. The Company perhaps routinely converted hired labour into capital assets. | |
406 | Island St Helena | A consultation was held at Fort James on 14 June 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. Henry Coales had previously been granted permission to cut timber trees, on condition that an account be given to the governor and council. He submitted this account under his hand. It showed that eight trees, both large and small, had been cut. A decision was made that payment be made to the East India Company at the rate of £0 4s 6d for each tree. Information was then received that several persons had been drinking punch at the house of Richard Guttin in James Fort Town. Guttin held no licence to sell liquor by retail. A proclamation had already prohibited such activity, imposing a penalty of £1 10s 0d, with one half to be paid to the informer who proved the offence, whose own oath was sufficient evidence. An order was made that Richard Guttin be warned to appear before the governor and council to answer for this breach. William French, John Hammond, and Richard Lavans were also summoned. Joshua Johnson Interpretations The requirement that Coales account for timber cut shows regulated access to natural resources. Permission was conditional and subject to financial charge. The fixed rate per tree indicates standardised valuation. Natural resources were monetised through set fees rather than negotiation. The enforcement of licensing for liquor sales reflects controlled trade. Retail activity was restricted to authorised individuals under penalty. The acceptance of a single oath as sufficient evidence shows simplified evidentiary rules. Informers were empowered to initiate enforcement without multiple witnesses. The allocation of half the penalty to the informer demonstrates incentivised reporting. Financial reward encouraged participation in policing behaviour. Speculations The imposition of a per-tree fee suggests revenue generation alongside regulation. The Company perhaps aimed to control exploitation while securing income. The strict enforcement of liquor licensing indicates concern over disorder. Unregulated drinking may have been seen as a threat to discipline within the settlement. | |
407 | Drinking at the sd Gurlings house as a Tavern Wm French, John Hamond & Richᵈ Lavans being Examined saith that they did Drinke a bottle or Two of punch at ye sd House as aforesᵈ, but yt it was made of their owne M[...][...][...] but would Confess no more But Ino Haile[s] being Sworne saith yt he at the same Time did aske ye sd Gurlings wife to make him a bottle of punch & he would pay her for it, where upon in a short time after she made ye sd Hailes one Bottle of punch which they then Drank Upon what hath been Evidence by the sd Ino Hailes It is ordered That ye sd Gurling doe pay according to ordᵣ of Govʳ and Councill 40s as a Fine for this his offence J S J[...][...][...] R[...][...] B[...][...] | Drinking had taken place at the house of Richard Gurling, treated as a tavern. William French, John Hammond, and Richard Lavans were examined and stated that they had drunk one or two bottles of punch there, though they claimed it had been made from their own materials and gave no further admission. John Hailes, being sworn, stated that he had asked Gurling’s wife to prepare a bottle of punch for payment, which she did, and that it was then consumed. On the strength of this evidence, a penalty was imposed on Richard Gurling. He was fined £2 0s 0d in accordance with the standing orders of the East India Company. J S J[…] Interpretations The fine for unlicensed sale shows enforcement of retail restrictions. Selling drink for payment without licence attracted fixed penalties. The reliance on sworn testimony indicates evidentiary procedure. Conviction depended on direct statements made under oath. The distinction between private consumption and sale reflects regulatory boundary. Use of personal materials did not excuse commercial exchange. The involvement of a household member shows liability extending beyond the individual. Actions by a spouse could implicate the householder. Speculations The conflicting accounts suggest attempted evasion. Participants perhaps sought to avoid penalty by framing the event as private drinking. The decisive weight given to a single sworn statement implies pragmatic judgement. Authorities may have prioritised enforceability over strict evidentiary standards. The treatment of the house as a tavern indicates concern over informal venues. Unlicensed domestic spaces may have functioned as retail outlets. | |
408 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held att the Sessions House near Fort James on monday the 4th Day of July 1692 Presᵗ Joshua Johnson Govʳ Richᵈ Keeling Depʸ Govʳ Capt B[...][...] [...] Thoᵐ Wilson planter Complains of Richard Barrum planter in an Action of Defamation for as much as the sd Barrum maliciously told a marrinᵉ belonging to ship Kempthorne unto whom he ye sd Wilson stood Indebted the sume of 15ˢ that the sd Barrum would not give him that sd marrinᵉ the Eight of his naile for ye sd sume of 15ˢ The sd Barrum Desires prooff Sam Maxwell [...][...] being Sworne & Elizabᵗ his wife Examined saith that when the sd ship Kempthorne lay in this Road that a Seaman belongᵍ to the sd ship Came into the sd Barrums house & [...] the sd Barrum that one Andʳ Wilson of this Island owed him 15ˢ and was a Lyar that he should not have it, by reason the sd ship was ready to sett Saile, whereupon the sd Barrum told the sd Seaman that he would not give him a penny for it, for he should never get a farthing of his Debt | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. Thomas Wilson brought an action for defamation against Richard Barrum. It was claimed that Barrum had spoken maliciously to a mariner belonging to the ship Kempthorne. That mariner was owed £0 15s 0d by Wilson. Barrum was alleged to have told him that he would not give him eight of his nail for that sum. Barrum called for proof. Sam Maxwell was sworn, and Elizabeth Maxwell was examined. They stated that when the ship Kempthorne lay in the road, a seaman belonging to that ship had come into Barrum’s house. He had said that Andrew Wilson owed him £0 15s 0d and had called him a liar, adding that he would not receive payment because the ship was about to sail. Barrum then told the seaman that he would not give him a penny, and that he would never recover a farthing of the debt. Interpretations An action of defamation shows that reputation held legal value. Harmful speech affecting credit or standing could be pursued through the court. The reference to a debt of £0 15s 0d indicates that financial credibility was central. Statements that undermined a debtor’s ability or willingness to pay could damage commercial relationships. The involvement of a mariner from Kempthorne shows interaction between island residents and visiting crews. Maritime connections influenced local disputes. The reliance on witness testimony from Sam Maxwell and Elizabeth Maxwell reflects evidentiary practice. Statements made in domestic settings could be used as formal evidence in court. The mention of “eight of his nail” suggests a unit or expression tied to payment or value. Disputes over such terms reveal the informal language of credit and exchange. Speculations The complaint suggests concern over creditworthiness. Wilson probably feared that Barrum’s words would prevent settlement of his debt with the mariner. The presence of the seaman in Barrum’s house indicates informal negotiation spaces. Debt discussions may have taken place in private households rather than formal venues, which could lead to disputes over what was said. | |
409 | Again the sd wilson farther Complains of the sd Richᵈ Barrum in an accᵗ of Defamation of saying that the sd Barrum told the aforesᵈ Seaman yt the sd Wilson was a Rogue & knew him to be soe The sd Barrum Denys the Accᵗ But the aforementioned Sam Maxwell [...] being Sworne & Eliz his wife further Examined saith that they heard ye sd Barrum tell the sd Seaman yt ye sd Wilson was a Rogue & knew him to be one The sd Barrum Complains of the sd wilson, In an accᵗ of Debt, that ye sd wilson owe him the sume of 25ˢ The sd wilson Denys the Accᵗ & Desires prooff The sd Barrum produced a bill wherein it did appeare the sd wilson stood Indebted to the sd Barrum the aforesᵈ sume of 25ˢ to the Truth whereof the sd Barrum offered to make Oath But in Consideration that the two accᵗs of wilson agᵗ Barrum & the sd Barrums agᵗ wilson savoured much of ill will & turbulency of spirit more then reall grounds for Action, it was proposed that they put the whole to reference To which Both parties Agreed | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. Thomas Wilson brought a further complaint of defamation against Richard Barrum. It was alleged that Barrum had told a seaman from the ship Kempthorne that Wilson was a rogue and that he knew him to be so. Barrum denied the accusation. Sam Maxwell was sworn again, and Elizabeth Maxwell was further examined. They stated that they had heard Barrum tell the seaman that Wilson was a rogue and that he knew him to be one. Barrum then brought a separate action against Wilson for debt, claiming £1 5s 0d. Wilson denied the claim and called for proof. Barrum produced a bill showing that Wilson owed him that sum and offered to confirm its truth by oath. The court considered that both claims, those brought by Wilson against Barrum and that brought by Barrum against Wilson, arose more from ill will and a contentious disposition than from substantial grounds for action. A proposal was made that the entire matter be referred to arbitration. Both parties agreed to this course. Interpretations The repetition of defamation claims shows that verbal accusations could escalate into formal legal disputes. Reputation remained closely tied to personal and financial standing. The acceptance of a written bill supported by oath demonstrates the evidentiary weight of documents. Written acknowledgements of debt carried strong legal force when combined with sworn testimony. The court’s judgement that both parties acted from ill will reflects judicial discretion. Cases could be redirected when perceived as driven by personal conflict rather than substantive grievance. The use of arbitration shows an alternative dispute mechanism. Authority encouraged resolution outside full judicial determination to reduce conflict and administrative burden. Speculations The decision to refer the matter suggests a desire to contain escalating hostility. Arbitration perhaps offered a quicker and less confrontational settlement than continued litigation. The willingness of both parties to agree indicates mutual recognition of risk. Each side may have judged that a negotiated outcome was preferable to an uncertain court ruling. | |
410 | That the aforesᵈ Three Actions Vizᵗ of wilson & Barrum be put to arbitration Each party to chose one pson which are to decide all Differences betwixt the sd wilson & Barrum and put it to a finall Issue, which after some Time, ye psons so Chosen came into Court & acquainted ye Govʳ & Councill that they had agreed Vizᵗ That the sd Richᵈ Barrum pay ye Charges of the two Accons that the sd wilson had agᵗ him and that the sd wilson pay the sd Barrum his Debt of 25ˢ Vizᵗ the one halfe in Cash & ye other in In Treat, & pay Charges of that accompt that Genᵉ Releases be given from one to the other from the beginning of ye world unto this day whereupon Record was made thereof accordingly Thoᵐ wilson Complains of Richᵈ Hacady in an accompt of the Case saying that he sold a house to the sd Hacady upon Condition yt he the sd wilson would reserve to his owne use one Roome of the sd House & have Liberty to pass and repass so often as he or any of his family or friends in shiping time should have occasion The sd Hacady Denys the accom but saith that it is true yt he the sd Hacady bought a house of the sd wilson & yt after yt a generall bargain was made & concluded between them, that then he the sd Hacady promised the sd wilson to lett him lye in ye sd house Either upon a chest or bench wch was never denyed him but did never promis him Liberty to sett up a Bed there | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. The three actions between Thomas Wilson and Richard Barrum were referred to arbitration. Each party chose one person to determine all matters in dispute and bring them to a final resolution. After some time, those chosen returned to court and reported their agreement. Barrum was required to pay the costs of the two actions brought against him by Wilson. Wilson was required to pay Barrum the debt of £1 5s 0d, with one half paid in cash and the other half in kind, and also to pay the costs of that action. Mutual general releases were to be exchanged between both parties, covering all claims from the beginning of the world to that day. This agreement was recorded. Wilson then brought a further complaint against Richard Hacady. It was claimed that a house had been sold to Hacady on condition that one room be reserved for Wilson’s own use, with free passage for himself, his family, and his friends, especially at times when ships were in harbour. Hacady denied this account. He acknowledged that he had purchased the house from Wilson. He stated that after the general bargain had been concluded, he had agreed to allow Wilson to lie in the house, either on a chest or a bench, and that this had never been refused. He denied having promised any right to set up a bed or to occupy a room in the manner described. Interpretations Arbitration served as a recognised method for resolving disputes. Authority delegated decision-making to chosen individuals, allowing settlement without extended litigation. The requirement of general releases shows a legal mechanism to end conflict. All past claims were extinguished to prevent further actions between the same parties. Payment partly in cash and partly in kind reflects a mixed economy. Monetary and material forms of settlement were used together. The dispute over the house demonstrates the importance of agreed conditions in property transfer. Verbal terms attached to sale could become central points of contention. The distinction between temporary lodging and reserved occupation shows nuanced property rights. Access, use, and possession were treated as separate and negotiable elements. Speculations The imposition of general releases suggests an intention to end ongoing hostility. The court probably aimed to prevent repeated litigation between Wilson and Barrum. The disagreement over lodging rights indicates ambiguity in informal agreements. The parties perhaps relied on verbal understanding without clear documentation, which led to conflict over interpretation. | |
411 | But after much Debate It was Agreed That their Differences be put to reference, Each And Concluded That the sd Hacady should pay the sd wilson two[...] John Worrall s[...] Complains of The sd Cottgrave doth not deny ye | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. The dispute between Thomas Wilson and Richard Hacady was, after extended argument, referred to arbitration. Each party chose one person to decide the matter. After some time, the arbitrators returned and reported their conclusion. Hacady was required to pay Wilson two […] of brown souls. Wilson was required to pay the costs of the suit. No further privilege or right of use in the house was to remain with Wilson. Both parties were to grant general releases to one another, ending all claims between them. This agreement was recorded. A new case was then brought by John Worrall against John Cottgrave in an action of defamation. It was alleged that Cottgrave had stated that Worrall had taken or cut out a […] from a small cask or packet inside a French coat that Worrall had altered to fit Cottgrave’s body, the coat having been too large for him. Cottgrave did not deny making the statement. He asserted that he could swear to the truth of what he had reported concerning the coat. Interpretations Arbitration again functioned as a mechanism to resolve disputes outside formal judgement. Decisions were delegated to chosen individuals whose conclusions were accepted by the court. The requirement that Wilson pay costs while receiving limited compensation shows balancing of outcomes. Fault and responsibility were distributed rather than assigned entirely to one party. The removal of any remaining right to use the house clarifies property control. Ownership and occupation were decisively separated. The exchange of general releases served to terminate all existing claims. This prevented renewed litigation between the same parties. The defamation case involving Worrall and Cottgrave shows how statements about personal conduct could become legal matters. Assertions tied to honesty or behaviour were treated as actionable if disputed. Speculations The minimal compensation awarded to Wilson suggests that his claim was only partly upheld. The arbitrators perhaps sought to conclude the dispute without fully endorsing either position. Cottgrave’s willingness to swear to his statement indicates confidence in proof. The case may have turned on whether the alleged act concerning the coat could be substantiated rather than on the mere fact of speaking. | |
412 | But after much Debate between It was proposed by yᵉ Court That it also be put to reference & yᵗ they And after some time the sd psons as Arbitrato[...] That the sd Cottgrave should pay to James Duffee s[...] Complains of The sd Jepsey Denys the Matᵗi Barret s[...] being Examined saith | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. The dispute between John Worrall and John Cottgrave was, after extended debate, referred to arbitration by agreement of the court and both parties. John Havers and William Clifton were chosen on behalf of Worrall. Henry Oales and Ripin [...] were chosen on behalf of Cottgrave. These arbitrators were to determine the matter and bring it to a final decision. After some time, the arbitrators returned to court and declared their agreement. Cottgrave was required to pay Worrall £0 5s 0d. He was also required to bear all costs incurred in the arbitration and to pay the charges of the court. General releases were to be exchanged between both parties, and this agreement was recorded. A new case was then brought by James Duffee against Katherine Jepsey in an action of debt concerning sugar amounting to £0 16s […]. Jepsey denied the claim and called for proof. Matthew Barret was examined. He stated that at some time in the past Jepsey had borrowed sugar from Duffee on several occasions. Interpretations The selection of arbitrators by each party shows a structured approach to dispute resolution. Representation from both sides ensured perceived fairness in decision-making. The requirement that one party bear both arbitration and court costs reflects allocation of responsibility. Financial burden was used to reinforce the outcome of the dispute. The exchange of general releases again demonstrates a mechanism to terminate ongoing conflict. Legal closure was enforced to prevent further claims. The use of goods such as sugar in a debt action shows that commodities functioned as units of value. Transactions were not limited to coin but extended to staple goods. The reliance on witness testimony for informal lending indicates limited written documentation. Verbal agreements were common and required corroboration in court. Speculations The imposition of all costs on Cottgrave suggests that the arbitrators judged his position weaker. Financial penalties may have been intended to discourage similar disputes. The repeated borrowing of sugar implies ongoing dependency. Jepsey perhaps relied on informal credit networks rather than immediate payment, which led to dispute when repayment was contested. | |
