St Helena Records 1693-1696
Introduction: This is the fourth 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/EAP1364-1-1-4.
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: A proportion of the page edges 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: Most pages are numbered, but the numbering shows numerous inconsistencies. Pagination begins at film No. 12 (12/1). Both 20/10 and 21/10 are marked as page 10, although their contents differ. A gap then occurs between 64/53 and 65/56, with pages 54-55 missing and an abrupt change of subject. The sequence jumps from 68/59 to 69/64, omitting pages 60-63. Because 68/59 concludes a Council meeting and 69/64 opens with a new meeting dated 31 July 1693 and 6/7 September 1693 respectively, this extended gap perhaps indicates that an entire Council record is missing. The numbering then skips from 72/67 to 73/70, omitting pages 68-69 and their subject matter. A larger gap follows from 96/91 to 97/108, where pages 92-107 are absent and the subject matter changes completely. Later in the document, pages 197 and 198 each occur twice with different content: 186/197 and 187/198 are followed by 188/197 and 189/198. Similarly, both 269/278 and 270/278 are marked as page 278, again with different material.
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 Council meetings were held during the administration of Captain Richard Kelinge/Keeling (1693 – 1697).
AI Generated Summary
Introduction
St Helena between April 1693 and the summer of 1696 emerges from these records as a small island society whose stability depended almost wholly upon the institutions and shipping networks of the English East India Company. Lying alone in the South Atlantic on the principal sea lane between England and the Indian Ocean, the island was at once a watering and provisioning station, a plantation colony, and a garrisoned outpost. The proceedings of the Governor and Council, sitting at Fort James, show how military command, civilian administration, ecclesiastical discipline and commercial accounting were braided together under a single authority, and how that authority was repeatedly tested by mutiny, by suspected conspiracy among the enslaved population, by the encroachments of European war, and by the steady frictions of life in a small and closely watched community. [Film No. 11-291]
The Jackson rebellion of April 1693 and its aftermath
On the night of 21 April 1693, Sergeant Henry Jackson, then in command of the watch at Fort James, drew a small group of soldiers and accomplices into the sergeant's room at Fort James and disclosed a design to seize the Company's treasure, plunder the storehouses in James Valley, dismount the artillery, and escape aboard the Francis and Mary, a slave ship under Captain Thomas Pitts then anchored in the road and bound from Hamburg for Angola. Those who refused to join, including the surgeon John Stevens, the gunner John Vernon, and the planter Thomas Ganger, were summoned one by one, plied with wine, threatened, and confined in the underground dungeon described in the records as a structure built to hold what were called villainous and desperate Blacks. By daybreak on Saturday the conspirators had taken the keys, beaten down the Governor Joshua Johnson when he came to deliver them, and held him until he died of three gunshot wounds about the temple, fired, by the witnesses' account, by the soldier Henry Frogg. [Film No. 11-15]
The rebellion was both military and commercial in character. The conspirators emptied the Governor's closet of a chest of money, spiked or overturned the line of guns, threw the carriages of those on Munden's Mount down the hillside, and forced provisions of beans, lemons, pork and biscuit aboard the ship before sailing. They held Captain Richard Kelinge, John Luffkin, Richard Gurling, Thomas Goodwin and the master Captain Pitts as hostages so that those ashore could not fire upon the ship, and at one point considered blowing up the prisoners in the dungeon with powder before Jackson himself locked the powder-room door. The conspirators discussed sailing to Cape Verde or, on a route suggested by Captain Pitts, to the Cape of Virginia, where they intended to meet outward bound shipping and divide it among them. This pattern of fortress mutiny passing into Atlantic piracy was a familiar phenomenon of the 1690s, the same decade in which Henry Avery seized the Mughal pilgrim ship Ganj-i-Sawai and in which English colonial governments from New York to Madagascar struggled to police former privateers. The Jackson conspirators belong recognisably to that wider milieu, in which the boundary between disgruntled Company servant and Atlantic pirate was thin and porous. [Film No. 33-41]
The records preserve, in successive depositions sworn before Captain Robert Knox of the Tonqueen, Captain William Price of the Orange and Samuel Allen, late merchant of the Diana, a remarkably detailed account of how authority was contested within the fort over a few hours. Captain Stephen Poirier, then living at the Plantation House, was sent for and came down at speed with his two sons and eight lancers. The hostages aboard ship secured a stay on the firing of the line, and provisions were sent off in exchange for an undertaking that the captives would not be harmed. The depositions are not neutral documents. They were taken on 22 June 1693, two months after the events, in the presence of senior officers from passing ships, and they describe in some detail the role of those who later became the Company's leading witnesses. They tend to magnify the loyalty of the surviving officers and to present every refusal of recruitment as a moment of moral courage. They are also our only evidence, and their internal consistency on the central facts, the wounding of Johnson, the spiking of the guns, and the seizure of the chest of money, is striking. [Film No. 33-45]
A coroner's inquest, conducted by Henry Cole as coroner with Edward Dunnins as foreman of the jury, returned a verdict on 24 April 1693 of wilful murder by Jackson, Frogg and the soldiers acting under Jackson's direction. The doctrine of collective liability that the inquest applied, holding accountable not only the man who fired the shot but also those who had moved under his command, mirrored English common law on riot and treasonable assembly. On 1 May 1693 a court of judicature found three of the captured rebels, George Lock, Isaac Slaughter and Joseph Davis, guilty of treason, murder, burglary, piracy and robbery; the multiple charges were intended to anchor the case in the recognised categories of English felony so that capital sentence could follow. Lock and Slaughter were hanged on 10 May 1693. Davis, judged by the jury the least guilty and recommended for mercy, was reprieved on the practical condition that he act as executioner of his fellows, and was later, in the consultation of 23 June 1693, banished aboard Captain Knox's Tonqueen to be set ashore at any place in the habitable world at the captain's discretion. The forfeited estates of Jackson, Frogg, Thomas Gentry and Robert Lightfoot were inventoried by Edward Cotton, Henry Cale and Orlando Bagley, sold by public outcry, and their plantations re-let. The crisis thus produced both a small judicial industry and a redistribution of land. [Film No. 13-26]
The aftermath shaped governance for years. Wives of soldiers and a slave belonging to John Cheverley were summoned before the Council in May 1693 for taking pewter dishes, delft plates and other goods from the house of the absconded Thomas Gentry, called in the testimony Thomas Gaolery, on the strength of supposed debts. The Council ordered restitution rather than punishment for the wives, judging the act done through what it described as the inadvertence and weakness of the women, while ordering Cheverley's slave thirty lashes at the flagstaff. The differentiation in treatment is plain. The episode also displays the speed with which an open legal vacuum produced opportunistic redistribution of forfeited goods, and the Council's difficulty in asserting Company title against a thicket of small private claims. [Film No. 21-24]
Governance, administration and the chain of authority
Throughout the period covered, the island was governed by Richard Keelinge as Governor and Captain Stephen Poirier as Deputy Governor, with consultations held weekly or fortnightly at Fort James. Their authority was derivative and provisional. Major matters, including land allocations exceeding local powers, contested inheritances, the reprieve of widows of executed rebels, and the salary of a chaplain, were referred to the Honourable Company in London or to the Lords Proprietors. Each set of consultations was sealed up and dispatched on the next homeward bound ship, the Tonqueen in July 1693, the Little Josias in September 1693, the Prince of Denmark under Captain John Bliss in June 1695, and so on. The administration of St Helena was thus paced by the rhythm of shipping. Pay and accounts were settled at three- or six-month intervals, conveniently aligned with the sailing seasons of the Indiamen. [Film No. 46, 81-83, 199]