413 | But the said Duffee further saith yt shee the sd Jepsey had a Box full of sugar which did containe [...] and that he had [...] her once The sd Jepsey being further Interrogated saith that she had some sugar of the sd Duffee at severall times, which she did think might containe abᵗ 8 It is Ordered That the said Jepsey be cast in suit & pay Charges thereof & pay the sd Duffee 9: s[...] [...] for sugar and 12: for bleeding her once Richard Parrum Complains of Edwᵈ Seaford In an accom of Debt for the sume of 13: 10 The said [...] doth not Deny, but that he stands Indebted to the sd Parrum the sd sume of 13: 10 but saith that he offered him paymᵗ in that which he promised to accept before he the sd Parrum had Entered his Accon, & whereas [...] sheerein had Entred an accon agᵗ the sd Parrum which accon she withdrew on Condition that ye sd Parrum should not Enter any agᵗ the sd Seaford, being aged & poore Upon which the sd [...] sheerein was Examined who saith that shee had Entred an accon agᵗ the sd Parrum which was withdrawn by agreemᵗ with the sd Parrum on Condition yt he | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. Proceedings continued in the case between James Duffee and Katherine Jepsey. Duffee stated further that Jepsey had possessed a box full of sugar containing […] and that he had also […] her once. Jepsey, when further questioned, admitted that she had received sugar from Duffee on several occasions and believed the total to be about eight. A decision was made. Jepsey was found liable. She was required to pay Duffee £0 9s […] for the sugar and £0 12s 0d for having been bled once, and also to pay the costs of the suit. A new case followed. Richard Parrum brought an action of debt against Edward Seaford for £13 10s 0d. Seaford did not deny the debt but stated that payment had already been offered in the form previously agreed before the action was entered. He further stated that [...] had earlier brought an action against Parrum but had withdrawn it on condition that Parrum would not proceed against Seaford, who was described as aged and poor. The same […] was examined and confirmed that an earlier action had been brought against Parrum and withdrawn upon agreement that no action would be pursued against Seaford. Interpretations The inclusion of payment for “bleeding” shows that medical services formed part of everyday financial exchange. Such services were treated as quantifiable debts recoverable through court. The acceptance of Jepsey’s own estimate indicates that partial admission could establish liability. Exact quantities were sometimes approximated where precise accounting was absent. The acknowledgement of debt by Seaford demonstrates that obligation could be admitted while disputing enforcement. The issue shifted from existence of debt to terms of repayment. The reference to withdrawal of a prior action in exchange for forbearance reveals negotiated legal restraint. Agreements could limit access to formal litigation. The mention of Seaford’s age and poverty shows that personal condition could influence proceedings. Social factors were raised as grounds for leniency or altered enforcement. Speculations The addition of a charge for bleeding suggests that Duffee combined trade and medical practice. This dual role perhaps increased reliance on him within the community. The dispute over prior agreement indicates tension between informal arrangements and formal enforcement. Parrum may have proceeded despite earlier understanding, prompting challenge based on fairness rather than denial of debt. | |
414 | Should not Enter any Accon agᵗ the sd Seaford It is ordered That the sd Parrum be non[e] suited he William Clifton s[...] & schoole It is ordered That the said Clifton doe Receive out And whereas the sd Clifton | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. Proceedings continued in the case between Richard Parrum and Edward Seaford. It was confirmed that an earlier agreement had been made under which no action was to be brought against Seaford. It was also stated that payment of the debt had been offered on Seaford’s behalf. A decision was made that Parrum had no valid cause of action. He was non-suited and required to pay the costs of the court. William Clifton then submitted a petition. He stated that, by order of a former governor, he had written and prepared the register book of christenings and marriages, but had received no payment. Satisfaction was requested for this work. An order was made that he be paid £1 0s 0d from the church stock. A further matter was raised. Clifton had also previously been employed to write the account of Captain Holden. No payment had yet been received for that work. Interpretations The decision to non-suit Parrum shows enforcement of prior agreements. Legal action could be barred where a binding understanding had already limited recourse to court. The recognition of an offer to pay demonstrates that willingness to settle could affect judgement. Courts considered conduct as well as strict liability. Payment to Clifton from church stock shows use of institutional funds for administrative labour. Record-keeping was treated as a service requiring formal remuneration. The reference to the register book highlights the administrative role of written records. Documentation of baptisms and marriages formed part of official governance. The mention of unpaid work for Captain Holden indicates reliance on skilled clerical labour. Such work required compensation even when carried out under prior authority. Speculations The dismissal of Parrum’s claim suggests that the court prioritised maintaining negotiated settlements. Upholding such agreements probably reduced repeated litigation. The payment to Clifton implies recognition of administrative backlog. The authorities perhaps sought to regularise outstanding obligations to ensure continued clerical support. | |
415 | It is ordered That the said Clifton have credᵗ on accᵗ J. J[...]son | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 4 July 1692. Joshua Johnson presided, with Richard Keeling and Captain [...]. Proceedings continued concerning William Clifton. In addition to the earlier payment of £1 0s 0d from church stock for preparing the register of christenings and marriages, further compensation was considered for his work in writing the account of Captain Holden. A decision was made that Clifton be allowed a credit of £2 0s 0d on his account with the East India Company for this work. Richard Reeling was to receive a warrant authorising him to charge these sums to the church and Company accounts accordingly. J. J[…]son Interpretations The granting of credit on account shows an alternative to immediate payment. Debts owed by the Company could be offset within its own accounting system. The division of charges between church and Company accounts reflects shared financial responsibility. Administrative and religious functions drew on overlapping funds. The issuing of a warrant demonstrates formal financial control. Payments and credits required authorised documentation to be recognised. The use of clerical labour for both ecclesiastical and commercial records highlights the central role of literacy. Record-keeping underpinned governance and financial administration. Speculations The use of credit rather than cash suggests limited liquidity. The administration perhaps relied on internal accounting adjustments to meet obligations. The allocation across two accounts indicates an effort to distribute cost. Responsibility was perhaps balanced between institutional functions to manage financial strain. | |
416 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Joˢ Johnson Govʳ Whereas Prudence the wife of Tho | A consultation was held at Fort James on 25 July 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Kelinge and Captain [...]. Prudence Sherwin, wife of Thomas Sherwin, brought two slaves belonging to the East India Company and one slave belonging to Sergeant Jackson to Fort James. They had been seized late at night near a house of Thomas Sherwin, described as Tomes house or […] plantation, by William Collins. Collins stated that he believed the slaves had come to steal, given the late hour and the fact that they carried two quarts of liquor. When taken, they claimed that the liquid was fishing tackle and that they were going fishing. Prudence Sherwin stated that several items had previously been lost from the plantation. She added that Andrew Goodson, who was the servant of her son-in-law, had lost a sow about two months earlier. Suspicion was directed toward these slaves and others for that loss. Interpretations The seizure of slaves on suspicion of theft shows preventive enforcement. Action was taken based on circumstance and suspicion rather than proven offence. The involvement of multiple owners indicates overlapping authority. Slaves belonging to both Company and private individuals were subject to communal oversight. The reference to prior losses demonstrates cumulative suspicion. Earlier incidents influenced interpretation of later behaviour. The reporting of the incident by a third party highlights communal policing. Residents participated in surveillance and enforcement of order. The claim that the liquid was “fishing tackle” reflects contested explanation of evidence. Statements by accused individuals were weighed against circumstance and suspicion. Speculations The timing of the incident suggests heightened concern over night activity. Movement after dark was perhaps closely associated with disorder or theft. The linking of the slaves to earlier losses indicates a pattern of suspicion. Authorities perhaps used past incidents to justify closer scrutiny and intervention. | |
417 | Upon which Information the said slave But after the punishment had been Then the forementioned slave of Sergᵗ | Proceedings continued concerning the slaves brought in by Prudence Sherwin, wife of Thomas Sherwin, after their seizure by William Collins near the Sherwin plantation. The slave belonging to the East India Company was examined but made no confession. He was then punished with lashes […] in an attempt to extract a confession. After this punishment, he admitted that he had helped to kill goats and that the Sherwin slaves had acted with him. He further stated that he had four pieces of the meat at a house formerly belonging to Lester Jackson and now belonging to the Company, where he had been ordered to live. He also stated that he had taken goats belonging to the Sherwin household. After the punishment had been completed, he withdrew his confession. He stated that he had spoken under the lash to avoid further punishment. He denied killing any cattle, hogs, or goats belonging to any person. He instead claimed that one of the Sherwin slaves had given him the meat previously mentioned. The slave belonging to Sergeant Jackson was then punished in the same manner. He confessed that the Company slave had persuaded him to go to the Sherwin plantation at Tomes house to eat and drink. He stated that the Sherwin slaves would provide food, while they themselves had brought arrack for drink. Interpretations The use of lashes to obtain confession shows coercive interrogation. Physical punishment formed part of the evidentiary process rather than merely a penalty after judgement. The retraction of confession highlights recognised unreliability under duress. Statements made during punishment were not treated as fully secure evidence. The reference to shared participation among slaves indicates concern over collective action. Authorities sought to identify networks rather than isolated acts. The identification of a Company-controlled dwelling shows regulated placement of labour. Residence could be assigned as part of administrative control. The mention of arrack reflects regulated commodities within illicit activity. Alcohol appears as both a controlled good and a factor in suspected disorder. Speculations The immediate use of punishment to secure confession suggests urgency in establishing guilt. The authorities perhaps prioritised rapid clarification over careful evidentiary procedure. The conflicting statements imply uncertainty in the case. The council may have faced difficulty in determining truth where coercion shaped testimony. The emphasis on shared eating and drinking suggests concern over informal gatherings. Such meetings perhaps raised fears of planning or cooperation beyond authorised control. | |
418 | [...] this day was appointed for Consulta[tion] The Rt Honᵒ Compᵃ slave being called The Sherwins Blacks Isaac Slaughter sold in Quarte | Further examination was ordered of the slaves already under suspicion, together with those belonging to Thomas Sherwin and Prudence Sherwin. The slave belonging to the East India Company was called again. He repeated only what he had stated after punishment. He denied any knowledge of killing a cow, although he had earlier confessed to that act. The Sherwin slaves were then examined. They admitted giving the Company slave some beef about nine weeks earlier. They stated that this had been done with the knowledge of Isaac Slaughter, who had been instructed by Mr Sherwin to oversee the plantation at Tomstone wood. They claimed that the meat had come from a cow that had broken its neck. Isaac Slaughter was then examined. He stated that before Christmas there had been a cow belonging to the Sherwin household that had broken its neck, from which meat might have been given to the slave. He stated that no other cow had suffered such an accident since, except for one heifer that had died of sickness. Interpretations Repeated examination shows iterative inquiry. Testimony was revisited and compared over time to assess consistency. The acceptance of statements from multiple slaves indicates use of cross-examination. Evidence was built through comparison of accounts rather than reliance on a single confession. The involvement of Isaac Slaughter shows delegated oversight of plantation property. Responsibility for livestock and produce could be assigned to trusted individuals. The distinction between accidental death and theft of livestock reflects legal categorisation. The origin of meat determined whether an offence had occurred. The reference to seasonal timing, such as “before Christmas”, shows reliance on approximate dating. Events were often recalled relative to known points in time rather than exact dates. Speculations The shift from confession to denial suggests instability in testimony. The council perhaps treated earlier admissions with caution due to the circumstances under which they were obtained. The explanation of the cow’s accidental death may have provided a plausible alternative to theft. The authorities perhaps considered whether sufficient evidence existed to sustain a more serious charge. The continued inquiry into livestock losses indicates concern over property security. The council may have aimed to resolve uncertainty to prevent ongoing suspicion within the community. | |
419 | After a prolonged period had been spent examining the slaves and setting them against one another in accusation, punishment was ordered. The Sherwin slaves were to be whipped at the flagstaff, and this was carried out. No further information was obtained from them, and they were then released. Additional measures were then imposed. A slave belonging to the Honourable Company, together with Jackson, was threatened with hanging by having ropes placed around their necks. This was done in an effort to force confessions about their associates. Despite these threats, nothing more was extracted from them. They were then committed to prison so that further examination could be conducted. Assurances of reward were offered if they revealed their accomplices, but no useful disclosures were made. In the end, they too were released. Attention then turned to the condition of the island’s official records. The register of christenings, marriages and burials was described as having been poorly maintained in the past. No designated person had previously been appointed to oversee these records, and the matter had been noted during the tenure of the last governor. An order was then prepared to address this deficiency. Interpretations The use of flogging at the flagstaff functioned as a formal public punishment. It reinforced authority through visibility and deterrence, and it was used here as an investigative tool rather than purely as a sentence. The placing of ropes around the prisoners’ necks represented a staged threat of execution. This was not an immediate sentence but a coercive method designed to extract testimony, showing how judicial procedures blended interrogation with intimidation. Commitment to prison pending further examination reflected a flexible legal process. Detention was used not only for punishment but also to allow time for continued inquiry and the possible gathering of evidence. The promise of rewards for information revealed a structured incentive system. Material inducements were employed alongside coercion, indicating a dual strategy of pressure and reward within the island’s governance. The reference to the defective register of christenings, marriages and burials highlighted a gap in administrative control. Such registers formed the basis for legal identity, inheritance and social order, and their neglect suggested weaknesses in institutional oversight that required correction. Speculations The combination of whipping, threats of hanging and promises of reward suggests that the authorities faced a lack of reliable evidence. A layered approach was therefore used to force disclosure, balancing coercion with inducement in an attempt to overcome silence among the slaves. The concern over the poorly kept register indicates a recognition that administrative disorder could undermine governance. The move to formalise record-keeping was probably intended to stabilise legal processes and reinforce authority after earlier neglect. | A prolonged examination was conducted of the slaves belonging to the East India Company, to Sergeant Jackson, and to Thomas Sherwin and Prudence Sherwin. Accusations were made between them, but no consistent account was obtained. Punishment was then ordered. The Sherwin slaves were whipped at the flagstaff. This was carried out, but no further information was obtained. They were then released. Further coercive measures were applied. A slave belonging to the Company and the slave of Sergeant Jackson were threatened with hanging by having ropes placed around their necks. This was done to force disclosure of accomplices. No additional information was obtained. Both were then committed to prison for further examination. Promises of reward were offered if they revealed others involved, but no useful disclosure followed. They were eventually released. Attention then turned to administrative matters. The register of christenings, marriages, and burials on the island was found to have been poorly kept. No person had previously been formally appointed to maintain it. This deficiency had already been noted during the tenure of a former governor. An order was prepared to correct this defect. Interpretations The use of whipping at the flagstaff functioned as a formal and visible act of discipline. Punishment was applied not only as sanction but also as a means of interrogation. The staged threat of execution, by placing ropes around the necks of prisoners, shows the use of simulated capital punishment. This acted as coercion within the investigative process rather than as a sentence carried out. Commitment to prison in this context served as a holding measure. Detention allowed continued inquiry rather than marking the conclusion of proceedings. The offer of rewards for information demonstrates a structured system of inducement. Authorities combined coercion with incentive to obtain testimony. The reference to defective parish registers reveals a weakness in institutional administration. These records underpinned legal identity, inheritance, and social regulation, and their neglect required formal correction. Speculations The combination of whipping, simulated execution, and promised reward suggests difficulty in securing reliable testimony. A layered strategy was applied to overcome silence and contradiction. The decision to address the condition of the registers indicates concern over administrative control. Strengthening record-keeping was probably intended to reinforce governance and legal certainty after a period of neglect. | |
420 | A proposal was recorded concerning Clifton, described as clerk and schoolmaster. Responsibility for maintaining and supervising the register was to be assigned to him. A payment structure was set out. A fee of 2s 6d was to be charged for each christening, paid by the person presenting the child for entry. A further fee of 5s 0d was to be charged for each marriage. A public proclamation was to be issued so that all concerned would be informed of these charges. Ensign Jackson then submitted a request. Permission was sought for him to hire a Black girl named Moll from the Honourable Company for a period of one year. This girl had already been hired by him for several years in the past. Approval was granted. Jackson was given the labour and service of the girl for the coming year, beginning on 30 July 1692. Payment terms were fixed. A sum of £3 0s 0d was to be paid to the Honourable Company for that year. A further £3 0s 0d was to be paid for an additional year, under the same conditions. Interpretations The assignment of the register to Clifton as clerk and schoolmaster formalised record-keeping as a defined administrative duty. This placed legal identity, family status and inheritance records under a single accountable office, strengthening institutional oversight. The imposition of fixed fees for christenings and marriages created a regulated revenue stream tied to essential social and religious rites. This mechanism linked governance with everyday life events, ensuring both compliance and income. The requirement for a proclamation ensured enforceability. Public notice transformed the fees from a private arrangement into an island-wide obligation recognised by authority. The hiring of Moll from the Honourable Company illustrates the structured leasing of labour. Control of labour remained with the Company, while individuals such as Ensign Jackson gained temporary use through payment, reflecting a formalised system of labour allocation tied to financial obligation. Speculations The establishment of standardised fees and the appointment of Clifton suggest that earlier record-keeping had been inconsistent or poorly enforced. A centralised system was probably introduced to stabilise administration and secure reliable revenue. The continuation of Moll’s hire to Ensign Jackson, following several prior years, indicates that existing labour arrangements were maintained where they proved effective. Stability in labour allocation was perhaps preferred over redistribution, reducing disruption to both the hirer and the Company’s income. | A proposal was recorded concerning William Clifton. Responsibility for maintaining and supervising the register of christenings, marriages, and burials was assigned to him. A schedule of fees was established. A charge of £0 2s 6d was to be paid for each christening by the person presenting the child for entry. A further charge of £0 5s 0d was to be paid for each marriage. A proclamation was to be issued so that all inhabitants would be informed of these fees. Ensign Jackson then submitted a request. Permission was sought to hire a slave named Moll from the East India Company for one year. This arrangement had existed for several previous years. Approval was granted. The labour and service of Moll were assigned to Jackson for the year beginning 30 July 1692. Payment was fixed at £3 0s 0d for that year. A further £3 0s 0d was to be paid for an additional year under the same terms. Interpretations The assignment of the register to Clifton formalised record-keeping as an official duty. Legal identity, family status, and inheritance records were placed under a single accountable officer. The imposition of fixed fees for christenings and marriages created a structured revenue stream. Administrative authority was tied directly to routine social and religious practices. The requirement for a public proclamation ensured enforceability. Fees became binding through formal notice rather than private agreement. The hiring of Moll demonstrates a regulated system of labour allocation. Ownership remained with the Company, while temporary use was transferred through payment. Speculations The introduction of fees and appointment of Clifton suggest earlier disorder in record-keeping. A centralised system was probably intended to stabilise administration and secure consistent revenue. The continuation of Moll’s hire by Ensign Jackson indicates reliance on established arrangements. Stability in labour use was perhaps preferred to reassignment, maintaining both efficiency and income. | |
421 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on P[rese]nt Joshua Johnson Govʳ John Cannady plantr Complaines The said Sineneck being Charged It is ordered | A consultation was held at Fort James on 1 August 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Keling and Captain Poirier. John Cannady brought a complaint against John Sineneck. It was alleged that Sineneck had in his possession a piece of gold buttons belonging to a slave of Cannady. These buttons had been lost from Cannady’s house some time earlier. Sineneck was charged with the matter. He did not deny that he had received the buttons from Cannady’s slave. A decision was made that Sineneck restore the buttons to Cannady. This was done immediately in court. Interpretations The recovery of goods through admission shows reliance on acknowledgement rather than extended proof. Confession simplified resolution. The reference to property held by a slave reflects layered ownership. Goods associated with slaves remained under the authority of their owner. The immediate restoration of the buttons demonstrates summary justice. Minor disputes could be resolved quickly without prolonged proceedings. Speculations The absence of dispute over possession suggests limited contestation of fact. The case may have turned more on recovery than on determining wrongdoing. The prompt restoration indicates a preference for practical resolution. The authorities perhaps aimed to restore order with minimal escalation. | |
422 | Robert Lightfoot saith It is Ordered That in Consideration that the said | Robert Lightfoot gave testimony that he held a lease for ten acres of land for a term of twenty-one years. A request was made that this lease be relinquished. It was stated that he could not sustain himself on that land, as it was enclosed and constrained by neighbouring plantations. A further request was made that ten acres be granted in Sandy Bay, at a location known as the Black Place. A decision was made in his favour. The existing lease was to be surrendered, and a new grant of land in Sandy Bay was to be issued. Rent was to begin from the feast of St Michael the Archangel next following, being 29 September 1692. New leases were to be prepared accordingly. Interpretations The surrender and regrant of land shows administrative flexibility in land tenure. Leases could be altered when circumstances made occupation impractical. The reference to surrounding plantations highlights spatial constraints. Access and viability of land depended on its relation to neighbouring holdings. The use of a fixed quarter day, the feast of St Michael the Archangel, structured rent obligations. Payments were aligned with established calendrical markers. The requirement to draw new leases demonstrates formalisation of tenure. Written instruments defined rights and obligations under Company authority. Speculations The relocation to Sandy Bay suggests preference for more viable land. The new site perhaps offered better access, resources, or independence from neighbouring control. The willingness to grant the request indicates pragmatic governance. Productive use of land was probably prioritised over strict adherence to existing arrangements. | |
423 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation held Present Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas Henry Coates planter had The said Coates being present desired yt John Young being Examined saith yt John Kirby being Examined saith yt some | Henry Coates reported that several goats had been lost from his herd. Suspicion was directed toward several slaves, and a request was made that those suspected be brought before the governor and council, together with witnesses. The slaves were accordingly brought in for examination. Coates, being present, requested that John Young and John Kirby be examined. Both had lodged for some time at St Helena’s, where a slave under suspicion had also been present. John Young was examined. He stated that some time earlier a slave belonging to the East India Company, who lived at the Huts, together with another slave at St Helena’s, had killed one of the Company’s sheep or goats and had divided it between themselves. John Kirby was then examined. He stated that he had seen part of a goat at the house of Hern, which had been killed by the same slave. Interpretations The summoning of suspected slaves and witnesses shows a structured investigative process. Accusation required presentation before authority for examination. The reliance on testimony from residents such as John Young and John Kirby demonstrates the role of community evidence. Observations by individuals formed the basis of inquiry. The mention of Company livestock highlights regulated property. Animals belonging to the Company were subject to formal protection and investigation. The reference to slaves dividing the animal shows concern over unauthorised consumption. Use of livestock outside authorised channels was treated as an offence. Speculations The focus on multiple witnesses suggests uncertainty in attribution. The authorities perhaps sought corroboration to strengthen the case. The association of different locations, including the Huts and St Helena’s, indicates movement between sites. Such movement may have raised concern about coordination among slaves beyond immediate supervision. | |
424 | [...] Goate, [...] saith, that abt 3 weeks The Rt Honoble Compas slave being William Haise slave being Examined P. Stevens slave doth not deny | A consultation was held at Fort James on 9 August 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Keling and Captain Poirier. Examination continued concerning the loss of goats reported by Henry Coates. Testimony was given that about three weeks earlier goats had been seen at the house of Stevens. Suspicion was expressed toward a slave belonging to that household. It was stated that the master probably knew nothing of the matter, as it had been done in his absence. Suspicion was strengthened by the slave’s habit of leaving the house at unseasonable times during the night. A slave belonging to the East India Company was then examined. He stated that four or five months earlier he and a slave belonging to Stevens had gone to fetch salt at Stone-Topp. On that occasion they encountered a wild ewe, which they killed and divided between them. He further stated that a slave belonging to Sutton Isaac had told him that Daniel Collier, together with the Stevens slave and himself, had more recently killed another wild ewe belonging to the Company. Most of the meat had been taken, and part had been eaten on the fishing rocks. William Haise was then examined. He confirmed the same account concerning the goat killed by Collier and others, as reported to him by Isaac’s slave, but stated that he knew nothing further. The slave belonging to Stevens did not deny the accusations made against him. He confessed that he and Rigin Wily had killed a wild goat about three weeks earlier on the Company’s land at Stone-Topp. He stated that he had not killed any others. Interpretations The accumulation of testimony from multiple slaves shows reliance on layered evidence. Statements were compared and reinforced through repetition and overlap. The distinction between wild and owned livestock reflects classification of property. Even animals described as wild could fall under Company ownership and protection. The reference to nocturnal movement indicates behavioural suspicion. Activity outside expected hours was treated as indicative of wrongdoing. The attribution of knowledge to masters demonstrates separation of responsibility. Owners could be considered uninvolved if actions occurred without their awareness. The mention of shared killing and division of meat shows collective participation. Offences were often carried out by small groups rather than individuals. Speculations The repeated references to Stone-Topp suggest a known site for such activity. Its location perhaps allowed concealment and access to livestock. The emphasis on masters’ ignorance indicates concern over accountability. The authorities perhaps aimed to avoid implicating owners without clear evidence. The reliance on indirect testimony, such as what one slave reported hearing from another, suggests difficulty in obtaining direct proof. The inquiry may have depended on piecing together partial accounts. | |
425 | Rigin Wills slave neither doth And upon the whole It is ordered That all the aforesd slaves (save Wm Haise And [...] That forasmuch as the slave of P. | Examination continued into the killing of goats connected with the complaint of Henry Coates. The slave belonging to Rigin Wills did not deny the accusations made against him. It was also admitted that Wills himself had received half of the goat, which his slave had helped to kill. A decision was then made. All the slaves involved, except William Haise, who had not been found guilty, were immediately punished by lashes. The severity was to be proportionate to each individual’s offence. They were then dismissed. Further consideration was given to responsibility. The slave belonging to Stevens had taken part in killing the goats while his master was absent and performing duty at the fort. No knowledge of the act had been attributed to Stevens. As the slave had already been punished, Stevens was not fined. However, Rigin Wills, who had admitted receiving half of the goat, was fined £0 3s 0d for the use of the East India Company. A strong warning was given that greater care must be taken in future to prevent such actions. Interpretations The distribution of punishment shows graded responsibility. Slaves received corporal punishment, while free persons faced financial penalties. The exemption of Stevens from a fine reflects separation of liability. Masters were not held accountable where absence and lack of knowledge were established. The fine imposed on Wills indicates liability through benefit. Receiving part of the stolen goods created responsibility even without direct participation. The use of lashes as immediate punishment demonstrates summary justice. Sentences were carried out without delay following determination of guilt. The caution issued to Wills shows preventative intent. Punishment was combined with warning to regulate future behaviour. Speculations The distinction between Stevens and Wills suggests careful allocation of blame. Authorities perhaps aimed to avoid discouraging service at the fort while still enforcing accountability. The focus on receipt of the goat implies concern over informal distribution networks. The authorities may have sought to disrupt the sharing of unlawfully obtained goods within the community. | |
426 | Whereas permission was granted to It is Ordered That they be accountable to the Rt Hono: W J Willmsh | Permission had previously been granted to John Bowman and Margrett Draper to cut trees belonging to the East India Company, on condition that a true account be submitted. They provided their account on this day. It showed that each had cut twelve trees, both large and small. A decision was made that both Bowman and Draper be charged £0 3s 0d per tree to the use of the Company. W J Willmsh Interpretations The requirement to submit an account shows controlled use of Company resources. Permission was conditional and subject to verification. The fixed rate per tree reflects standardised valuation. Natural resources were monetised through uniform charges. The equal treatment of Bowman and Draper indicates consistent enforcement. Charges were applied without distinction once quantities were established. Speculations The insistence on accounting suggests concern over overuse. The authorities perhaps aimed to monitor and limit extraction through financial oversight. The per-tree charge implies revenue as well as regulation. Resource use may have been structured to generate income alongside control. | |
427 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Pres: Joshua Johnson Govr Whereas Saml Collier did give an But the P. John Bowman Lying in | A consultation was held at Fort James on 12 September 1692. Joshua Johnson was present, with Richard Keling and Captain Poirier. Samuel Collier had given information alleging misconduct by several individuals. It was stated that Robert Lightfoot had taken two wild kids belonging to the East India Company. It was further alleged that John Bowman had killed two goats, and that a slave belonging to Mrs Coulson had also killed one. All parties were summoned to appear before the governor and council to answer these charges, and Collier was required to support his accusations. Bowman did not appear, as he lay in a very low and sick condition and was thought more probable to die than to recover. Mrs Coulson also failed to appear, having been called to attend a woman in labour in her role as midwife. Only Lightfoot and Collier were present to give attendance. Interpretations The summoning of multiple accused individuals shows coordinated enforcement. Allegations involving several parties were addressed collectively. The requirement that Collier substantiate his claims reflects evidentiary responsibility. Informers were expected to support accusations when challenged. The absence of Bowman due to illness demonstrates allowance for physical incapacity. Proceedings could be delayed or limited when a party could not attend. The recognition of Mrs Coulson’s duties as a midwife indicates accommodation of essential services. Certain roles were prioritised even over court attendance. The reference to Company-owned wild animals highlights regulated property rights. Even animals not enclosed were treated as belonging to the Company. Speculations The decision to proceed with only partial attendance suggests urgency in addressing the matter. The authorities perhaps chose not to delay entirely despite missing parties. The acknowledgement of Mrs Coulson’s role indicates practical governance. Maintenance of essential care, such as childbirth assistance, was probably considered more critical than immediate legal proceedings. | |
428 | The said Lightfoot being called and It is ordered That in Regard the said Kidds were Whereas Information was given Who being called & Examined acknow- | Robert Lightfoot was called and examined. He stated that about eight months earlier he had been at Stone Topps, where he had encountered two wild kids and taken them back to his quarters. He further admitted that about a fortnight earlier he had been at Powells Valley, where he had found another kid and taken it as well. A decision was made. As the animals had been very small and might not have survived without being fed milk in a house, Lightfoot was fined only £1 0s 0d payable to the East India Company. Samuel Collier was to receive £0 5s 0d for providing the information. A further matter was then heard. Information had been given against Thomas Maxwell that he had cut down trees belonging to the Company. He had been warned to attend and answer the charge. When examined, he acknowledged that he had cut some trees. He stated that this had been done with permission from a former governor, and that some of the trees had been taken from his own land. He added that part of the timber had been converted into boards for his own use. Interpretations The reduced fine imposed on Lightfoot shows discretionary judgement. Mitigation was applied where circumstances suggested practical benefit rather than clear harm. The payment to Collier demonstrates a structured reward for informers. Reporting offences was formally encouraged through financial incentive. The acknowledgement by Maxwell shows that admission could shape proceedings. Confession did not end the matter but shifted focus to justification. The claim of permission from a former governor reflects continuity of authority. Actions taken under prior orders remained subject to review by current administration. The conversion of timber into boards shows use of raw resources for domestic purposes. Control over such transformation formed part of resource regulation. Speculations The lenient treatment of Lightfoot suggests concern for practical outcomes. The authorities perhaps valued preservation of livestock over strict enforcement of ownership. The dispute over Maxwell’s authority to cut timber indicates ambiguity in permissions. Past grants may not have been clearly recorded or universally recognised, leading to conflict. | |