The Council relied heavily on local officeholders chosen by majority vote at the country church and confirmed by the Governor. Churchwardens, overseers of the highways, surveyors of paths, and jurors were all drawn from a small pool of planters whose names recur across the records: the Goodwins, Bagleys, Edmunds, Riders, Colgraves, Lufkins, Marshes, Leaches and Nicholls. The same men served as jurors at the Sessions, as appraisers of forfeited estates, and as arbitrators in disputes referred out by the Council. This concentration produced both efficiency and obvious conflicts of interest. When Thomas Goodwin appears as plaintiff, witness, juror, surveyor of cattle and storekeeper within a single year, the boundary between governance and personal advantage is necessarily blurred. The records show no awareness of this as a structural problem; the small population on the island made it unavoidable. [Film No. 30, 47, 73, 94, 153, 165]
A telling moment of administrative anxiety is the response on 31 July 1693 to a private warning that, at the general muster that day, the planters meant to demand the right to choose their own military officers in the event of alarm. The Governor and Council judged this would create a divided allegiance and proceeded at once, before the muster, to enrol selected planters in the garrison and impose an oath binding them to the present government until another should be lawfully established from England, and to oppose the interests of the French King or any other enemy of the Crown. All present took the oath save Richard Furber. The episode shows the post-rebellion regime acting pre-emptively to absorb potential opposition into the structures of formal authority, and reveals an awareness that the loyalty of the inhabitants, only three months after Johnson's murder, could not be assumed. The oath's reference to the French King is also significant: it embeds the local situation directly within the wider European conflict that William III had brought England into in 1689, the Nine Years' War, in which French naval power threatened English shipping in every sea. [Film No. 61-62]
In August 1696 the records note, almost in passing, that Governor Keelinge had for some time suffered from a lingering illness which had ultimately led to his death, and that this was the reason both this and the preceding consultation book had not been signed by him. The disclosure is candid and slightly defensive, an acknowledgement that documentary regularity, not just decision-making, depended on the personal authority of the Governor. From this point on the records of the consultations were authenticated by Captain Poirier alone. [Film No. 275]
Military affairs, defence and the impact of the French war
The Jackson rebellion exposed the fragility of the island's defences. On 31 July 1693 the Governor and Council issued a comprehensive reorganisation of posts, naming officers and stations at Prosperous Bay, Turk Caps, the East Ridge with its two alarm guns, Lemon Valley, Horse Pasture and Sandy Bay. Black servants were to be brought to defensive posts by their masters, in graduated numbers depending on whether one ship or two or more were sighted, and stationed with tools at valley mouths to obstruct enemy advance. Communications between posts were to be maintained by signal gun and runner, with the firing of the alarm gun at Prosperous Bay triggering response across the island. Failure to attend was to be reported to the Governor for punishment. The instructions read like a system designed in the knowledge that earlier arrangements had failed. They reveal both the small size of the available force, with two or three men at outposts, and the comprehensive surveillance the regime expected to maintain over both the freemen and the enslaved. [Film No. 62-68]
European war returned the question of external defence to the centre of policy in 1695. On 26 June the Lilly under Captain James brought intelligence that the Dutch at the Cape had been alarmed by reports of six French men-of-war and a tender sailing from Brest in February with the intention of attacking either St Helena or some part of the East Indies. The reasoning of the Governor and Council, that the intended target might rather be St Helena than the Cape because the island was less strongly defended, has the ring of accurate strategic appreciation. France's capacity to project naval force into the South Atlantic in the Nine Years' War was real, and squadrons under Jean Bart and the Comte d'Estrees had already harassed English East and West India shipping. The Council ordered a general rendezvous, an inspection and repair of all freemen's arms, the construction and repair of guardhouses, the formation of two squadrons in rotation at the main fort and the out-forts, and the fortification of a point at Bankes towards Sugar Loaf with two guns. Watch and ward were to be maintained at night with a watchword to prevent surprise. [Film No. 202-203]
The fear of attack persisted into the autumn. On 28 November 1695, after Captain Tinifer of the Little Success carried fresh reports of two French warships and a supply vessel out of Brest, the Council inspected Sandy Bay, found it accessible to landing and undefended by artillery, and assembled the inhabitants at the Plantation House. It was unanimously agreed to obtain two pieces of artillery for Sandy Bay at public expense, with the cost to be met by an assessment on all landholders excepting the Honourable Company. John Bowman, a mason, was contracted to construct the battery. The willingness of the planter community to tax themselves, and the explicit exclusion of the Company from the levy, points to a recognition that defence was a public good in which the freeholders shared a direct material interest, while the Company, owning the bulk of strategic ground and provisioning the garrison from its stores, was treated as already contributing. The reorganisation of posts, the public assessment, and the ongoing rebuilding of the decayed fort house and the relocation of the powder room away from the blacksmith's forge, where each blow of the hammer threw sparks at the powder-room door, together suggest that the war scare did real work in modernising the island's defences. [Film No. 77-78, 226-227]
Discipline within the garrison was a constant concern. A soldier named Thomas, drunk on the day of a general muster, fired one of the great guns at Ruperts and caused a general alarm. He was sentenced on 28 November 1693 to ride the rounds for half an hour during each watch for seven weeks, then to run the gauntlet through all the soldiers and be dismissed. The wooden horse and the gauntlet, both standard British military punishments of the period, recur frequently in the records, applied to William French for drunkenness on guard, to Peter Williams for removing a tub from a guardhouse at Bunkers, and to the youths Edward Everan and James Powell for climbing on the Governor's house. The records give the impression of a garrison constantly disciplined for misconduct related to drink, in a setting where the Company itself routinely issued arrack and brandy from its stores. The contradiction was structural: the same institution that recorded the consumption of arrack, butter and goats for the general table at Fort James also fined and whipped soldiers for being overcome by it. [Film No. 92-94, 85, 150]
The Court of Justice and the operation of law
The judicial system rested on three layers. The Council acting in council heard preliminary matters and summary discipline. The Court of Justice or Sessions, opened by proclamation at the Sessions House at Fort James, tried civil and criminal cases before a jury of twelve. Sir Thomas Grantham's instructions of 1 August 1683, repeatedly cited and read aloud, permitted local methods to continue in minor matters but reserved formal jury trial for cases involving life, limb or land. The records show the courts hearing actions of debt, defamation, trespass, assault and battery, and breach of contract, alongside a small number of grave criminal trials. Juries were sworn on the Bible to deliver a true verdict between the King and the prisoner, retaining the formal language of English assize practice. [Film No. 47, 140, 165, 213-215]
Defamation cases dominate the civil docket and provide an unusually rich source for the social texture of the island. The case of Hugh Bodley against John Lupkin in October 1693 over a charge of attempted ravishment, the Coulson-Colgrave dispute of January 1694 in which Margaret Colgrave was alleged to have taunted the widow of an executed conspirator with the gallows, the protracted exchange of suits between Robert Exeter, William Marsh, Thomas Harper and Elizabeth Suffolk in January 1695, and the linked accusations between Sutton Isaack and Thomas Allison about tamarinds and the testing of Isaack's wife: each shows how reputation, especially female reputation and especially in matters of sexual conduct, was contested through formal litigation in which damages were calibrated by the jury at small sums, often supplemented by court costs. The system handled the social pressures of a population of a few hundred people by translating gossip into pleadings. The award against Elizabeth Suffolk and her daughter Mary Gates of fifteen and five lashes for spreading the rumour that Margaret Harper had concealed a miscarried pregnancy, a sentence remitted on Suffolk's plea of pregnancy, illustrates how women's bodies were doubly the subject and the instrument of these proceedings. [Film No. 73-75, 95-96, 175-178]