429 | It is Ordered That on Consideration that it was The said Maxwell desired that he It is Ordered That the said Maxwells desire be granted he Whereas L̃t Rich̃ Kelinge Store- | Proceedings continued concerning Thomas Maxwell. It was accepted that he had acted with leave and licence from a former governor and that not all the timber used had belonged to the East India Company, some having come from his own land. A reduced fine of £[…] was imposed, payable to the Company. Maxwell undertook to pay this sum in cabell. A further request was made by Maxwell for permission to cut one additional tree belonging to the Company. This was granted on condition that he pay £0 4s 6d for that tree to the Company account on the island. Richard Keling, acting as storekeeper and surveyor, then submitted a request. Owing to frequent journeys into the countryside to measure land for leasing on behalf of the Company, he had moved his household away from Fort James. A request was made for a monthly allowance of flour for the maintenance of himself and his family, as he was absent from the general table at the fort except when required there on business. Interpretations The mitigation of Maxwell’s fine shows discretionary application of authority. Prior permission and mixed ownership of resources reduced liability. Payment in “cabell” reflects alternative settlement forms. Obligations could be discharged through non-cash means within local practice. The granting of permission to cut an additional tree confirms controlled access to resources. Use remained conditional on payment and formal approval. The request for a flour allowance highlights institutional provisioning. Officials relied on central supplies, and absence from shared provision required compensation. The reference to measuring land for leases shows the administrative process of land distribution. Surveying formed a key step in formalising tenure under Company authority. Speculations The acceptance of Maxwell’s explanation suggests reliance on continuity of governance. The council perhaps avoided undermining earlier permissions to maintain stability. The request for flour indicates logistical strain from administrative duties. The relocation of Kelinge’s household may have created practical difficulties that required formal adjustment. | |
430 | W[hi]ch Request of his was consi- It is Ordered accordingly That the s[ai]d L[t] Kelinge have monthly halfe Whereas the safeguard & security | The request of Richard Keling was considered and judged reasonable. His duties required frequent absence from the general table at Fort James, and his family had been removed into the country. It was also noted that similar allowances had previously been granted in comparable cases. An order was made that he receive a monthly allowance of half a hundredweight of flour. This arrangement was to continue until the pleasure of the East India Company should be known. Attention then turned to the defence of the island. The outposts or lookouts on the windward side were examined with care. Concern was expressed over the danger that might arise if an enemy attempted a landing at Prosperous Bay, identified as the place where the English had first landed when the island had been taken from the Dutch. Measures for strengthening this area were considered. The usefulness of existing masts that served as flagstaffs at lookout points was reviewed. These were found to be of little value, as no flags were now hoisted there as in earlier years. The position was also considered difficult for an enemy to access, so it contributed little to immediate defence. In addition, it was observed that ships were seldom, if ever, first sighted from that location, due to frequent fog and haze, which limited visibility over the sea. Interpretations The granting of a flour allowance shows structured provisioning for officials. Compensation was provided when duties prevented access to shared resources. The reference to prior allowances indicates precedent in administrative decision-making. Earlier practice guided current judgement. The examination of lookout posts reflects organised defence planning. Surveillance points were assessed for practical effectiveness rather than retained by tradition. The mention of Prosperous Bay highlights strategic geography. Certain landing sites were recognised as vulnerable points requiring attention. The evaluation of flagstaffs shows adaptation of defensive infrastructure. Installations without current function were reconsidered within broader security planning. Speculations The reconsideration of lookout posts suggests concern over changing conditions. Earlier defensive arrangements may have become obsolete or ineffective. The focus on Prosperous Bay indicates perceived vulnerability. The authorities perhaps anticipated that an enemy would favour known landing sites with historical precedent. | |
431 | [...] frequently seen, but all Alarums [...] brought It is Therefore Ordered That from ye next Gen[era]ll Randevous of ye And that upon the approach of any ships It is further Ordered That as soone as any ships or ships are | Further consideration was given to the island’s defensive arrangements. It was observed that alarms were more often raised from Prosperous Bay, which lay lower and provided a clearer view. Ships were usually first seen from that location, as visibility there extended further than at the higher lookout points. A decision was made to alter the existing system. From the next general rendezvous of the garrison on 24 September 1692, the use of the mast mounts or flagstaffs at the former lookout points was to cease. In their place, two or three shore posts were to be established toward the south at Prosperous Bay, where they would be more effective. Another post was to be placed at Bankes Fort, where only three or four persons were stationed, in order to strengthen that position. These posts were to be arranged so that signals could be passed safely onward toward Fort James, where four guns were mounted. These changes were intended to ensure that, upon the approach of any ship, alarms could be raised more quickly and efficiently than before. Further orders were made concerning signalling. As soon as any ship was sighted, two guns were to be fired at Prosperous Bay to give notice. On hearing this alarm, those nearest the signal guns along the main ridge were to proceed immediately to them and continue the signal. If only one ship was in sight, two guns were to be fired. If more than three ships were seen, then upon hearing the alarm, all planters and others were to […] Interpretations The shift from elevated lookout points to Prosperous Bay reflects practical adaptation. Surveillance was reorganised based on visibility rather than established position. The abandonment of flagstaffs shows declining reliance on visual signalling by flag. Gunfire replaced it as a more immediate and audible method. The establishment of multiple posts indicates a networked defence system. Communication was structured in stages to relay information rapidly across the island. The specification of gun signals demonstrates codified communication. Different numbers of guns conveyed distinct information about approaching vessels. The reinforcement of Bankes Fort highlights uneven distribution of defence resources. Additional support was directed to weaker points. Speculations The move to Prosperous Bay suggests accumulated experience. Repeated observations probably showed that earlier lookout points failed to provide timely warning. The use of gun signals implies concern over speed of response. The authorities perhaps aimed to reduce delay between sighting and mobilisation of forces. | |
432 | their Black men also, with their Masters It is further ordered That a Proclamation be published for Jno Johnson | The revised system of alarms was extended to include the entire population. All planters were required to attend upon alarm, together with their slaves, in the places assigned to them. By this arrangement, the whole island could be alerted and made aware of danger within a quarter of an hour. It was noted that under the former system, nearly two hours had often passed before an alarm was fully raised. A further order was made that a proclamation be issued to give public notice of these arrangements. John Johnson Interpretations The requirement that planters and their slaves attend upon alarm shows mobilisation of the entire labour force. Defence relied on coordinated participation across social groups. The emphasis on rapid signalling reflects operational efficiency. Time was treated as a critical factor in responding to external threat. The comparison with earlier delays indicates evaluation of past performance. Administrative change was driven by perceived shortcomings in response time. The issuing of a proclamation ensured uniform compliance. Public notice transformed the system into a binding obligation across the island. Speculations The inclusion of all inhabitants suggests concern over limited manpower. Broad mobilisation was probably intended to compensate for small garrison numbers. The reduction in alarm time indicates urgency in defence planning. The authorities perhaps anticipated sudden attack and sought to minimise vulnerability through faster coordination. | |
433 | Island St Helena. At a Court of Justice Held Prs[ent] Joshua Johnson Govr John Smith Sould[ie]r Complaines whereupon the said slave ran downe to the house | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 3 October 1692. Joshua Johnson and Richard Keeling were present, with Captain Poirier. John Smith brought an action of assault and battery against Isaac Leach. It was stated that Smith had been on his own land when Leach approached him. Words were exchanged, and the dispute appeared to have been settled. Shortly afterwards, Leach was said to have taken advantage of the moment and struck Smith down with a walking stick. Blows were repeated until Smith was left for dead. During the assault, Leach was reported to have spoken to Smith’s slaves who were nearby, declaring that he had killed their master and would kill them as well. One of the slaves then ran to the house of Henry Coale and reported the injury and what had occurred. It was stated that Smith remained in very poor condition from the attack and did not know whether he would recover. Interpretations The classification of the case as assault and battery shows formal recognition of personal violence. Physical injury was treated as a civil and criminal matter subject to court action. The reference to Smith being on his own land highlights territorial rights. Violence occurring within one’s own property carried particular weight. The use of a walking stick as a weapon indicates how ordinary objects could become instruments of assault. Intent and outcome were more significant than the nature of the weapon. The involvement of slaves as witnesses demonstrates their role in evidentiary processes. Their observations contributed to reconstruction of events. The reporting of the incident to Henry Coale shows reliance on nearby community members. Immediate response depended on local networks rather than formal authorities alone. Speculations The escalation from verbal dispute to severe violence suggests unresolved tension. The initial appearance of reconciliation may have masked continuing hostility. The threat directed at the slaves indicates an attempt to assert dominance and suppress witnesses. Fear may have been used to prevent intervention or testimony. The severity of Smith’s injuries implies that the case could carry serious consequences. The court perhaps faced the possibility of treating the matter as more than a minor assault if the outcome worsened. | |
434 | The said Leach denies the s[ai]d [...] & in this The s[ai]d John Smith being sworne saith Bridgett the wife of Hen: Coales being | Isaac Leach denied the accusation of assault brought by John Smith and called for proof. John Smith was sworn and gave his account. He stated that on 27 July 1692, between nine and eleven in the morning, Leach had come onto land that Smith held on lease from the East India Company. A dispute arose between them concerning cattle. Smith stated that he had urged Leach to complain to the governor if any damage had been done, promising satisfaction if required. Leach was said to have replied that Smith had no right there and that he would treat him no better than a dog. The quarrel then subsided and both appeared calm. As Smith rose from where he had been sitting, Leach struck him on the head, causing him to fall to his knees. Further blows followed. Smith stated that he could not say how many, as he lost his senses under the force of the attack. He believed that the injuries might cause his death. Bridgett Coales, wife of Henry Coales, was then sworn. She stated that on the same day a slave belonging to Smith came to their house, which lay near Smith’s. The slave reported that Leach had killed his master. Bridgett then ran toward Smith’s house and saw Leach at some distance going up the side of a hill. Shortly afterwards […] Interpretations The formal denial followed by demand for proof shows adversarial procedure. Accusation required substantiation through sworn testimony. The specification of date and time reflects evidentiary precision. Events were anchored to particular moments to support credibility. The reference to leased land highlights layered property rights. Use of land held from the Company could still give rise to personal disputes. The loss of senses described by Smith indicates recognition of severe bodily harm. Testimony addressed both the act and its physical consequences. The role of Bridgett Coales shows reliance on immediate witnesses. Evidence included both direct observation and reports conveyed at the scene. Speculations The emphasis on prior reconciliation suggests a sudden escalation. The attack may have been viewed as deliberate rather than impulsive. The mention of cattle as the cause of dispute indicates recurring tension over grazing and damage. Such conflicts perhaps formed a common source of violence on the island. The report carried by the slave and the rapid response by Bridgett Coales suggest a close-knit environment. News of violence may have spread quickly, shaping early testimony before formal examination. | |
435 | Coales had been in the s[ai]d Smiths house, the s[ai]d Mary the wife of John Smith being Jo: Stevens being Examined saith yt | Further evidence was heard in the case brought by John Smith against Isaac Leach. Bridgett Coales stated that after the assault, Smith came into his house in a very poor condition. The injuries inflicted by Leach were observed. It was said that had Smith not protected his head with his arm, his brains would have been dashed out. Mary Smith was then sworn. She stated that she had heard Leach passing by their house, swearing loudly. She remained inside until he had gone beyond their gate. She then went out and heard her husband and Leach arguing. She saw Leach strike her husband five times on the head with his crutch. She also saw their slave run toward the house of Henry Coales, and observed Bridgett Coales coming toward her. Leach was seen standing near Smith until he noticed Bridgett approaching, at which point he left quickly and went toward the side of a nearby hill. John Stevens was examined. He stated that on the day after the injury he had been sent for by Smith. Upon attending, he found Smith’s head in a very bad condition and one of his arms severely crushed. Smith then told him that these injuries had been caused by Leach. Interpretations The accumulation of multiple witnesses shows evidentiary layering. Testimony from different perspectives strengthened the case. The description of injuries reflects assessment of bodily harm. Physical condition was central to establishing severity of the offence. The inclusion of Mary Smith’s direct observation provides eyewitness evidence. Visual confirmation of the blows carried strong weight. The account from John Stevens introduces corroboration after the event. Statements made by the injured party shortly after the assault reinforced attribution. The observation of Leach departing when seen suggests awareness of wrongdoing. Conduct after the act formed part of the evidentiary picture. Speculations The consistency between witnesses suggests alignment of accounts. The court perhaps viewed this as reinforcing credibility against Leach’s denial. The detailed attention to the number and force of blows indicates concern over intent. Repeated strikes may have been interpreted as evidence of deliberate harm rather than a brief altercation. The involvement of neighbours so quickly after the event suggests a closely connected community. Immediate reporting and response may have influenced how the case developed. | |
436 | But the s[ai]d Leach would acknowledge The s[ai]d Smith acknowledgeth that some Mary the wife of [...] Harper Jno Kelinge saith also that he | Isaac Leach continued to deny the accusation brought by John Smith and rejected all sworn evidence. It was asserted by Leach that Smith had previously suffered a head injury, and that his present condition might arise from that earlier harm rather than from any assault. John Smith acknowledged that some time before, while gathering stones on the side of a hill, a stone had fallen upon his head. He stated that this injury had never prevented him from carrying out his work or from performing his duty on guard. Mary Harper was examined on behalf of Leach. She stated that on a previous occasion Smith had come to her house and asked whether she knew of any remedy for a swelling on his head. She had felt the swelling and found it slight, and had told him that she knew of no cure. John Kelinge also gave evidence. He stated that he had once been at the house of Henry Coales in the country, where he heard Coales say that Smith had a swelling on his head which had been caused by a stone. Interpretations The defence advanced by Leach shows use of alternative causation. Responsibility was challenged by attributing injury to an earlier event rather than the alleged assault. The acknowledgement by Smith of a prior injury illustrates how testimony could be balanced. Admission of earlier harm did not negate the claim but required comparison of effects. The examination of Mary Harper demonstrates the role of supporting witnesses. Evidence was introduced to establish pre-existing condition. The statement by John Kelinge reflects use of reported speech. Indirect accounts could be admitted to reinforce claims about prior circumstances. The reference to Smith’s continued service on guard highlights functional capacity. Ability to perform duty was used to assess the seriousness of earlier injury. Speculations The emphasis on a previous head injury suggests a deliberate strategy. The defence perhaps aimed to weaken the causal link between the alleged assault and Smith’s condition. The reliance on minor swelling described by Mary Harper may indicate limited supporting evidence. The defence may have sought to build a case from small details rather than direct contradiction. The inclusion of statements attributed to Henry Coales suggests that reputation and prior knowledge shaped proceedings. Informal remarks may have been drawn into formal evidence to support argument. | |