Two cases stand out as exposing the limits of the system. In June 1693 a young man, William Birch, was found dead near White Hill while tending goats with a slave named Jack belonging to James Rider. The coroner's jury, examining tracks on the slope, attributed his death to Jack and brought him to trial. Richard Alexander's tracking evidence showed that Birch's footprints lay always above those of the slave, suggesting separation rather than pursuit. The trial jury, considering the same evidence under formal procedure, returned a verdict of not guilty. The case demonstrates that initial inquest findings could be revised under fuller adjudication and that the court distinguished between attribution of cause and proof of culpability. The contrast with the treatment of slaves in 1695 and 1696, when collective culpability was treated as sufficient, is sharp. [Film No. 53-55]
In April 1696 Captain Grindy's wife Priscilla was accused by Thomas Allis of being a witch. The Council had earlier dismissed an action over the same words by determining that Allis had referred not to her but to her daughter, but a fresh complaint at Sessions on 7 April 1696 placed the matter before a jury of twelve. The accumulated testimony of Matthew Barrett, William Coales and John Hemmon described Allis dragging doors from his house, claiming that the Governor and his lady had refused his punch, accusing Mother Grandy of standing on a stump that was visible only to him, and conscripting Barrett and his slaves to lift a stone of three or four tons in search of his wife and Richard Leach beneath it. The jury returned a finding of non compos mentis. Allis was committed to a keeper, and Priscilla Grindy was publicly cleared by proclamation calling for evidence of witchcraft, three times made, with no person appearing. The case is a striking instance of an English colonial jurisdiction declining the well-trodden path from accusation to prosecution that, less than a decade earlier, had culminated in Salem. The court treated the accuser's mind, not the accused's alleged powers, as the question to be tried. [Film No. 253, 256, 266-270]
Settlement, land tenure and agriculture
Land on the island was held under the Honourable English East India Company by a system of leases, typically for terms of twenty-one years at a quit rent and an additional acreage rent. France Rodger, Traise Pledger, Simon Whalley, John Frith Senior, Peter Williams and George Hodgkinson all received such grants in 1693 and after, frequently in plots of ten or twenty acres, with terms requiring tenants to maintain fences and fruit trees, and forbidding the cutting of timber for private use after October 1694, when the Council reserved all timber on the Company's ground for public buildings. The reservation was practical, the records noting that the fort house, fortifications, plantation houses and store rooms had all decayed and required substantial rebuilding while timber on the island had become scarce. The story is one of incipient deforestation under settler pressure being addressed by command-and-control regulation: a recognisable colonial pattern, paralleled in Bermuda, where similar restrictions were imposed earlier in the century, and in the Cape under the Dutch East India Company. [Film No. 25-27, 76, 111]
Disputes over boundaries, paths and shared infrastructure were endemic. The wall and stile dispute between Richard Parrum and William Marsh in July 1693, the running boundary contest between Richard Leach and Simon Whalley over Captain Shatto Seale's earlier survey, and the action of Sutton Isaack against John Marsh for beating Isaack's slave on disputed ground show how repeatedly the question of where one plantation ended and another began came into court. In some cases prior arbitration was upheld, as with William Bodley and Thomas Goodwin's award of two shillings to William Willson against Richard Griffen. In others the court re-measured, as in the Leach-Whalley case where the jury physically walked the ground with the Governor and Council before delivering its verdict. The Governor and Council seem to have been pulled into precisely those routine boundary frictions that English manorial courts handled at home. [Film No. 49-51, 57-58, 76]
The most ambitious response to these frictions was the great survey of paths, droveways and footways carried out in late 1695 and early 1696. Twelve principal inhabitants, sworn to perform their duty faithfully, were divided into three teams covering distinct quarters of the island, and they returned in writing a detailed network of routes that the Council ordered to stand thereafter as a permanent law and rule. The returns, recorded across films 283 to 291, name almost every inhabitant and almost every parcel of cultivated ground. They distinguish main droveways for the movement of cattle, neighbourly droveways for shared local use, public footways including the principal route from Hemon's house in Deep Valley to Hutts Plain by way of Quiney's wall and Godally waterfall, and individual private paths to allow named landholders, often Cabbage Tree ground holders, to reach the central network. They include explicit church ways and require that all church ways be at least four feet wide with gates or bars. The survey is the single most striking administrative achievement of the period. It converted custom into enforceable infrastructure, formalised the subordination of private boundaries to communal access, and channelled the daily movements of the population, to church, to market, to fort, along recorded corridors. It also reveals how thoroughly the East India Company's ground penetrated the landscape, with Company pasture, Company ditch, Company plantation and Company hutts ground forming a constant matrix within which private holdings sat. [Film No. 247-249, 283-291]
A particular agricultural concern was the management of cattle, which were both the main private wealth of the planters and a frequent subject of strict Company accounting. In 1693 and 1694 the Council credited individuals such as Thomas Hennel, Edward Edmonds, Mrs Beale, Thomas Marsh, James Morrell and Prudence Sherwin with sums for cattle supplied to the Company's plantation, in one case Prudence Sherwin's entry of £188 for ninety-six head. The Sherwin transaction is recorded with a candid explanation: Mrs Sherwin was leaving the island, and her husband was already absent in England; the Company's own males had become scarce after several years of dry seasons; her cattle were judged the best on the island. The Council took the cattle on credit at £128 8s 0d, deferring final settlement until an arbitration with Thomas Smout was concluded. The episode illustrates how environmental conditions, drought, shaped large administrative transactions, and how the Company's capacity to convert private liquidation into Company assets depended on its monopoly of the island's accounting system. [Film No. 103, 122, 163]
The introduction of viticulture was a notable feature. The vineyards at Hutts Valley, where Captain Poirier had brought vignerons including Anthony Debure, Henry Morrin and Isaac Debusk, are referred to in the consultation of 29 November 1694 in the context of an exchange of land at Longwood adjoining the Company's plantation. Land was reorganised to enclose the Company's grazing range and to protect the vines. The presence of vignerons among those granted leave to depart with Captain Roberts of the Resolution in June 1695 indicates that the experiment was not entirely successful, or at least that those brought to conduct it were not retained. Whether the island's climate, the labour available, or the absence of any market for the wine accounts for this is not stated. [Film No. 157, 200]
Slavery, coerced labour and the limits of control
The records leave no doubt that St Helena in this period was a slave society. Children aged about six and eight were transferred from the Company at prices of £3 to £5 to officials including the Governor for the Governor's children and Captain Poirier for his daughter, with the cost entered as debt against their accounts. Adult slaves valued at £20 or £21 appeared in estate inventories, as in John Charleworth's estate of 1693, where the slave Peter was listed alongside houses, cattle and 38,500 yams. The Company itself owned a significant number of slaves housed in a dedicated lodging at the plantation, which burned to the ground on a night in late 1695 in a fire whose cause was never determined and whose timing, immediately after the discovery of an alleged uprising plot, was suggestive. The ordinary documentary apparatus of valuation, hire, sale and inheritance treated enslaved persons as property in precisely the same column as cattle and casks of arrack, and the records make this transparent without any visible disquiet. [Film No. 27-28, 89-91, 94, 242]
Slavery on St Helena was Indian Ocean as well as Atlantic in origin. The slave Annah, who first revealed the 1695 conspiracy, told the Council that she was from India and the conspirators from Madagascar, and could only understand basic words for fire or water in their tongue. Madagascar was a major source of enslaved labour for the East India Company's settlements at Bombay and St Helena, and the records refer to the arrival of two Madagascar ships earlier the same year. The linguistic separation between an Indian-born household slave and Malagasy field hands, both bound under the same Company, is itself a small index of the island's position at the intersection of two slave-trading systems. The Atlantic slave trade also touched the island directly, since the Francis and Mary from which Jackson hoped to escape was a Hamburg slaver bound for Angola, and the Katherine of New York and the sloop Amity carried slaves through the road in February 1696, requiring an armed guard to prevent local enslaved people from boarding them to escape. [Film No. 11, 244, 260]
Discipline of the enslaved population was conducted through both private masters and public proclamation. After the alarm of 6 September 1693, when the planters James Duffee, John Goodwin, James Wilson, Thomas Swallow, James Rider and John Downing were examined about a rumour that the Black population intended to rise, only two slaves, Peter belonging to Charlestown and a slave of Fanaday, were judged culpable, and they received forty and thirty lashes respectively. The Council then revived a proclamation of 22 June 1686 with stiffer penalties, requiring masters to keep enslaved persons at home, restricting movement at night, prohibiting assembly, and authorising any white inhabitant to apprehend any enslaved person found wandering, with half of the resulting fine going to the captor. The structure was familiar from comparable codes in Barbados and Jamaica earlier in the seventeenth century. The mechanism deputised the entire white population as a constabulary over the enslaved, supported by financial incentive. The reference to John Downing's admission that his only reason for fearing a rising had been his own imagination, based on what he perceived as increased insolence, registers as an unintended caution that policy was being driven by anxious settler perception as much as by demonstrable fact. [Film No. 69-72]
The major slave conspiracy case of late 1695 deserves close attention. On a Friday in late November or early December, Annah, slave of Thomas Goodwin, told her mistress Frances Goodwin of a plan she had heard from Will, slave of Owen Berrian, to kill all the white inhabitants of the island, beginning with their masters and mistresses, then to take Lemon Valley Fort, kill its two soldiers, seize the arms, and afterwards to capture the next ship that arrived. Will reportedly intended to become governor, and Jacob, an escaped slave from a ship of Captain Wynn now living with Madam Johnson, was named as a leader. The information passed from Annah to Frances Goodwin, then by note from John Bowman the plasterer to Richard Kelinge by Fortune, slave of Samuel Taylor. The Council fired the alarm guns, ordered all slaves on the island into custody at Fort James, and by seven the following morning had detained essentially the entire enslaved population. Eleven slaves were held for trial. Four others, who had heard of the plan but neither joined nor reported it, were severely whipped at the whipping post. The remainder, judged ignorant of the plot, were released. [Film No. 228-241]
The trial of the eleven on 12 December 1695 returned guilty verdicts of unequal weight, the jury distinguishing between greatest offenders Jack of John Gurling, Will of Berrian, Joane of Berrian, Randall of Allison and Poplar of Goodwin, and the lesser offenders Ruface, Hemp, Roger, Peter and Civill. The original sentence on the Council's reconsideration was commuted from full execution: Jack was to be hanged alive in chains at Ladder Hill in sight of Fort James and left there until he died of starvation; Will and Randall were to be hanged, cut down alive, disembowelled, and quartered with their parts displayed on the public highways; the next three offenders were to be lashed under the gallows, branded with the letter R, and given staged whippings of thirty, thirty, seventy and sixty lashes on successive days through Christmas before transportation; the lesser offenders received seventy, sixty and fifty lashes on the same scheme. All slaves on the island, except children, were ordered to bring a bundle of dry wood and attend the executions. The proceedings were a deliberate spectacle of terror. The Council recorded openly that to execute all eleven would impose a heavy burden on the island's economy, beyond what could reasonably be sustained, a calculation in which the value of enslaved labour explicitly limited the scale of capital punishment. The records here are unusually candid about the calculus of governance, where deterrence was weighed against the loss of productive labour and a graded mass punishment chosen to satisfy both. [Film No. 243-251]
The conspiracy testimony itself bears critical examination. The named leaders, Jack and Will, did confess; the chains of recruitment, traced through Hinds, Harry, Hemp, Abram, Portuguese Jack, Robin Boston and many others, are mapped in great detail across the films. Yet several features of the narrative correspond closely to expected colonial fears: a planned massacre during the night, the targeting of Lemon Valley Fort's arms, the seizure of an incoming ship by exploiting the customary reception of the captain, and the explicit citing of Sergeant Jackson's example. Jack's account that the idea had originated when seamen from a ship of Captain Wilkey said that in other parts of the world slaves had taken two or three forts in a single day, and the parallel account from Abram of Sergeant Dixon that two seamen of the Modena had said the same thing, externalises the origin of the plot to maritime contact in a way that conveniently absolves both the local enslaved population and the Company's management of them. The repetition of identical phrasing in successive testimonies suggests either a shared narrative arrived at by collective decision among the conspirators or, more cautiously, a narrative shaped through the conditions of examination. The records describe contradictions and partial denials that a careful reader will notice; Hemp first said he had only learned of the plot the previous Friday and then admitted he had known of it long before; Joane said she had refused to take part but was named by others as a leader. The trial shows a system that did not require unanimity of testimony, only its accumulation. [Film No. 234-244]
Trade, shipping and provisioning
St Helena's economic life was geared to the passage of Company shipping. The accounts at the close of each three- or six-month period record provisions issued from the Company's plantation to the general table at Fort James and to ships in the road: pease, butter, beef, pork, turkeys, goats, cabbages, yams in tens of thousands, gallons of arrack, casks of biscuit. They also record specific deliveries to named ships. In April 1694 Captain Stephen Poirier was authorised to receive an order for thirty-six bushels of potatoes, five quarters of yams and additional provisions delivered to the Charles the Second under Captain Richard Darrell, the Modena under Captain Frindy, the Sampson under Captain John Bromwell, and another vessel under Captain John Erlson. In July 1694 the same officer was credited for live bullocks delivered to the Sampson. By the summer of 1696 the consultations of Governor Keelinge sat with multiple ship commanders simultaneously, including Captain John Raynes of the Martha, Captain Henry French of the Morthy, Captain Marmaduke Raven of the Sarah and Captain James Williams of His Majesty's advice boat St John. The island acted as the principal English revictualling station between the Cape and the Channel. [Film No. 124-125, 149, 276]
The records also show that this provisioning system was integrated into the wider geopolitics of the war. In June 1696 Captain Williams of the St John carried a packet for the Cape, with instructions that it should be forwarded onward to homeward bound English ships calling there. He came late in the season; eleven Dutch ships had already arrived from India having been ordered not to touch at the Cape, and a Dutch fleet was then in the road at St Helena. The Council, in consultation with the Dutch admiral, judged it more useful for Williams to cruise to windward of the island to intercept incoming English shipping than to proceed to the Cape, and the Dutch admiral was permitted to open the packet so that he might extract any intelligence relevant to the Dutch homeward voyage. The willingness of the English Company governor and the Dutch admiral to share the contents of an English diplomatic packet is a small but vivid sign of the William III alliance against Louis XIV in operation at the level of practical naval cooperation in the South Atlantic. The same alliance that had brought William to the throne in 1689 here permitted the routine sharing of operational intelligence with English permission. [Film No. 276-277]