437 | Rich[ar]d Farrun, planter being John Midges being likewise exami- Anne Coale wife being also examined Anne the wife of John Midges | Further witnesses were examined in the case between John Smith and Isaac Leach. Richard Farrun stated that he had seen Smith some time earlier at the house of Mrs Harper. He heard someone remark that Smith did not look well. Smith replied that he suffered from a pain in his head that troubled him greatly. John Midges was also examined. He stated that he had been at the house of Henry Coales, who was father in law to Smith. There he heard Bridgett Coales ask Smith’s wife why she did not attend to her husband’s head. Smith’s wife replied that the condition had lasted so long that she believed it had become incurable, and that she did not know what to do, suggesting that he should consult a doctor. Anne Coale was examined. She stated that she and Mr Midges had been near Smith’s house and entered to request payment of money owed to her by Smith. This occurred on the same day that Leach had struck him. When she asked for Smith, his wife replied that Leach had almost killed him. Anne Coale then went in and saw Smith sitting on the bedside. Shortly afterwards she left, and Smith followed her outside to offer payment in fowls. She stated that she saw no wound on him. Anne Midges was also examined and confirmed the same account given by Anne Coale. Interpretations The defence continued to build a case of prior illness. Multiple witnesses described longstanding pain in Smith’s head to weaken the claim of recent injury. The use of household testimony shows reliance on informal observation. Statements from domestic settings were admitted as evidence. The reference to Henry Coales as father in law establishes family ties. Kinship connections shaped how information circulated and was reported. The observation that no visible wound was seen introduces ambiguity. Absence of external injury did not negate harm but complicated assessment. The mention of payment in fowls indicates everyday economic exchange. Debt settlement could occur through goods rather than coin. Speculations The repeated emphasis on earlier head trouble suggests a coordinated defence. Several witnesses may have been called to reinforce a single line of argument. The statement that Smith was able to rise and offer payment soon after the incident may have been intended to question severity. This detail could have been used to counter claims of near fatal injury. The reliance on neighbours and relatives implies a tightly connected community. Testimony may have been shaped by proximity and familiarity rather than detached observation. | |
438 | Ed Stevens who looks after Upon the whole That in consideration, that it is very The s[ai]d Smith complains of Anne Coale | Edward Stevens, who attended to John Smith, stated that Smith’s head was in a very bad condition. He believed that there had been some earlier disorder, but added that the former injury could not have caused the present severity. After full consideration, a decision was made. It was judged that Smith had probably received serious harm from Isaac Leach. The trial was therefore postponed until 1 October 1692, following 29 August 1692, provided Smith should live until that time. The case was to be heard by a jury. Leach was required to provide sureties for his appearance at that hearing, or at any other time when called before the governor and council. He was also required to enter into a recognisance of £50 0s 0d and to remain of good behaviour until the appointed time. A further complaint was then brought by John Smith against Anne Coale in an action of defamation. It was alleged that she had spoken words asserting that Smith’s wife had behaved in a degrading and scandalous manner toward her daughter, who was the wife of Isaac Leach, and that cattle had been given in connection with that accusation. Interpretations The postponement of trial shows procedural caution. Judgment was delayed until the injured party’s condition could be more fully assessed. The requirement for recognisance demonstrates financial enforcement. A substantial bond ensured Leach’s appearance and compliance. The condition of good behaviour imposed interim control. Conduct was regulated even before final judgement. The planned use of a jury reflects participatory adjudication. Community members were to determine the outcome based on evidence. The defamation claim shows protection of reputation. Verbal accusations affecting honour and sexual conduct were treated as actionable offences. Speculations The delay in proceedings suggests uncertainty over Smith’s survival. The court perhaps sought to determine whether the case might escalate in severity depending on the outcome of his injuries. The imposition of a £50 0s 0d recognisance indicates concern over Leach’s conduct. The authorities may have considered him a risk if left unrestricted. The emergence of a defamation case alongside the assault suggests widening conflict. Personal disputes may have spread beyond physical violence into reputation and family honour. | |
439 | The s[ai]d Anne Coale denies the accompt Anne the wife of John Mudge Bridgett the wife of Hen: Coale To being apparent by the s[ai]d Evidence It is ordered That the s[ai]d widd: Coale be set in the stocks & Grace Couleson widd: complains The s[ai]d Barrum denies the | Proceedings continued in the defamation case brought by John Smith against Anne Coale. She denied the accusation. Anne Mudge was sworn. She stated that she heard Anne Coale say that Smith’s wife had received cattle from Isaac Leach in exchange for her maidenhead. Bridgett Coales was also sworn. She confirmed that she had heard Anne Coale make the same statement. On the basis of this evidence, it was determined that Anne Coale had defamed Smith’s wife. A sentence was imposed. She was placed in the stocks and fined £0 0s 0d 1 dollar to the East India Company. She was also required to pay £0 0s 0d 2 dollars to John Smith for court charges. A further case was then brought by Grace Coulson against Richard Barrum in an action of trespass. It was alleged that Barrum had cut and carried away a quantity of wood from land belonging to Coulson. Barrum denied the accusation. Interpretations The use of sworn testimony from multiple witnesses demonstrates corroboration. Repeated statements strengthened the finding of defamation. The punishment of stocks combined physical exposure with public shame. It functioned as both penalty and deterrent. The fine payable to the Company shows institutional benefit from judicial action. Offences generated revenue alongside punishment. The award of costs to Smith reflects compensation for legal process. Financial recovery extended beyond the offence itself. The trespass claim concerning wood indicates regulation of natural resources. Timber remained a contested and protected asset. Speculations The severity of punishment for defamation suggests strong concern for reputation. Allegations touching on sexual conduct may have been treated as particularly damaging. The combination of public punishment and financial penalty indicates layered enforcement. The authorities perhaps sought both to deter speech and to reinforce authority through visible sanction. The emergence of another property dispute immediately after suggests a crowded docket. The court may have been addressing multiple conflicts arising from land and resource use within a small community. | |
440 | William Cyson being sworne Wm Buxton planter being sworne It is ordered That the s[ai]d Barrum be cast in Suite, & Michael Morris planter The s[ai]d Fensdale confesseth yt he | John Smith continued his action of assault against Isaac Leach, who denied all accusations and rejected the sworn evidence. A defence was advanced that Smith’s condition arose from an earlier head injury rather than any recent violence. Smith admitted that some time before, while gathering stones on a hillside, one had fallen on his head. He stated that this had never hindered his work or his duty on guard. Mary Harper testified that Smith had previously shown her a swelling on his head and asked for a remedy. She found it slight and could offer no help. John Kelinge added that he had heard Henry Coales say that Smith’s head trouble had been caused by a stone. Richard Farrun stated that he had seen Smith at Mrs Harper’s house and heard him complain of persistent head pain. John Midges reported hearing Bridgett Coales urge Smith’s wife to tend his head, while she replied that the condition had lasted so long it seemed incurable and that he should see a doctor. Anne Coale and Anne Midges stated that on the day of the assault they entered Smith’s house to request payment of a debt. Smith’s wife declared that Leach had almost killed him. Smith was seen sitting on the bedside and later came outside offering payment in fowls. No visible wound was observed. Edward Stevens, who attended Smith’s injuries, stated that the head was in a very bad condition. He believed there had been an earlier disorder, but that it could not account for the present severity. On this evidence, it was judged that Smith had probably received significant injury from Leach. Further trial was postponed until 1 October 1692, provided Smith survived. The matter was to be heard by a jury. Leach was required to provide sureties and to enter into a recognisance of £50 0s 0d, and to remain of good behaviour in the meantime. Smith also brought an action of defamation against Anne Coale. It was alleged that she had claimed that Smith’s wife had received cattle from Leach in exchange for her maidenhead. Anne Coale denied the accusation. Anne Mudge and Bridgett Coales both testified that they had heard Anne Coale make that statement. Defamation was established. Anne Coale was sentenced to the stocks and fined £0 0s 0d 1 dollar payable to the East India Company. She was also required to pay £0 0s 0d 2 dollars to Smith for court costs. Grace Coulson brought an action of trespass against Richard Barrum for cutting and carrying away wood from her land. Barrum denied the claim. William Cyson testified that he saw Barrum’s slave carrying wood from Coulson’s land and another slave cutting wood there. William Buxton stated that he saw a white servant and two slaves of Barrum cutting wood on the same land. Barrum was found liable, ordered to pay costs, and forbidden from further taking wood. As the damage was small, no fine was imposed. Michael Morris then complained against Thomas Fensdale that his dog had killed one sow and spoiled another. Fensdale admitted the loss of one sow and offered to replace it with another of equal value, but denied knowledge of the second and requested proof. Interpretations The use of recognisance for £50 0s 0d shows how financial bonds enforced compliance. Appearance and conduct were secured through substantial monetary obligation. The postponement of trial until the injured party’s condition was known reflects procedural caution. Severity of outcome could affect both charge and judgement. The punishment of defamation through stocks and fines demonstrates protection of reputation. Public humiliation and financial penalty combined to enforce social order. The attribution of liability to Barrum for acts committed by his servants and slaves shows legal responsibility extending through household hierarchy. Control over dependants carried accountability. The absence of a fine in the trespass case despite proven wrongdoing indicates proportional judgement. Courts balanced enforcement with assessment of actual damage. The offer to replace livestock shows restitution in kind. Compensation did not depend solely on money but could be satisfied through equivalent goods. Speculations The defence built around a prior injury suggests an attempt to shift causation. Emphasis on earlier illness may have been intended to reduce culpability for recent violence. The combination of defamation and assault cases involving the same individuals indicates widening conflict. Personal disputes perhaps extended across physical harm and reputation. The reliance on servants and slaves as witnesses suggests a practical evidentiary environment. Their testimony may have been essential where few other observers were present. The court’s measured response in the trespass case implies a desire to maintain order without escalating minor disputes. Limited penalties perhaps aimed to prevent further conflict within a small community. | |
441 | John Gates s[enio]r being sworne saith It is ordered That in regard the s[ai]d Fensdales Dogg Robert Exeter having formerly 10 Acres | John Gates was sworn in the case between Michael Morris and Thomas Fensdale. He stated that he saw Fensdale’s dog seize another of Morris’s sows by the ear. He further stated that a young dog belonging to Sergeant Jackson also took hold of the same sow. A decision was made. As Fensdale’s dog was known to be unruly and prone to attack cattle, though not deliberately set upon them, he was required to pay two thirds of the value of the sow that had been killed. The animal was valued at £3 10s 0d. Sergeant Jackson was ordered to pay the remaining one third. A separate matter was then addressed concerning Robert Exeter. He had previously been granted ten acres of land upon becoming free, in accordance with earlier instructions of the East India Company. He had chosen a location with a fresh brook, lying between land formerly belonging to Captain Anthony Beale to the south and land of Benjamin Miller, then held by John Dufline and now in the possession of Mr Doveston. It also bordered land formerly belonging to Henry Coales, now in the possession of Richard Barrum and Grace Coulson, with the main ridge forming the opposite boundary. When this parcel of common land was measured, it was found to fall short of the full ten acres granted […] Interpretations The division of liability between Fensdale and Sergeant Jackson shows proportional responsibility. Damage was apportioned according to contribution rather than imposed on a single party. The valuation of the sow at £3 10s 0d reflects formal assessment of loss. Monetary worth was assigned to livestock to determine compensation. The note that Fensdale’s dog was not deliberately set on cattle distinguishes intent from consequence. Liability arose from negligence rather than deliberate action. The grant of land to Robert Exeter upon becoming free illustrates structured settlement policy. Allocation of land formed part of transition into independent status. The detailed description of boundaries shows reliance on neighbouring holdings to define property. Land was identified through relational geography rather than abstract measurement alone. Speculations The shared payment for the sow suggests practical conflict resolution. The court perhaps aimed to balance fairness with maintaining relations between neighbours. The shortfall in Exeter’s land indicates possible issues in surveying accuracy. Measurement discrepancies may have created recurring disputes over entitlement. The reference to successive possession of adjacent lands implies fluid ownership. Transfers of land perhaps complicated boundary clarity and contributed to later conflicts. | |
442 | [...] proportion that was his due, whereupon the said Upon which his Request being adjudged It is ordered That the said Exeter have Ten Acres of land Tho: Goodwin jun[r] makes Petition | Robert Exeter requested that his original allotment of land be changed. The ground first assigned to him had fallen short of the full ten acres due under the grant made by the East India Company. He therefore asked that it be removed to Longwood Valley, at a place commonly called Longwood. His request was judged reasonable, as he had not received his full proportion. An order was made that he be granted ten acres in Longwood Valley. However, no formal deeds were to be issued until the Company’s decision was known regarding his title and other disputed titles that had previously been sent home by the former governor and council. Thomas Goodwin Jr. then submitted a petition. He stated that he had earlier taken a lease from the Company for ten acres of land for a term of seven years. This land had formerly been in the possession of Thomas Bolton. Four years of the lease had already expired. He requested that this lease be declared void and asked instead for a new lease from the Company for other […] Interpretations The reassignment of Exeter’s land shows corrective administration. Shortfall in measured acreage justified relocation rather than adjustment in place. The withholding of deeds demonstrates centralised authority. Final confirmation of land title remained subject to approval by the Company overseas. The reference to disputed titles indicates ongoing uncertainty in land tenure. Earlier allocations may not have been fully regularised. The petition by Thomas Goodwin Jr. reflects flexibility in leasing arrangements. Existing agreements could be altered upon request under certain conditions. The mention of Thomas Bolton as executed for rebellion shows confiscation of property. Land of condemned individuals reverted to Company control for reassignment. Speculations The decision to delay issuing deeds suggests caution in confirming ownership. Authorities perhaps sought to avoid reinforcing uncertain claims before receiving instructions. The relocation to Longwood Valley indicates preference for clearer or more measurable land. The new site may have offered fewer disputes over boundaries. The request by Goodwin Jr. to void his lease implies dissatisfaction with the original grant. Conditions of the land or its history may have made it less desirable. | |
443 | Ten Acres of Land in Sandy Bay (late also It is agreed & ordered That In Regard the Rt Hon[oura]ble Comp[a]ny in Jo[s] S[n]el[l] Fra[nci]s B[ea]r[er] | Thomas Goodwin Jr. petitioned that his existing lease be cancelled and replaced. He requested ten acres of land in Sandy Bay, this being land formerly held as lot land by Thomas Bolton, for a term of twenty one years. The request was granted. Reference was made to the instructions of the East India Company dated 3 August 1687, which had arrived on the ship Loyall Merchant, commanded by John Harding. These instructions required that Company lands be set and let for terms of twenty one years. Richard Kelinge was directed to measure the land, and a lease was to be drawn accordingly. Rent was to commence from the feast of St Michael the Archangel last past. Joseph Snell Interpretations The reliance on Company instructions demonstrates centralised control over land policy. Local authorities acted within a framework set by directives received from overseas. The fixed lease term of twenty one years reflects a standardised tenure system. Occupation was stabilised while ownership remained vested in the Company. The instruction that the Surveyor General measure the land shows procedural administration. Formal surveying ensured boundaries were defined before legal confirmation. The use of a fixed feast day for the commencement of rent indicates structured financial practice. Payments were aligned to recognised calendrical points rather than the date of agreement. The reassignment of land formerly held by Thomas Bolton illustrates confiscation following rebellion. Property reverted to Company control and was redistributed under regulated conditions. Speculations The cancellation of the earlier lease suggests dissatisfaction with the original holding. The transfer to Sandy Bay may indicate that this land offered better conditions or clearer title. The strict adherence to the 1687 instructions points to an effort to impose uniformity. Earlier arrangements may have been inconsistent and required regularisation. The use of a standard rent commencement date may have simplified administration. Coordinated payment cycles would have eased collection and accounting across multiple tenants. | |
444 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on P[re]s[en]t Whereas an Information had been Which saucy vile Reproaches of the said | A consultation was held at Fort James on 27 October 1692. Joshua Johnson and Richard Kelinge were present, with Captain Bowrin and council. Information had been given that Daniel Collier reported statements made by Robert Lightfoot. Lightfoot had previously been fined £1 0s 0d for stealing three wild kids belonging to the East India Company, as ordered in a consultation held on 7 October 1692. Collier alleged that Lightfoot said the governor and council would put that fine into their own pockets. He further claimed that Lightfoot believed he would be dismissed from pay, but declared that he did not care and would take a Company post the next day regardless, stating that he had as much authority as they did. It was also reported that Lightfoot described two thirds of the garrison as a parcel of beggarly rogues who did not have a groat to their backs. These statements were judged to be insolent, malicious, and false, both in relation to the governor and to the garrison. A hearing was therefore appointed on this day, which was the general rendezvous of the garrison, to consider Collier’s accusation and to examine further witnesses who had been ordered to attend. | |