On the receiving side, provisions and materials reaching the island were similarly accounted. Goods from the Little Josea under Captain Gutter, the Little Charles of New York under John Thurber, the Sampson, and especially the Amity under Captain James Minby, the Modena under Captain Frindy and the Resolution under Captain Roberts arrived in detailed inventories: pewter buttons, Dutch demy paper, vellum-bound books, large brass kettles, garden seeds, coffee mills, frying pans, soap, sugar, rice, arrack. The cargo of the Amity is recorded in unusually fine detail, including its supply of brown thread, garden beans, kettling seals, calico and bunting for making flags. The provisioning of the doctor's chest with cordial water and medicines from the Sampson shows that the same logistical system supplied medical care; Doctor Stevens was reimbursed £2 2s 0d for medicines purchased at his own expense, an indication that even the smallest expenditures had to be recovered through the Company's books. [Film No. 105-108, 120, 130, 141-147]
The economy, currencies, bartering and accounting
The Company's books were the central economic institution on the island. Almost no transaction involving the Company was settled in cash. Soldiers' and officers' pay was credited to their accounts at three-month or six-month intervals; supplies of cattle, yams and beef were credited to producers' accounts; goods drawn from Company stores by individuals were debited to those accounts; clothing issued to slaves was debited to the master's or to the Company's plantation account; even the consumption of brandy, wine and arrack at the Governor's table was assigned line by line to the named officers and soldiers who had drunk it. The system was a form of internal scrip, generated by an institution that monopolised both the money supply and the supply of essential goods, and that paid interest on neither. It produced detailed records but also tied virtually every member of the settler population into a continuing relationship of indebtedness or credit with the Company. [Film No. 81-84, 107-109, 119-125]
External coin nonetheless circulated. The records refer regularly to dollars, almost certainly Spanish pieces of eight, valued at six shillings sterling, which were used both for fines payable to the Company, as in William Marsh's fine of one dollar for breach of the peace in January 1695, and for damages awarded between private parties. Mary Berry agreed in November 1695 to receive part of the price for her ten acres in silver and part in copper. Sums for goods aboard ship were sometimes denominated in dollars and converted into sterling on entry into the books. The combination of book credit, sterling and dollars produced a layered monetary system in which the unit chosen often signalled the nature of the transaction. Compulsory annual reckoning of accounts was ordered by proclamation in April 1695 to address the persistent problem of disputes over old, unsettled balances revived only when relationships broke down. Each debtor was required to sign the creditor's account book or to give a written acknowledgement under his hand. The order is one of the clearest indications that the small commercial life of the island was running into the friction caused by purely oral credit. [Film No. 117, 127, 180, 197]
A barter element subsisted alongside this. In October 1694 the Council resolved the problem of perishable tanned leather in the Company's store by contracting with the store labourer to convert hides into shoes and pumps at fixed rates per dozen, the labourer to receive a hundred hides at £11 10s the score and all raw hides for a year at eight shillings the score. The agreement was paid wholly in finished goods, not coin. Compensation for damaged livestock was sometimes ordered in kind, as when John Marsh was required to pay Daniel Collier two pounds in the form of a beast valued by impartial persons. Mary Gurling was ordered to deliver yams to Elizabeth Suffolk to satisfy a contractual entitlement to harvest from sold land. These arrangements, ordered by the court rather than freely agreed, suggest that the supply of money was a recurring constraint that the legal system accommodated by ordering settlement in goods. [Film No. 50, 127, 151]
Estate administration is one of the most heavily documented activities. The proving of the wills of John Canning, William Price, John Stevens and others; the administration of intestate estates such as Richard Euling's, where the widow Mary was sworn to disclose all goods she had handed to the administrator Thomas Ganger; the careful division by sworn appraisers of John Charleworth's estate between his son John and his daughter Mary, lately married to John Bowman, with each item from one silver spoon at eight shillings to ninety-six head of cattle and a slave named Roger valued at £21 entered with deliberate precision: all this shows a system in which the orderly transmission of property mattered to settler stability. The forfeiture of Edward Quinny's estate to the Company in March 1696 after the coroner's jury found that he had hanged himself, lacking the fear of God before his eyes, with his body buried at a crossroads with a stake driven through it and a heap of stones over it, shows the older English law of suicide as forfeiture and unhallowed burial in operation in the colony. The widow Rush Quinny was, however, allowed in petition to retain temporary use of the estate to support her two children, with the matter referred to England. The case illustrates the discretionary mitigation that the Council was prepared to grant within the strict letter of the law. [Film No. 29-30, 88-91, 263-264, 272]
Religion, education and the regulation of conduct
The Council read into the records on 26 July 1694 a royal proclamation of King William and Queen Mary issued at Whitehall on 21 January 1692 against vice and debauchery, ordering judges and justices to enforce the laws against blasphemy, profane swearing, drunkenness, sexual misconduct and Sabbath-breaking. The proclamation was to be read in the country church on the Sunday following and posted there for continual public viewing. It belongs to a wider movement of reformation of manners under William and Mary, paralleled in England by the formation of Societies for the Reformation of Manners from 1690. The Council reinforced it with a local declaration linking moral conduct to divine favour, and cited earlier Company instructions of 14 December 1673 from the Court of Committees, sent on the European under Captain Potter and the John and Alexander under Captain Beard, and of 20 February 1688 brought by the Johanna under Captain Bendale, requiring strict observance of the Sabbath and the appointment of public places of worship. The repetition across two decades of essentially the same instructions suggests, as the records implicitly admit, that enforcement had been inconsistent. [Film No. 132-138]
The most pressing local problem was the absence of a minister. The records of June 1695 note that the island had been without one for nearly eleven years. With the consent of Captain Roberts, the Council retained Bartholomew Harwood, chaplain of the Resolution, at a salary of £50 a year with a possible additional gratuity of £25 if the Court approved. Harwood's tenure was brief and intense. In August 1695 he was consulted on the proper form of public penance for the soldier John Linfenig, who had cursed and called upon the Devil to take him during a long illness, and for Benjamin Seale, who had cried out By God you lie during the baptism of an infant in the church. Harwood drafted the form of public confession and admonition, and the offenders were required to stand at the church door before being brought in by the churchwardens to confess. By April 1696 Harwood had departed for the West Indies, and the lay reader David Edmunds was paid thirty shillings to read divine service, sermons and burial services in his absence, twice on Sundays at the country church when no ships were in the road and at the town church when they were. This linkage of religious provision to the rhythm of shipping is a small index of how thinly clerical authority was spread. [Film No. 200-209, 272]
Public penance was not the only mechanism. The court of justice repeatedly tried what English ecclesiastical courts at home would have handled, in the absence of an active minister. In June 1693 the churchwardens James Rider and William Hayes presented Mary Foster for performing a mock marriage between Robert Lightfoot, who was absent, and Margaret Harper, and Margaret Harper for fornication under the colour of that marriage. Elizabeth Sterling, aged about seventeen, gave evidence as a witness placed at the foot of the bed on which the supposed consummation took place. The jury found both women guilty, the court sentenced Foster to seven lashes and Harper to five, and remitted the punishment after intercession by parents, jurors and respected men and women on a showing of penitence. The episode is a striking example of an English secular court enforcing ecclesiastical discipline through corporal punishment, then mitigating it by communal intercession of a kind that English ecclesiastical courts of the period would have recognised. [Film No. 52-53]
Education and the placement of orphans formed another arm of the same system. The records contain successive arrangements for the apprenticeship of Mary Gates, Joseph Gatey, Elizabeth Sterling, John Miller and Richard Alexander's orphan to masters who were required, by indentures sealed before the Governor and Council, to provide food, clothing and instruction in a trade. The apprenticeship of John Miller is particularly revealing. He had been placed by his uncle Benjamin Miller, on departure from the island, in the care of Doctor John Stevens with instructions that he should be properly brought up. Stevens placed him with Hugh Bodle without teaching him a trade. After the deaths of both Stevens and Bodle, the boy passed to Sergeant Thomas Dixon by virtue of Dixon's marriage to Stevens's widow, and then on Dixon's petition to Sergeant Dunling, who undertook to raise him to the age of twenty and to teach him the trade of a tanner. The matter was returned to a deed of gift formally proved and recorded in the Records Office. The episode is a small case study of how guardianship survived two intervening deaths and the practical insistence of the Council that a trade should be part of an orphan's formation. [Film No. 270-271]
Crime, punishment and social order
The criminal justice of the period was characterised by graded corporal punishment, public spectacle, and the use of branding and banishment as alternatives to execution. The trial of Michael Isaack on 7 October 1695 for drawing the powder from five guns of the line before Fort James, four demi-culverins and one twelve-pounder, is the most fully reported. The case rested on circumstantial evidence: the fact that the line had been loaded since 5 November the previous year, that the guns were found emptied on 6 April, that no ship had arrived in the interval to supply lawful powder, that powder horns and bags were found in Michael Isaack's chest at his father's house, that he had asked Corporal Shaples for two or three charges at Christmas claiming there was no powder in the house, and on conversations in prison reported by Charles Worrall in which Isaack appeared to acknowledge knowledge of one of the guns being emptied. The jury, having objected to and replaced certain initial members, returned a verdict of guilty of theft and treachery. The judge, Richard Kelinge, observed that he could lawfully impose the death penalty, but instead sentenced Isaack to twenty-one lashes at the gallows immediately, twelve lashes the following Saturday, and twelve lashes on the first Saturday of every month thereafter until a ship arrived to transport him to the East Indies, where he was to serve the Company for four years and then be permanently banished. The combination of repeated corporal punishment and ultimate transportation captures the period's preference for prolonged, visible discipline calibrated against the value of the offender as labour. The case also reveals that defensive ammunition was leaking out of Fort James for private use, a problem which the Council took to be of a piece with the broader question of unauthorised private possession of arms and powder, especially among soldiers. [Film No. 213-223]
The case of John Linninger in July 1696 illustrates the same approach in a religious register. Linninger, a Dutchman, was tried for blasphemy and attempted self-murder. He had repeatedly cursed Christ, called for the Bible to be burnt, and challenged God to send him to hell, where he claimed he would feel less pain. He had also placed a rope over a beam and around his neck while one of two midwives summoned for his wife's labour was watching. The jury found him guilty of blasphemy but not guilty of attempted self-murder, accepting Linninger's claim that the rope had been a jest and that he had really intended to mend a bed cord. He was sentenced to thirty-nine lashes immediately, branding on the forehead with the letter B as a scandalous blasphemer, and life banishment, to be held in custody until a ship arrived unless he could provide bail for his good behaviour. The graded jury verdict, recognising that intent for the second charge had not been proven, is striking. So too is the symmetric punishment of permanent visible stigma for blasphemy and permanent geographic exclusion from the island. The mechanisms of punishment, branding for an offence against the religious community, banishment for the social one, give physical form to two distinct categories of social belonging. [Film No. 279-281]
Corporal punishment was also routinely deployed against enslaved people in cases that would not, in the case of free settlers, have led even to a fine. Cheverley's slave received thirty lashes in 1693 for going without orders to Gentry's house, while Cheverley himself was acquitted on his own oath that he had given no such order. Peter, a slave of Charlestown, received forty lashes after the rumoured rising of September 1693; the slave belonging to Isaack, identified as the principal cause of raising a report of his sexual relations with Naomi, the future wife of Daniel Collier, received thirty-nine lashes at the gallows whether the report was true or false; the slave Jack of James Rider was tried for the death of William Birch and acquitted, but the inquest jury's initial finding had been against him on the basis of footprints alone. The system applied a much lower standard of proof and a much higher standard of punishment to enslaved persons, and its operation rested on a routine acceptance of physical mutilation that the records describe without any apparent disquiet. [Film No. 24, 71, 75]
Personalities
A handful of distinctive figures recur across the films and merit particular attention. Richard Kelinge or Keelinge, who governed throughout the period until his death in 1696, was a former captain whose hand on the records is steady and who is named in many of the most consequential decisions, from the disposal of Governor Blackmore's decayed goods on 20 July 1693 to the sentencing of the slave conspirators in December 1695. He governed alongside Captain Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor and effectively the Company's plantation manager, who is described as bringing Cape vignerons to attempt vine cultivation, dispatching armed parties to round up enslaved persons in the December 1695 alarm, and being granted, with his daughter, two young slaves at Company expense for domestic service. Poirier appears in the records as the practical executive on the ground, the man whom the Council instructed to issue orders for provisions to ships and at whose Plantation House meetings of inhabitants assembled. He outlived Keelinge, and the consultations of June and July 1696 are signed by him alone. [Film No. 59, 94, 200, 275]
Captain Robert Knox, whose ship Tonqueen carried the consultations of April to June 1693 to the Company in London, was the same Robert Knox who had spent nearly twenty years a captive in the kingdom of Kandy in Ceylon between 1660 and 1679 and who had subsequently published An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in 1681. He sat as an external assessor of the Jackson rebellion depositions on 22 June 1693 and accepted the banished Joseph Davis aboard his ship in July. The presence on St Helena of one of the most celebrated East India Company captains of the age is itself a small reminder that the island, however remote, was a node within an unusually well-connected commercial empire. [Film No. 33, 46]
Sergeant Henry Jackson stands at the centre of the records by virtue of the rebellion he led, his murder of Governor Joshua Johnson, and his successful escape with the Francis and Mary. Henry Frogg, the soldier who fired the fatal shot, and Thomas Gentry or Gaolery, who urged that hesitating recruits be confined or shot, are the other named principals. They embody a figure familiar to the colonial historian: the able, frustrated, garrison soldier whose grievance, partly economic and partly directed at distant authority, finds violent expression at a moment when an opportunity of escape with treasure and ship is at hand. Their trajectory, into the Atlantic and out of the records, is the trajectory of the small Atlantic pirate of the 1690s. The mocking remark attributed to Mrs Goodwin's slave Annah's testimony, that Will, slave of Berrian, intended to become governor in the 1695 plot, mirrors and parodies that earlier rebel ambition with which the record opens. [Film No. 12, 14, 231]
Among the women, Madam Johnson, the widow of the murdered Governor, appears repeatedly in the records, being dragged naked from her bed by the conspirators in 1693, sending her son Joshua aboard the Resolution in 1695, and lending her name to the supposed centre of the slave conspiracy. Mary Berry, said to have lived for twenty-eight years with Thomas Feusdale though both were married to others in England, and who was finally permitted to marry him after sworn declarations from John Hemen and Priscila Godsbery established that her first husband had remarried in Whites Yard near Rosemary Lane in London, encapsulates the difficulty of regulating long-distance marital status. The Council's frank concession that, if she returned to England, she would probably become a financial burden on the Company, gives a candid view of how moral and economic considerations were balanced in such cases. Elizabeth Suffolk, plaintiff and defendant by turns, twice convicted of defamation and once spared corporal punishment by claim of pregnancy, gives a vivid sense of the litigiousness of small settler society. Annah, slave of Thomas Goodwin, who set in motion the events of December 1695, is the figure whose name perhaps deserves to be remembered most among those whose actions shaped the period covered by these films. [Film No. 12, 102, 185-187, 178-179, 230]