445 | Daniell Collier being Sworne Saith, That at the 15 of September last past the said Lightfoot and him being at the house of Sutton Isaac Planter they was discoursing together ab[t] the two fore mentioned three Kidds, & then y[e] s[d] Lightfoot told him y[t] y[e] s[d] Collier, that the Gov[er]n[o]r and Councill had sold him the said Kidds for 20 s but the Comp[a]ny would be never y[e] better for it, for that they would put the said 20 s into their owne pockets, and that if the Gov[er]n[o]r & Councill did turne him out of pay (which he thought they would) he did not matter it, & he would kill another of the said Comp[a]ny Goats the next day for that he y[e] s[d] Lightfoot had as much to do with the said goats as they Matthew Mile Sould[ie]r being Examined saith That some time since he was with the said Lightfoot at y[e] house of Tho: Strawlow Planter, and there heard him y[e] s[d] Lightfoot in a Degrading manner say that all the souldiers was a p[ar]cell of Beggerly Rogues, for they had not a shirt to put to their Backs Sam: Maxwell Sould[ie]r being likewise Examined saith that the said Maxwells wife told him y[t] she heard the said Lightfoot then say, that y[e] souldiers was a p[ar]cell of Beggerly Rogues, she y[e] s[d] Maxwells wife being also present at the same time (at y[e] s[d] Strawlows house) But the said Lightfoot denyed all y[t] he was charged with by the forementioned p[er]sons, having confidence enough for that & much more. | Daniel Collier was sworn and stated that on 15 September 1692 he had been at the house of Sutton Isaac with Robert Lightfoot. While discussing the three kids previously mentioned, Lightfoot told him that the governor and council had sold him those animals for £1 0s 0d, but that the East India Company would receive no benefit, as the money would be put into their own pockets. He further stated that if he were dismissed from pay, which he expected, he did not care, and would kill another of the Company’s goats the next day, claiming that he had as much right to them as the authorities. Matthew Mile was examined and stated that he had been with Lightfoot at the house of Thomas Strawlow. There he heard Lightfoot speak in a degrading manner, saying that all the soldiers were a parcel of beggarly rogues who did not have a shirt to their backs. Samuel Maxwell was also examined and stated that his wife told him she had heard Lightfoot make the same remark about the soldiers at Strawlow’s house. Maxwell’s wife had been present at that time. Lightfoot denied all the accusations made by these witnesses and maintained his position despite the evidence given against him. Interpretations The sworn testimony of multiple witnesses demonstrates reliance on corroboration. Statements from different individuals, including indirect reporting through Maxwell’s wife, were used to strengthen the case. The allegation that fines were diverted into private pockets directly challenged administrative integrity. Such claims struck at the legitimacy of authority and were treated as serious offences. The insults directed at the garrison show concern for collective discipline. Public disparagement of soldiers was regarded as a threat to order within the military structure. The denial by Lightfoot despite consistent testimony reflects the limits of evidentiary proof. Conflicting statements required formal adjudication rather than immediate conviction. Speculations The repetition of similar accusations by different witnesses suggests that the remarks were widely heard or discussed. This may indicate that the statements had circulated beyond a single private conversation. The emphasis on insults to both authority and the garrison suggests that the case was treated as more than a personal dispute. The authorities perhaps viewed it as a challenge to both governance and military cohesion. | |
446 | It is Therefore ordered That seeing the said Collier has sworne That he the said Lightfoot be dismiss[e]d the Rt Simon Whalley Desire It is ordered That the said Simon Whalley Desire Oneside | A decision was reached in the case against Robert Lightfoot. As Daniel Collier had sworn to his accusation, having first been seriously cautioned by the governor to speak neither more nor less than the truth, the charge was accepted. Lightfoot’s conduct was also judged in light of his neglect of duty and his disposition, which was compared to that of his brother who had been sent off in irons more than thirteen years earlier for mutiny with two others. Lightfoot was therefore dismissed from the service and pay of the East India Company. He was to remain in prison until he found sufficient surety for his good behaviour until the first Monday in October 1692, which was to be the quarter sessions. Simon Whalley then requested to become a tenant of the Company for ten acres of land at the head of Springs Valley for a term of twenty one years. The request was granted. Rent was to begin from the next feast of the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Interpretations The acceptance of a single sworn statement after formal caution shows the weight given to oath. Judicial process relied heavily on sworn testimony as decisive evidence. The dismissal from Company service demonstrates administrative discipline. Employment and military role could be withdrawn as punishment for misconduct. The requirement to provide surety reflects preventive control. Future behaviour was secured through financial or personal guarantee. The reference to Lightfoot’s brother indicates consideration of character and family history. Past associations were used to assess present reliability. The leasing of land to Simon Whalley illustrates structured tenancy. Access to land was granted under fixed terms aligned with Company policy. The use of a religious feast day for rent commencement shows integration of ecclesiastical calendar into administrative practice. Speculations The emphasis on Collier’s sworn statement suggests limited available evidence. The authorities perhaps relied on oath as the strongest available form of proof. The reference to Lightfoot’s brother may indicate concern over patterns of behaviour. Family reputation could have influenced the severity of the decision. The grant to Whalley suggests continued expansion of tenancy. The Company perhaps aimed to ensure land was occupied and productive under regulated leases. | |
447 | Onephe[...]s Henrard To[?] It is ordered That the said Henrards Desire be granted him Jo[...] [...] Fra[...] B[...] | O[…] Henrard petitioned the governor and council, stating that he wished to become a tenant of the East India Company. He requested to hire ten acres of the Company’s waste land in Sandy Valley, at a place commonly called the Black Place, for a term of twenty one years. The request was granted. He was to pay rent at the rate of £0 4s 0d per acre to the Company on the island for the time being. Rent was to commence from the feast of St Michael the Archangel last past. Jo[…] […] Interpretations The fixed rent of £0 4s 0d per acre shows a standardised pricing structure. Land was valued uniformly, allowing predictable revenue from leases. The leasing of waste land reflects active land development. Unused ground was brought into productive use through tenancy. The term of twenty one years aligns with established Company policy. Long leases encouraged settlement while preserving ultimate ownership. The commencement of rent from a past feast day indicates retrospective accounting. Financial obligations could be backdated to fit administrative cycles. Speculations The repeated granting of ten-acre leases suggests a structured settlement pattern. The authorities perhaps aimed to distribute land in consistent units to manage population and production. The location known as the Black Place may indicate prior use or association. Its allocation suggests that such areas were incorporated into formal tenancy despite earlier informal or unclear status. | |
448 | Island of S.t Helena At a Consultation Held on At Fort S.t James Jos[hua] Johnson Gov[er] Andr[ew] Willson planter Complains The said Garsty doth not deny but Who In order said prayed That John | A consultation was held at Fort James on 11 September 1692. Joshua Johnson, Richard Kelinge, and Captain Dorrie were present with the council. Andrew Willson brought a complaint against Thomas Garsty, stating that he had suffered significant damage because Garsty’s swine had entered his plantation. Willson asserted that his fence was lawful. Garsty did not deny that his hogs had entered the plantation, but argued that Willson’s fence was not lawful according to established rules and orders made by the governor and council for determining sufficient fencing. He therefore required proof of the fence’s validity. Willson requested that John Everts be examined. Everts testified that Willson’s fence did not meet the required standard and was defective under the established rules. Interpretations The requirement to prove a “lawful fence” shows a formal regulatory standard. Liability for damage depended on compliance with prescribed construction rules. The admission by Garsty that his animals entered the land did not establish fault on its own. Responsibility hinged on whether the boundary met legal requirements. The reliance on prior orders of the governor and council reflects codified local regulation. Agricultural disputes were governed by established administrative rules rather than ad hoc judgement. The use of a neighbour as a witness shows practical enforcement. Local knowledge was used to assess compliance with fencing standards. Speculations The dispute suggests recurring problems with livestock trespass. Formal fencing rules were perhaps necessary to manage frequent conflicts between neighbours. The challenge to the fence’s legality may have been a common defence. Responsibility for damage could shift depending on whether boundaries met official standards. | |
448 | The said Willson makes further Complaint The said Garsty replys that his fence Mathias Marston being produced And moreover the said Willsons Neighbour The said | Andrew Willson brought a further complaint against Thomas Garsty. He stated that Garsty did not maintain a lawful fence, and that Willson’s cattle entered Garsty’s plantation and were then driven out with dogs. He claimed that this rough treatment caused significant harm to his cattle. Garsty replied that his fence was lawful. He stated that an unruly beast belonging to Willson had leapt over into his plantation. Notice had been sent to Willson, asking him to remove the animal, but this was refused. Garsty then removed the animal himself, but denied that any damage had been caused. Mathias Marston was sworn and stated that one of Willson’s beasts had indeed jumped into Garsty’s plantation. He confirmed that Garsty sent word by one of his children asking Willson to remove it. Willson refused, and Garsty then sent his slave with a small dog to drive the animal out. This was done without causing any harm. John Evertee, a neighbour of Willson, was examined and stated that Garsty’s fences were fully lawful. Interpretations The dispute shows reciprocal liability. Each party attempted to shift responsibility by challenging the legality of the other’s fence. The requirement to notify the owner before removing livestock reflects procedural fairness. Opportunity was to be given for voluntary recovery before action was taken. The use of a slave and a dog to remove the animal shows accepted practice. Controlled force was permitted if done without causing injury. The testimony that no damage was done limits grounds for compensation. Harm had to be demonstrated, not merely alleged. The confirmation that Garsty’s fence was lawful resolves the key legal question. Compliance with fencing rules determined responsibility. Speculations The refusal by Willson to retrieve his animal suggests a tactical decision. He may have intended to force liability onto Garsty by inaction. The careful emphasis that no damage was done indicates awareness of legal thresholds. Witnesses may have focused on this point to prevent compensation claims. The conflicting claims about fence legality suggest ongoing tension. Boundary standards perhaps formed a frequent source of dispute among neighbouring planters. | |
449 | The said Willson yet again further The said Garsty Denys also this Complaint, Mathias Marston being Sworne saith The said Garsty saith that both his Children Upon the whole it is apparent yt It is Therefore Ordered Whereas a Dwelling house on the | Andrew Willson brought a further complaint against Thomas Garsty, alleging that Garsty’s children and slave had taken about twenty eight rails from his wooden fence. Garsty denied the accusation and required proof. Mathias Marston was sworn and stated that he had been at Willson’s house when Willson called him outside, claiming that Garsty’s children and slave were carrying away his fence. Marston saw the children carrying wood, but at a distance of about forty yards from the fence in question. Garsty responded that his children and slave had collected or purchased wood at various times for his wife, from vines or woodland areas near Willson’s plantation, where vines had recently been worked. On consideration of the evidence, it was found that Willson had not proved his claim. He was therefore judged to have no cause of action and was ordered to pay the costs of the suit. A further matter was then introduced concerning a dwelling house on the high place, which had formerly belonged to Thomas Smout and had for some years been in the possession […] Interpretations The requirement for proof shows strict evidentiary standards. Allegation alone was insufficient without clear demonstration. The distance observed by the witness weakened the claim. Physical separation between the wood and the fence undermined identification of its source. The explanation that wood was gathered or bought reflects informal resource use. Timber could be obtained through multiple channels, complicating claims of theft. The decision to cast Willson in the suit shows enforcement against false or unproven claims. Litigants bore financial risk if unable to substantiate accusations. The mention of vine work indicates organised agricultural activity. Labour, including that of slaves, was directed to maintaining productive land. Speculations The repeated complaints by Willson suggest persistent conflict with Garsty. The dispute may have extended beyond single incidents into ongoing tension. The inability to prove removal of fence rails may indicate reliance on assumption rather than direct observation. This suggests limits in surveillance over property. The court’s decision to impose costs on Willson may have been intended to discourage repeated or weak claims. Financial consequence could reduce unnecessary litigation. | |
450 | of the R[igh]t Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]y ever since It is Ordered And whereas the said R[igh]t Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]y hath It is Therefore ordered Rich[ar]d | A dwelling house on the high place, formerly belonging to Thomas Smout, had for some years been in the possession of the East India Company. This followed an earlier order by which the house had been taken in satisfaction of debts contracted by Smout through the receipt of various small and uncertain goods from the Company’s stores on the island. Over time, the building had fallen into serious decay. It stood on damp ground and had sunk, despite the expense of frequent repairs undertaken by the Company to keep it standing. A decision was made to prevent loss. All materials from the house that were worth removing were to be taken to the Company’s garden and secured for Company use. This work was to be overseen by Captain Dorrie, who was to determine how the materials should be reused. Attention then turned to another house held by the Company. This building, formerly used for servants and once belonging to one of those executed for rebellion on the island, stood near the Company’s plantation. It had also fallen into decay and required continual expense to maintain. No benefit was derived from it. Instead, it served as a shelter for runaway slaves at night, and boards from it had been stolen. Further loss was expected if no action was taken. A decision was made to demolish this second house. Usable materials were to be removed and taken to the Company’s plantation, where they would be put to use as directed by Captain Dorrie. Rich[ar]d Interpretations The seizure of Smout’s house in satisfaction of debt shows enforcement through property forfeiture. Goods taken on credit from Company stores could be recovered through land and buildings. The repeated repair of a failing structure reflects sunk cost in maintenance. Continued expenditure without return prompted eventual liquidation of the asset. The removal and storage of building materials demonstrates resource conservation. Timber and fittings were treated as recoverable assets rather than discarded. The identification of the second house as a refuge for runaway slaves shows concern for social control. Abandoned structures were seen as risks to order and discipline. The decision to demolish rather than maintain indicates cost management. Unproductive assets were eliminated to reduce ongoing expense. Speculations The transfer of materials to the Company garden suggests centralisation of resources. Useful components were perhaps stockpiled for future construction or repair. The demolition of the servants’ house may have been driven as much by security concerns as by cost. Its use by runaways indicates that physical space could undermine authority. The reference to stolen boards suggests ongoing petty theft. Deteriorating structures perhaps invited gradual removal of materials by inhabitants. | |
451 | Island S.t Helena At a Consultation Held on At Fort James Jos[hua] Johnson Gov[er] Whereas John Smith who in the Now for satisfaction of all people It is ordered | A consultation was held at Fort James on 1 October 1692. Joshua Johnson, Richard Kelinge, and Captain Dorrie were present with the council. John Smith, who had brought an action of assault and battery against Isaac Leach in the court of justice held on 3 October 1692, had complained that he received severe blows from Leach and did not know how he might recover. He had also declared that if he died from those injuries, responsibility should be placed upon Leach. Smith died on 9 October 1692. In order to satisfy the inhabitants of the island and to conform with the laws of England, and as there was strong suspicion that the injuries inflicted by Leach may have caused his death, a further step was required. A jury of inquest was ordered to be impanelled to view Smith’s body and to determine […] | |
452 | and understand what might be the Cause of the said And accordingly they were Impanelled & Orland Baggsley planter Coroner John Colgrave foreman - 1 Lev: Feild - 8 But forasmuch as there might be great It was therefore Judged very necessary that there should | A jury of inquest was assembled to examine the death of John Smith and to determine whether it arose from natural causes or otherwise. The jury was sworn, with Orlando Baggsley acting as coroner. The members were John Colgrave, Robert Emmings, John Cannady, John Long, John Rich, Samuel Taylor, Elipin Wills, Levi Feild, Seth Haselbury, Thomas Goodwin Jr., Thomas Naime Smalls, and Captain Porting. Difficulty was anticipated in determining the cause of death. Smith had previously complained of pain in his head before receiving any blows from Isaac Leach. He had earlier explained that this condition arose when a rock fell on his head while he was stooping on a hillside gathering stones, a fact that had been attested in the earlier court proceedings. To assist the inquiry, it was considered necessary to add medical examination. John Stevens and Hugh Manning were appointed, although they were described as only modestly qualified, being the best available on the island. They were sworn to assist the coroner and jury and were authorised to open the head or any other part of Smith’s body if required for fuller examination. Interpretations The impanelling of a jury of inquest reflects adherence to English legal procedure. Determination of cause of death required formal communal judgement rather than unilateral decision. The role of the coroner shows structured legal oversight. Responsibility for investigating suspicious death was formally assigned. The inclusion of surgeons indicates early forensic practice. Physical examination of the body was recognised as necessary where cause of death was uncertain. The acknowledgement of limited medical expertise highlights practical constraints. Judicial process adapted to local conditions while maintaining procedural form. The reference to prior injury introduces competing causation. Legal determination required weighing earlier condition against alleged assault. Speculations The addition of surgeons suggests concern over ambiguity in evidence. The authorities may have sought stronger grounds before attributing liability for death. The explicit note of prior injury indicates anticipation of dispute. This detail may have been central to deciding whether Leach’s actions caused the death. The formal structure of the inquest implies the seriousness of the case. A death following alleged assault perhaps required visible and thorough procedure to maintain public confidence. | |