Thomas Allis, finally, who was found non compos mentis on 7 April 1696, is recognisable to a modern reader as a man suffering from severe psychotic illness: the lily trees with stones being thrown from them, the great stone under which he believed his wife and Richard Leach were about to be married, the Governor and his lady refusing his punch. The court's decision to commit him to a keeper rather than punish him, and to dismiss the witchcraft case against Mrs Grandy on the basis that the accuser was without reason, displays an early modern English colonial jurisdiction reaching, at least once, a pragmatic medical conclusion about a mental state that less restrained authorities elsewhere had been prepared to read as evidence of supernatural agency. [Film No. 267-270]
Closing observations
Three threads run through this period and bind the disparate matters into a single history. The first is the constant pressure of distance and shipping. Almost every consequential decision was made provisionally, with the final word reserved for the Honourable Company in London, which could be reached only by the same ships that supplied the island and that occasionally carried away its rebels and its convicts. The second is the persistent shadow of the Jackson rebellion of April 1693, which set the tone for the regime that followed: the imposition of oaths of allegiance, the systematic re-organisation of defensive posts, the heightened sensitivity to whispered conspiracies, and the willingness to accept circumstantial evidence in cases that touched the security of the fort or the loyalty of the enslaved. The third is the relentless involvement of the East India Company, not as a distant proprietor but as the immediate landlord, employer, banker, slaveholder, prosecutor, supplier and creditor of every member of the settlement. The records show what it was for almost every aspect of life on St Helena to take place within the books of a single chartered corporation. [Film No. 11-291]
The records are not neutral. They were composed by the survivors of the rebellion, by their successors, and by the literate clerks of the Council, all of whom shared an interest in presenting their administration as orderly, lawful and providential. They preserve a great deal that is uncomfortable, including the matter-of-fact valuation of children of six and eight at three and five pounds, the staged whippings of slaves through Christmas of 1695, the routine corporal punishment of enslaved persons on a far lower standard of proof than was applied to free settlers, and the use of branding and forfeiture as instruments of social discipline. They preserve it because the Council found it useful to record. A reader more than three centuries later should not therefore mistake the candour of the record for an absence of bias. The greatest silences of these consultations are the voices of the enslaved themselves, glimpsed only in the testimony of Annah, in the confessions of Will and Jack, and in the small private statement of Hemp, slave of Richard Gurling, that Jack did not trust him because he might tell his master. From those few sentences, more than from the careful accounts of arrack and yams, one may begin to recover the world the records describe. [Film No. 230, 231, 239]
No | Page No. | OCR Transcription | Modern Summary with Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date St. Helena Records 1693 - 1696 Additional comments | ||
| Book cover | ||
| Blank page | ||
| Blank page | ||
| Enoster for firing a ship gun at Rookers & in the words ‘Grace Coustons widow whose husband was formerly executed 17 days missing from 91 to 108. Lewsdale being very sick confesses that his supposed wife is Fort house is very decayed. Timber for roofing very scarce on Proclamation of King William against Vice & prophaneness (lighting Jackson’s conspiracy. Hickison complaints of Rooker for saying Eliza Suffolk and Nancy Gale to be whipped on their naked bodies, Four of the Frenchmen who came over as Vineerons with No minister in the Island for near Eleven years - 210 Six French Men of War supposed to have sailed from Brest with | ||
| John Simmilly for using blasphemous words during his pain, Bemjamin Seale for saying Job Hothers (sic) in the late burial Bemjamin Seale keeps out of the way on the Sunday, Michael Isaac indicted for shearing the powder, out of The country alarmed by some noise conjectured to be Thunder - 226 Sandy Bay most dangerous for the landing of an Enemy - Conspiracy of Clarke discovered - “murder all the Eleven convicted, but three only sentenced to death, because Their sentence - Jack to be hung in chains alive at Ladder Hill | ||
| John Simmilly for using blasphemous words during his pains Bemjamin Seale for saying Job Hothers (sic) in the late burial Bemjamin Seale keeps out of the way on the Sunday Michael Isaac indicted for drawing the powder out of The country alarmed by some noise conjectured to be Thunder - 226 Sandy Bay most dangerous for the landing of an Enemy - Conspiracy of blacks discovered - to murder all the Eleven convicted - but three only sentenced to death, because Their sentence - Jack to be hung in chains alive at Ladder Hill “Ladder Hill” | ||
| Living suicide to be buried in a cross way with a stake thro Country Church of wood much decayed - one of stone to be Governor Keling suffering from a linering disease - 283 H. M. S. the St John with a packet for the Cape being too late John Simmilly receives 39 lashes & branded with B in the The roadways & publick paths of the Island - 291 Horse valley, Luffkins, Peak Butt & Five oaks named - 292 Building at Plantation burnt down - 274 | ||
| Blank page other than scrolls and a short list of names | ||
| Blank page | ||
| Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Mon: Present Rich[ar]d Keelinge Govr Wheras on Fryday last in the night. | A consultation was held on 24 April 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Stephen Pourier, Deputy. Events from the previous Friday night were examined. Jackson had been on guard as constable, accompanied by John Reynolds, James Newton, Richard Wakefield, Job Velem, and others. Additional accomplices had been involved, including a corporal named John [...], Prosser Bay, John Hammond, a soldier quartered at Bar[...], Mark Luke, described as an able gunner, and, by report, John Wemel and [...]. Two soldiers, George Stephen and Lancaster Thomas Willes, together with Nicholas Jameson, had not been on duty at the time. These men had placed themselves aboard the ship Francis and Mary, commanded by Captain Thomas Pitts, which had been bound for Angola from Hamburg. Isaac Lea[...] had also been involved, noted as a condemned prisoner for murder. Jackson had admitted these men into the fort to carry out their design. During the night, while the guard was at rest and all persons within the fort walls had gone to bed, the conspirators gathered and approached the guard one by one through a messenger. Each was asked whether he would join their scheme. Their stated intention had been to plunder the stores in the valley of all treasure found there, destroy the fortifications, imprison the Governor and Council along with any persons in the fort or valley who refused to support them, and then seize the ships lying in the road in order to escape. Those summoned individually had been questioned. When they refused to agree, they had been detained. In this manner, all persons within the fort walls had been imprisoned, except those in the Fort House outside the gate. | |
1 | [...] a Dungeon under ground being a secure place built on Haueing thus secured all in the night in the morning being | The imprisoned persons had been confined in an underground dungeon, a secure structure built to hold what were described as “villainous and desperate Blacks”. After all within the fort had been secured during the night, events moved quickly on the morning of Saturday. As soon as the drum had beaten, the Governor had come to deliver the keys, although the key of the fort had been withheld from him. He had then been seized by Jackson, John Bensley, Thomas Gentry, Henry Frogg, and other armed accomplices, who had taken hold of his gown and person. When he cried out and resisted, he had been struck three times on the head and badly wounded. He had then been dragged into the guard room and left there for about two or three hours in a grave condition. His wife had been compelled, with two or three other women, to bring him into her own chamber. The attackers had then entered the Fort House and secured all persons inside. Mr Johnson Heaton had stepped out into the dungeon. The Governor’s wife had been pulled naked from her bed and forced to carry her clothes under her arms into another room to dress herself. All routes leading into the country had then been secured to prevent any news from spreading. Every person in the valley had been imprisoned. As men arrived at the fort for relief duty, they had been seized and confined. Armed sentinels had guarded them. The conspirators had then moved against the Company’s property. The Company’s treasure had been taken. The guns had been discharged, those on Munden Mount and the point had been overturned, and their carriages had been thrown down the hill and broken. Prisoners had then been taken aboard the ship after provisions had been loaded. Among those detained were Edward Keeling, Mr John Lipson, Thomas Goodwin, and Richard Gunner. They had been