453 | And after the said Jury had been out for We the Coroner and Jury of Inquest John Colgrave foreman Fra[nci]s Puling John Midg[e], and John Hemens who It is ordered | The jury returned after some time and delivered a written verdict, signed by their own hands. They stated that, having viewed the body of John Smith, they found his skull fractured in four separate places. One fracture was described as being as broad as the palm of an ordinary hand. In their judgement, these wounds were considered the original cause of his death. The verdict was signed by John Colgrave, John Feild, John Flick, Robert Emmings, Samuel Haselbery, John Long, Francis Puling, Thomas Goodwin Jr., Richard Wills, Thomas Naime, John Cannady, Samuel Taylor, John Midges, and John Hemens. After this, John Midges and John Hemens, who had previously entered into bond for the appearance of Isaac Leach, appeared before the governor and council. They requested to be released from their recognisance, stating that as Smith was now dead, they were unwilling to remain bound for Leach any longer. A decision was then prepared […] Interpretations The inquest verdict establishes causation through physical evidence. Fracture of the skull was formally identified as the cause of death, linking injury to outcome. The detailed description of wounds shows reliance on direct observation. Physical inspection formed the basis of legal judgement in cases of suspected homicide. The written and signed verdict reflects formal procedure. Collective responsibility of the jury was recorded through individual subscription. The attempt by sureties to withdraw from recognisance shows the burden of legal obligation. Financial and personal guarantees carried risk that increased once the case escalated. The continuation of proceedings after death indicates transition from assault to a more serious offence. Death altered the legal framework under which the accused would be judged. Speculations The emphasis on the size and number of fractures suggests an effort to remove doubt. The jury may have aimed to provide clear justification for attributing death to violence. The request by Midges and Hemens to be released from bond indicates concern over potential consequences. The escalation of the case may have increased their perceived liability. The formal and detailed verdict implies awareness of scrutiny. The authorities perhaps sought to ensure that the finding would stand against challenge or appeal. | |
454 | That the P. Leach be Recd into the Custody of a R[ic]h[ar]d Keiling | Isaac Leach was committed to the custody of the prison keeper. He was to remain there until the next sessions, where he would face further trial. John Midges and John Hemens were released from their recognisance. A formal warrant was ordered to be drawn, setting out the charge against Leach and directing the prison keeper to receive him into safe custody. He was to remain imprisoned until discharged by due course of law. Richard Kelinge Interpretations The commitment to prison pending sessions shows structured legal process. Serious offences required formal trial at scheduled sittings rather than immediate judgement. The discharge of Midges and Hemens reflects conditional obligation. Their bond ended once the accused was secured in custody under warrant. The issuing of a written warrant demonstrates procedural formality. Authority was exercised through documented instruction to the prison keeper. The phrase “due course of law” indicates adherence to established legal framework. Detention and release were governed by recognised judicial procedure rather than discretionary action. Speculations The transfer of Leach into formal custody suggests escalation of the case following the inquest verdict. The authorities perhaps moved quickly to secure him once death was attributed to his actions. The release of the sureties may indicate shifting responsibility. Once the case moved toward trial, direct custody replaced reliance on personal bonds. | |
455 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Pres.t Joshua Johnson Gov.r Whereas there hath no ships arrived It is Therefore | A consultation was held at Fort James on 29 October 1692. Joshua Johnson, Richard Keiling, and Captain Poirier were present with the council. No ships had arrived since the ship Rempstone, commanded by Thomas Rempstone. The goods previously requested from that vessel, though granted on the account of the East India Company, had proved insufficient to meet the island’s needs. A continued shortage was reported. The soldiers were described as lacking clothing of all kinds. The ship Deane, commanded by Thomas Nunn, was then lying in the road, but after engaging in private trade did not possess enough goods to relieve the island’s urgent shortages. Frequent and serious complaints were made by inhabitants concerning the lack of clothing for themselves and their children, especially among married soldiers. They were dependent on the Company’s stores for supplies, which were taken on account of their pay or salary, and had no other means to provide for themselves. A decision was then made […] Interpretations The reliance on visiting ships shows dependence on external supply. The island lacked sufficient local production to meet basic needs. The use of Company credit for goods reflects a controlled economic system. Soldiers obtained necessities through deductions from pay rather than open market exchange. The mention of private trade indicates parallel commercial activity. Ship captains engaged in independent transactions alongside Company business. The repeated complaints highlight administrative pressure. Shortages translated directly into unrest among the population. The distinction between married soldiers and others shows social impact. Family responsibility intensified the effect of scarcity. Speculations The failure of successive ships to supply adequate goods suggests logistical difficulty. Irregular arrivals perhaps created cycles of shortage and complaint. The limitation of goods on the Deane after private trade implies competing priorities. Commercial opportunity may have reduced availability for official needs. The dependence on Company stores may have constrained autonomy. Inhabitants perhaps had little flexibility to respond to shortages outside the official system. | |
456 | [...] Comand of ship Diar[e] That Cap.t Tho: Nunn be desired and Intreated It is also Ordered & Agreed That a Rec[e] be Given to the sd Cap.t Nunn But still we find our selves under | Captain Thomas Nunn of the ship Deane was requested and urged to leave some bales of coarse or ordinary cloth on the account of the East India Company, so that those in need on the island might be supplied. After much persuasion, and despite concern about breaching his charter party and risking the Company’s displeasure, he agreed. He provided three bales of brown bayes, expressing hope that this would not be held against him given the urgency of the island’s need. A receipt was ordered to be given to Captain Nunn for these three bales. It was to state that full freight would be allowed for them as if they had been delivered in England. Despite this, a serious shortage of outer clothing remained. Captain Nunn had no suitable stock of stuffs or materials from which garments could be made for the garrison. Many soldiers were described as having no coats, except for worn red coats brought three years earlier on the ship Benjamin, commanded by Leonard Browne. Reference was then made to Captain William Price, who had brought several bales of melins on board the Deane. These goods, though damaged, belonged to the Company and had been preserved through his care and that of two other gentlemen […] Interpretations The negotiation with Captain Nunn shows flexible enforcement of contractual terms. Charter obligations could be relaxed in response to urgent local need. The provision of cloth on Company account reflects centralised supply. Essential goods were distributed through official channels rather than private purchase. The promise of full freight indicates financial compensation. Loss or diversion of cargo was offset through formal accounting. The mention of charter party highlights legal constraints on shipping. Captains operated under binding agreements that limited discretionary trade. The reference to damaged melins shows management of imperfect goods. Even compromised materials were considered valuable in conditions of scarcity. Speculations The hesitation of Captain Nunn suggests tension between contract and necessity. He may have weighed personal risk against pressure from local authorities. The continued shortage after receiving bayes indicates mismatch of supply and need. Coarse cloth may not have met requirements for durable outer garments. The reliance on damaged goods suggests desperation. The island authorities perhaps sought to utilise any available material regardless of condition. | |
457 | Sailed out of the wrack of ship Orange, who And accordingly It is also ordered That the said Cap.t Price &a have R[ic]h[ar]d Keiling | Reference was made to several bales of melins recovered from the wreck of the ship Orange, which had been lost in harbour at the Cape. These goods, though damaged by exposure to salt water, were considered still of some value. On this basis, it was judged reasonable to request that William Price and the other gentlemen concerned with him provide some of these bales for use on the island. They were approached and readily agreed. Two bales of the melins were granted on account of the East India Company for the island’s use. Receipts were ordered to be issued by the governor and council to Captain Price and the other parties for these two bales. Richard Keiling Interpretations The use of goods salvaged from a wreck shows resource recovery. Damaged cargo remained part of the Company’s usable assets. The willingness to accept water-damaged textiles reflects acute scarcity. Utility was judged relative to need rather than condition. The formal issuing of receipts indicates structured accounting. Even emergency transfers were recorded to preserve financial order. The involvement of private individuals in supplying goods shows mixed ownership. Company needs were met through negotiation with those holding cargo. Speculations The decision to use salvaged goods suggests severe shortage. The authorities perhaps accepted lower quality materials to meet immediate needs. The readiness of Captain Price and others to comply may indicate cooperative pressure. Social or administrative expectation may have influenced their decision. The reference to the wreck implies wider supply disruption. Loss of cargo at sea may have contributed to ongoing scarcity on the island. | |
458 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday Pres.t Joshua Johnson Gov.r Whereas Sam: Charlesworth of this | A consultation was held at Fort James on 10 February 1693. Joshua Johnson, Richard Keiling, and Captain Poirier were present with the council. Samuel Charlesworth died on 28 December 1692 without leaving a written will for the disposal of his estate. John Lufkin and Samuel Edmunds informed the governor and council that on 27 December 1692 Charlesworth had declared to them that, if he lived until the next day, he intended to put his affairs in order. He then explained to them fully how he wished his estate to be settled and disposed of, placing particular trust and confidence in them. He died that same night and was therefore unable to complete a written will. Lufkin and Edmunds were advised to set down in writing everything that had been declared to them on that evening. This was done to prevent dispute and to avoid harm or injustice to the surviving orphans. They prepared the document, subscribed it, and delivered it to the governor and council. They then swore before them that it represented the final intentions of Charlesworth and that they knew of no other will. Further action was then taken […] Interpretations The absence of a written will required reconstruction of intent. Oral declarations were formalised through sworn testimony to establish legal authority. The role of Lufkin and Edmunds shows reliance on trusted intermediaries. Personal confidence substituted for formal documentation at the point of death. The instruction to record the declaration in writing reflects procedural adaptation. Informal statements were converted into a legally usable form. The emphasis on preventing harm to orphans highlights protective governance. Estate administration was directed toward safeguarding dependants. The oath before the council demonstrates validation of evidence. Legitimacy depended on sworn affirmation rather than mere assertion. Speculations The urgency to record Charlesworth’s intentions suggests expectation of dispute. Without written authority, competing claims may have been anticipated. The involvement of trusted witnesses indicates pre-existing relationships. Charlesworth perhaps relied on personal networks rather than formal legal preparation. The focus on orphans implies vulnerability within the estate. The authorities may have prioritised stability and protection over strict procedural form. | |
459 | It was ordered That the said Stock and Estate of the said R[ic]h[ar]d Keiling | The estate of Samuel Charlesworth was ordered to be fully appraised and valued. Two impartial and trustworthy persons were to carry out this task. Orlando Bagley and Henry Coales were nominated and appointed for this purpose. They were instructed to proceed with all convenient speed and, once completed, to submit the valuation to the governor and council under oath and signed by their own hands. This was carried out as directed. Richard Keiling Interpretations The appointment of “honest and indifferent” appraisers reflects a requirement for neutrality. Valuation depended on perceived impartiality rather than formal office alone. The sworn submission of the valuation indicates evidentiary weight. The appraisal formed a legal basis for subsequent distribution of the estate. The involvement of local planters shows administrative reliance on community members. Formal authority drew upon recognised individuals rather than specialised officials. The emphasis on speed highlights urgency in estate settlement. Delay could risk dispute, loss, or misappropriation of assets. Speculations The insistence on sworn valuation suggests concern over accuracy and trust. Competing interests may have made precise assessment essential. The choice of Bagley and Coales may reflect their standing within the community. Their reputations perhaps provided assurance of fairness in a sensitive matter. | |
460 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Fryday Pres.t Jos: Johnson Govr Whereas there hath been several After much time spent in Endeavoring to It was ordered | A consultation was held at Fort James on 3 March 1693. Joshua Johnson, Richard Keeling, and Captain Dorrien were present with the council. A dispute had arisen between […] Marsh and Sutton Isaac concerning a pathway across Marsh’s land leading to a plantation rented by Isaac from Marsh. Marsh swore that this route had never been a formal path, but rather a lower way which Isaac had formerly used and now declined. He acknowledged that he had allowed it to serve as a driftway for neighbours’ cattle, but refused to accept it as a common passage, stating that he had suffered damage from Isaac’s livestock passing to and fro. Considerable time was spent attempting to reconcile the parties and restore agreement between them as neighbours, in order to prevent further disputes. A decision was then made […] Interpretations The distinction between a driftway and a common path reflects layered land rights. Limited permission for livestock movement did not create a general right of passage. The reliance on sworn statements shows formal validation of claims. Property disputes required oath to establish usage and entitlement. The emphasis on reconciliation highlights administrative mediation. Authority sought to resolve conflict without escalation where possible. The complaint of damage from livestock indicates practical impact. Rights of way were tied closely to agricultural loss and responsibility. Speculations The refusal to recognise a common path suggests concern over precedent. Granting general access may have reduced control over land use. The prior tolerance of a driftway indicates informal arrangements. These may have hardened into disputes when usage expanded or changed. The effort to secure agreement before ordering a solution suggests preference for voluntary settlement. Imposed decisions may have been avoided where negotiation seemed possible. | |
461 | That some p[er]sons of the neighbourhood Hen: Poales } was pitch and appoin- Isabel the Relict of Edw: Seaford And accordingly Robt Corman late an Rebecka the Relict of Jos: [... ] | Persons of long standing in the neighbourhood were to be appointed to inspect the disputed pathway and to consider the matter of a driftway if required. They were to present their findings in writing to the governor and council for review and confirmation, if judged proper, so that a permanent rule might be established for a lasting right of passage and the maintenance of orderly relations among neighbours. Henry Coales, Orlando Baggeley, and John Colgrave were appointed for this task. Isabel Seaford, widow of Edward Seaford, submitted her husband’s will together with an inventory of his goods and chattels. This inventory had been appraised by Thomas Bogg and John Nicholls, and was presented for probate. Robert Corman swore that the will represented the final testament of Edward Seaford and that no other existed to his knowledge. The inventory prepared by Bogg and Nicholls was then submitted under oath to the governor and council. Rebecca […], widow of Joseph […], then made her application to the governor and council […] Interpretations The appointment of long-standing inhabitants to assess the pathway reflects reliance on customary knowledge. Local memory and experience were used to determine rights of way. The intention to formalise their findings into a standing law shows movement from custom to regulation. Informal practice could be codified into enforceable rule. The submission of a will and inventory demonstrates structured probate process. Estate transfer required both testamentary proof and valuation of assets. The requirement for oath in validating both will and inventory indicates evidentiary formality. Legal recognition depended on sworn confirmation. The role of appraisers in listing goods and chattels shows administrative control over estates. Property was formally recorded to prevent dispute or concealment. Speculations The move to create a permanent rule for passage suggests recurring disputes. Authorities perhaps sought to eliminate ambiguity that had led to repeated conflict. The reliance on established residents implies absence of formal surveying. Customary authority may have substituted for technical measurement. The prompt submission of Seaford’s will and inventory suggests concern for orderly succession. Delay may have risked competing claims or loss of assets. | |
462 | Governr and Council that she might have her thirds It was agreed with the sd (for the prevention of Clamore, as also the good That she have the sum of Fifty pounds out of And it is accordingly ordered That Orlando Bagley & Henry Poales planters who Whereas there hath been an agreement between | Rebecca Charlesworth applied to the governor and council for her third share of the estate of Joseph Charlesworth. This request was refused, as she had previously entered into an agreement with her husband during his lifetime to accept £40 0s 0d in place of any claim to thirds. After extended discussion, an alternative settlement was reached. Rebecca Charlesworth was to receive £50 0s 0d from the personal estate of Joseph Charlesworth. This payment was to stand in full satisfaction of all claims, rights, and demands that she, or any person acting on her behalf, might assert against the estate, whether real or personal, including any claim connected to the orphans. Orlando Bagley and Henry Poales, who had appraised the estate, were ordered to deliver goods from the estate equal to £50 0s 0d to Rebecca Charlesworth. The specific goods were to be listed at the foot of the order. Upon receipt, she was required to sign, seal, and deliver a formal release relinquishing all further claims. This arrangement was made on behalf of the orphans of Joseph Charlesworth and was intended to prevent dispute and maintain peace. Further provision was then introduced […] Interpretations The refusal of thirds shows enforcement of prior contractual agreement. A widow’s customary entitlement could be overridden by earlier settlement. The negotiated payment of £50 0s 0d reflects compromise. The final sum exceeded the original agreement, indicating adjustment to avoid conflict. The requirement for a signed and sealed release demonstrates legal finality. Future claims were extinguished through formal documentation. The delivery of goods rather than money shows practical estate distribution. Assets were transferred in kind according to assessed value. The involvement of appraisers in distributing the estate links valuation to execution. Those who assessed the estate also oversaw its division. The reference to orphans indicates protective priority. Estate management aimed to preserve remaining assets for dependent heirs. Speculations The increase from £40 0s 0d to £50 0s 0d suggests pressure to settle. The authorities perhaps sought to avoid prolonged dispute by offering improved terms. The insistence on a full release indicates concern over future litigation. A clear settlement may have been seen as necessary to stabilise the estate. The framing of the decision as beneficial to the orphans suggests competing interests. Balancing the widow’s claim with preservation of inheritance may have shaped the outcome. | |
463 | one part and Rebecka Relict of the said These are to Authorize and Impower you [...] | An agreement was confirmed between the governor and council, acting for the orphans of Joseph Charlesworth, and Rebecca Charlesworth. Under this arrangement, Rebecca Charlesworth was to receive goods valued at £50 0s 0d from the estate, as assessed by Orlando Baggeley and Henry Poales, who had been appointed for that purpose. This sum was to stand in place of her thirds, whether relating to personal or real estate, and was to satisfy in full all claims or demands she had or might in future assert against the estate or the orphans. In accordance with this agreement, authority was granted to Baggeley and Poales to deliver to Rebecca Charlesworth the specified goods listed in the order, amounting to £50 0s 0d or thereabouts. This order was to serve as sufficient authority for the transfer. The document was executed under the hands of the governor and council on 29 March 1693 […] Interpretations The substitution of a fixed sum for thirds shows negotiated override of customary entitlement. Estate division could be reshaped through agreement backed by authority. The explicit inclusion of both real and personal estate clarifies scope. All categories of property were brought within the settlement. The empowerment of named appraisers to deliver goods demonstrates delegated execution. Administrative authority extended from decision to implementation. The use of a written order as sufficient authority reflects documentary governance. Legal validity depended on recorded instruction rather than informal agreement. The requirement that the sum be “or near thereunto” shows practical flexibility. Exact valuation could be adjusted within reasonable bounds during distribution. Speculations The comprehensive release suggests concern over future dispute. The authorities perhaps aimed to secure finality in a potentially contentious estate. The reliance on goods rather than cash may indicate limited liquidity. Physical assets were perhaps more readily available than money. The formal structure of the order implies anticipation of scrutiny. Clear documentation may have been intended to prevent later challenge by interested parties. | |
464 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held on Pres.t Jos: Johnson Govr A Jury having Tryed and Decided all the John Luskin foreman - - - 1 Then the Jury was Sworne Grace Cullison Complains By Hen: Poals | A jury was appointed at the sessions held near Fort James on 29 March 1693, following the precedent that all trials at sessions should be determined by jury. The jurors were sworn, with John Luskin serving as foreman. The others were James […], David Edmunds, Henry Jackson Sr., Hugh Bedley, Thomas Goodwin, John Everlee, Robert Adie, John Melling, Thomas Mendales, John Gillen, and John Dixon. Grace Cullison, represented by her appointed attorney Henry Poales, brought an action of defamation against Richard Browne. It was alleged that Browne had made statements concerning her in previous years […] Interpretations The formal swearing of a jury at sessions shows institutionalisation of trial procedure. Collective judgement by peers was established as standard practice. The presence of a foreman indicates structured deliberation. Responsibility for organising jury decision-making was formally assigned. The use of a deputed attorney reflects representation in legal proceedings. Parties could act through appointed agents rather than appearing personally. The action of defamation demonstrates protection of reputation. Verbal injury was treated as a matter for formal legal remedy. The repetition of jury trials across sessions indicates continuity of practice. Judicial procedure was becoming regularised rather than exceptional. Speculations The explicit decision to maintain jury trials suggests prior uncertainty or inconsistency. The authorities perhaps sought to standardise legal process. The appointment of multiple local planters as jurors indicates reliance on community judgement. This may have reinforced acceptance of verdicts. The use of an attorney by Grace Cullison suggests practical necessity. Representation may have been preferred where direct participation was difficult or disadvantageous. | |
465 | at sundry [... ] times & at severall places The sd Browne Denys the sd Cullisons William Marsh planter being | Grace Cullison alleged that Richard Browne had, at various times and in several places, falsely and abusively defamed her. It was claimed that Browne had said that about twenty one years earlier he had made an agreement with her for sexual intercourse, and that when he came to fulfil it he found another man already engaged with her. These statements, described as scandalous and false, were said not to have come to her knowledge until 4 March 1693. She asserted that these accusations had damaged her reputation, which she valued as dearly as her life. Browne denied the accusation. William Marsh was sworn and stated that on 25 October 1692 he had heard Browne say that, when he returned from the Indies about twenty one years earlier, he had made such an agreement with Grace Cullison. Marsh further stated that Browne claimed he went to her to satisfy his desire but found a ship’s commander engaged with her at that time. Interpretations The case shows the legal weight given to reputation. Damage to personal honour was treated as a matter for formal judicial remedy. The reference to statements made over many years indicates persistence of defamatory speech. Repetition could strengthen the claim of harm. The reliance on sworn witness testimony reflects evidentiary standards. Verbal statements required corroboration to be actionable. The mention of conduct from twenty one years earlier shows that past behaviour could be invoked in present disputes. Reputation was shaped over long periods. The denial by Browne highlights adversarial procedure. Conflicting claims required jury assessment rather than immediate judgement. Speculations The delayed awareness of the statements suggests limited communication networks. Rumours may have circulated without reaching the subject for some time. The emphasis on moral accusation indicates social sensitivity. Allegations of sexual misconduct perhaps carried particular weight in damaging standing. The involvement of a ship’s commander in the claim may have added gravity. Reference to an identifiable figure could have made the story more credible or provocative. | |
466 | Rich. Parrum ag[ree]s saith that abt 21 years William Dufter being sworne saith the John Colgrave being sworne saith that Jane Taylor being sworne saith that | Richard Parrum stated that about twenty one years earlier, when he returned from the Indies and was at the island, he had brought smocks to dispose of. Grace Cullison asked whether he would sell her any. He replied that he would not, as the person for whom they were intended was to have the first choice. Grace Cullison then replied that if he would let her have two, he should have the same privilege in return. William Dufter was sworn and confirmed the same account as William Marsh had previously given. John Colgrave was sworn and stated that four or five years earlier he had heard Parrum say that, when he returned from the Indies about twenty one years earlier, he had made an agreement to lie with Grace Cullison in exchange for two such “bags”. When Colgrave asked what was meant by this term, Parrum explained that it referred to smocks. Colgrave further stated that on another occasion Parrum repeated that he had made such an agreement, but that a captain had been with her before him. Jane Taylor was sworn and stated that eight or nine years earlier, while in company with Parrum and others, and while speaking of Grace Cullison […] Interpretations The repeated testimony shows reliance on multiple witnesses to establish pattern. Statements made at different times were combined to demonstrate consistency. The explanation of “bags” as smocks reveals coded or indirect language. Terms required clarification to establish their meaning in evidence. The framing of the alleged agreement as exchange of goods for sexual access indicates transactional interpretation. Such claims directly affected moral standing. The time span of the testimony demonstrates long memory in legal disputes. Statements from decades earlier were still considered relevant. The use of indirect witnesses reflects circulation of speech. Reputation could be shaped by repeated retelling rather than single declaration. Speculations The recurrence of similar statements over years suggests that the story was widely circulated. This may have amplified its impact on reputation. The use of euphemistic language such as “bags” may have softened or disguised the claim. This could indicate awareness of the sensitivity of the allegation. The involvement of several witnesses recalling different occasions suggests that the case relied on cumulative recollection. Memory over long periods may have introduced variation or reinforcement. | |
467 | The one saying she was [...] and others Katherine the wife of the said And after the Jury had been out Gentlem[en] are you all agreed on a verdict who shall speake for you & who doe you finde for Jury Plaintiff That they had found the Parrum to be It is Further ordered by Govr & That he pay to the Rt Honble Comp[any] | Jane Taylor stated that during conversation about Grace Cullison, some described her in negative terms while others said she was proud. Richard Parrum then replied that she had no reason to be proud, as he claimed that at one time he could have had carnal use of her for […] bags. Taylor added that he heard Parrum repeat similar words about eight months earlier. Katherine Taylor, wife of Jane Taylor, was sworn and confirmed the same account. After about one hour of deliberation, the jury returned. Being asked whether they had agreed upon a verdict, they answered that they had. The foreman spoke for them and declared that they found for the plaintiff. They judged that Parrum had been guilty of highly defaming Grace Cullison and agreed that he should pay her a sum of […]. A further order was made by the governor and council. Parrum was required to pay £40 0s 0d to the East India Company for this serious offence, together with an additional fine of […] and 2s 0d for the oaths it was found he had sworn. Interpretations The jury’s finding shows formal recognition of reputational harm. Defamation was treated as a punishable offence with both private and public consequences. The award of damages to the plaintiff reflects compensation. Financial payment was used to redress injury to reputation. The separate fine payable to the Company indicates dual accountability. Offences could breach both individual rights and public authority. The reference to payment “for oaths” suggests penalty for improper swearing. Misuse of oath carried additional sanction within the legal process. The role of the foreman in delivering the verdict shows structured procedure. Collective judgement was formally communicated through a single voice. Speculations The imposition of a substantial fine alongside damages suggests seriousness of the offence. The authorities perhaps intended to deter similar conduct. The relatively quick jury deliberation may indicate strong agreement. Consistent testimony over time may have made the conclusion clear. The additional penalty connected to oath-taking implies concern over truthfulness. The court may have sought to reinforce the integrity of sworn evidence. | |
468 | The Governr and Councell Charges the said The said Parrum Denyes ye p[re]mises Hen: Ffogg being sworne saith that Wm Marsh being sworne saith yt he It is Ordered That he be fined to the Rt Honble Comp[any] abt John Archer doth Complain of Tho Goodwin | Richard Parrum was charged by the governor and council with working on the Sabbath, based on information received. He denied the accusation. Henry Ffogg was sworn and stated that about two months earlier, while passing Parrum’s house on a Sunday, he saw Parrum’s slaves working to clean a pond using mattocks or hoes. Parrum was present and observing them. Ffogg also saw five or six wheelbarrows of earth lying near the pond. William Marsh was sworn and stated that the pond had not been cleaned for several years, yet Parrum had set his slaves to clean it on five Sundays. He further stated that on the Monday morning after this work, he went to Parrum’s house and saw about three cartloads of earth lying near the pond. A decision was made that Parrum had breached the Sabbath. He was fined £0 5s 0d to the East India Company in accordance with established rules. He was cautioned not to repeat the offence and promised compliance. John Archer then brought an action of debt against Thomas Goodwin, claiming that Goodwin owed him £1 3s 6d. Interpretations The enforcement of Sabbath observance shows regulation of labour time. Work on Sundays was treated as an offence subject to penalty. The use of witness testimony again demonstrates evidentiary procedure. Observation by neighbours formed the basis of enforcement. The involvement of slaves in the offence shows that responsibility rested with the owner. Labour carried out by slaves was attributed to the master. The fixed fine indicates codified rules. Breach of religious observance was standardised within the legal framework. The caution issued alongside the fine shows corrective intent. Punishment aimed not only to penalise but to prevent recurrence. Speculations The repeated cleaning of the pond on multiple Sundays suggests urgency. Parrum may have prioritised practical need over religious regulation. The emphasis on visible evidence such as wheelbarrows and carts indicates reliance on material signs. Witnesses perhaps strengthened their claims through tangible detail. The relatively modest fine suggests graded enforcement. The authorities may have balanced discipline with practicality in cases of labour necessity. | |
469 | Tho: Goodwin owns he owes him so much but saith he hath forced him paymt in Cattle according to his Bargaine and Agreemt wth him which he denyed to take saying that he had made his Agreemt for money which he can prove to be otherwise Gregory Orchard being sworne saith that he heard the said Goodwin make an Agreemt with the said Horden to saw him some boards for which he was to be paid either in Arrack at 2s p gall or in Cattle Anne the wife of Robt Addis being sworne saith that she did heare the agreemt between them both for the sawing of some wood, for which work the sd Horden was to have 9s p week for one hand and she sd Addis money but at length did accept to be paid either in Cattle or Arrack at 2s p gallon After the Jury had concluded some small time amongst themselves brought in their verdict. That the said Horden was non suited & that he pay no Damage to the said Goodwin he having no cause of Action But that Goodwin pay the said Horden what he owes him according to agreemt Rich: Parrum Complains of Writin Marsh planter saying that Wm Marsh hath taken some of his the sd Parrums Land into his Inclosed plantation | Thomas Goodwin admitted that he owed the sum claimed, but argued that he had already offered payment in cattle in accordance with the agreement made with John Archer. This was refused, Archer asserting that the agreement had been for payment in money and that he could prove it. Gregory Orchard was sworn and stated that he heard Goodwin agree with Horden to saw boards, with payment to be made either in arrack at £0 2s 0d per gallon or in cattle. Anne Addis, wife of Robert Addis, was sworn and confirmed that she heard the agreement for sawing wood. She stated that payment was first set at £0 9s 0d per week for one worker, in money, but that it was later accepted that payment could be made either in cattle or in arrack at £0 2s 0d per gallon. After brief deliberation, the jury delivered its verdict. It found that Horden had no valid cause of action and was therefore nonsuited. No damages were awarded against Goodwin. However, Goodwin was required to pay Horden what was owed according to the agreement. Richard Parrum then brought a complaint against William Marsh, alleging that Marsh had enclosed part of Parrum’s land within his own plantation. Interpretations The acceptance of payment in cattle or arrack shows flexible forms of exchange. Transactions were not limited to money but included goods and commodities. The distinction between original and revised agreement highlights contractual variation. Terms could be altered by mutual consent after initial arrangement. The jury’s decision to nonsuit reflects procedural judgement. A claim could fail while still recognising an underlying obligation. The valuation of arrack at a fixed rate shows standardisation. Commodity exchange was regulated through agreed pricing. The dispute over land enclosure indicates importance of boundaries. Control of land was a central source of conflict and legal action. Speculations The disagreement over payment form suggests ambiguity in agreement. Lack of written contract may have led to differing interpretations. The jury’s balanced decision implies compromise. Both parties’ positions were partly acknowledged without full victory for either. The shift from monetary to goods payment may reflect scarcity of coin. Alternative forms of payment were perhaps more practical in local conditions. | |
470 | Blank page | ||
471 | Book cover | ||
472 | EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date Dimensions (height × width × depth) (cm) No. written pages: No. blank pages: Spine and cover Inside pages Time taken to photograph (hours) Additional comments |