held until Tuesday evening, when they had been allowed to return ashore. Upon landing, news had been received that the Governor had died from his wounds on Saturday evening. His death had caused deep distress across the island, as he had been regarded as a just and capable ruler. In response, it had been resolved that a jury of inquest should be impanelled to investigate the manner of the Governor’s death, which had been considered evident, and to determine whether any of the persons named should be held accountable for their involvement in the crime. Interpretations The reference to an underground dungeon built for “villainous and desperate Blacks” indicated a purpose-built facility for the confinement and control of enslaved or coerced labourers. Its mention revealed the existence of a formal system of incarceration used to manage resistance and enforce authority over a subordinated population. The seizure and withholding of the fort keys showed the central importance of physical control over access points in maintaining command authority. Possession of the keys had effectively determined control of the fort, allowing the conspirators to override established governance structures. The impanelling of a jury of inquest reflected a formal legal mechanism used to investigate deaths and assign responsibility. Its use here suggested that, despite the breakdown of order, institutional procedures were reasserted to establish accountability and restore lawful authority. The systematic securing of passes, imprisonment of arriving soldiers on relief duty, and guarding by armed sentinels demonstrated coordinated control over movement and communication. These measures showed an organised attempt to isolate the fort and valley, preventing resistance and consolidating the conspirators’ temporary authority. The destruction and disabling of artillery, including overturning guns and breaking their carriages, indicated a deliberate effort to neutralise the island’s defensive capability. This action removed the immediate threat of counterattack and reduced the capacity for organised military response. | |
2 | Accordingly It is ordered & appointed That Hen: Cole be as Coroner Edwd Dunnins foreman ---- one John Vernon further being sworn saith that on | Henry Cole had been appointed as coroner. Edward Dunnins had been named as foreman of the jury. The jurors had been listed as John Collegrave, John Grudge, John Long, John Nicholls, Samuel Faulcon, Sutton Isaack, Erasmus Burling, Thomas Goodwin, William Marsh, Thomas Nairne, John Fuller, and John Vernon. John Vernon, having been sworn, had given evidence concerning the events of Friday night between eleven and twelve. Sergeant Jackson had come to his chamber door within the fort and had woken him from sleep, asking to speak with him. Vernon had gone to him, and Jackson had invited him to his room to share a bottle of wine. Vernon had replied that he would first dress and then accompany him, which he had done. Upon arrival, he had found Sergeant Jackson together with Thomas Gentry and Henry Frogg. He had been asked whether he would be true to them. Vernon had responded that he would not commit without hearing particulars. They had then declared their intention, stating that they had a design in hand, namely to plunder the Company and escape with the ship. They had told him that if he joined them he would lack nothing. Vernon had refused to go along with them and had stated that he would not join their number. They had then said that he must be secured. In reply, Vernon had questioned their intent and had asked what they meant to do with their wives and children, urging them to abandon the plan. He had also assured them that he would not reveal what had been said. They had answered that they intended to take their wives and children with them and would secure the Interpretations The appointment of a coroner and a sworn jury demonstrated the formal activation of judicial procedures to investigate violent death. This structure placed responsibility for fact-finding in a recognised legal framework, reinforcing institutional authority after the disorder. The swearing of John Vernon before giving evidence indicated the legal requirement for testimony to be given under oath, binding the witness to truthfulness and exposing him to penalties for false statement. The promise made to Vernon that he “should not want any thing” if he joined them revealed an attempt to recruit support through the expectation of shared material gain. This reflected the central role of plunder as both motive and incentive within the conspiracy. The immediate decision to secure Vernon upon his refusal showed the coercive measures used to prevent disclosure. This action highlighted the conspirators’ concern with secrecy and their readiness to restrict personal liberty to protect their plan. Speculations The inclusion of wives and children in the intended escape suggested that the conspirators had anticipated a permanent departure rather than a temporary venture. This detail indicated that the plan had been conceived as a full relocation, perhaps to avoid pursuit or punishment. The use of wine to draw Vernon into conversation perhaps served as a calculated means to lower suspicion and create a controlled setting for recruitment. This approach suggested a deliberate strategy to test loyalty before revealing the full extent of the design. | |
3 | [...] Governr in the morning but would not him to have of J Stevens being sworne saith the Then the Jury withdrew and viewed the Island St Helena Aprill the 24th 1693 We whose names are hereunto affixed and were | Further evidence had been taken from those confined in the dungeon. John Vernon had continued his testimony, stating that he had been imprisoned there along with several others, both white and Black, who had refused to join the conspirators. During the morning, after the drum had beaten, he had heard the Fort House opened. A struggle had followed, which he had believed involved the Governor. Shortly after, the Governor’s cries of “O h h O h h” had been heard. A gunshot had then been fired. Soon after, those in the dungeon had concluded that the Governor had been killed. Not long later, Sergeant Jackson had brought Mr Solomon Heaton, who had informed them that the Governor had been shot. J. Stevens, having been sworn, had confirmed Vernon’s account. He had also stated that he had been placed in the dungeon in the same manner. He had added that the person who had shot the Governor had also wounded Jackson in the arm. A doctor had then been taken out to treat Jackson’s injury and had afterwards examined the Governor’s wounds, which had been three in number and situated near the temple. Stevens had further stated that he had asked Thomas Gentry who had fired the shot. Gentry had replied that Henry Frogg had done so, and that another of their party had also fired, but without any order. The jury had then withdrawn to view the body of Joshua Johnson, Esquire, late Governor of St Helena. After examination, they had returned their verdict in writing, signed by their hands on 24 April 1693, declaring that he had been wilfully Interpretations The confinement of both white and Black individuals who refused participation showed that the conspirators applied coercion across social groups when faced with resistance. This indicated that loyalty to the scheme, rather than status alone, determined treatment during the uprising. The doctor’s examination of the wounds demonstrated the use of medical inspection as part of evidentiary procedure. Such assessment contributed to establishing the manner and cause of death within a formal investigative framework. The jury’s withdrawal to view the body reflected a standard legal practice in cases of suspicious death. Direct inspection of the corpse formed a key part of the coroner’s inquest, enabling jurors to base their verdict on physical evidence as well as testimony. The attribution of the fatal shot to Henry Frogg, alongside the claim that another shot had been fired without orders, revealed both individual responsibility and a lack of strict command within the group. This suggested that actions within the conspiracy were not fully controlled, carrying legal implications for assigning culpability. | |
4 | Murdered by a shott Rec’d in his Face nere his Temple and wch Sutton Isaack Edwd Dunnins Foreman The above written is a True Verdict the Jury of Inquest Henry Coles Coroner Robt Pate Ra[?]ny[e] | The jury had concluded that Joshua Johnson, Esquire, Governor of St Helena, had been murdered by a gunshot received in the face near the temple. Witnesses had attested that the shot had been fired by Henry Frogg, a soldier and one of the rebels involved with Sergeant Henry Jackson. Together with other conspirators, they had surprised and seized Fort James and had plundered it on 22 April 1693. The jury had further determined that Sergeant Jackson and all soldiers acting with him, who had forced the Governor and followed Jackson’s direction, had been guilty of the murder committed. This judgement had extended responsibility beyond the individual who fired the shot to those who had participated under his command. The verdict had been signed by Sutton Isaack, Erasmus Burling, Thomas Goodwin, William Marsh, Thomas Nairne, John Fuller, Edward Dunnins as foreman, John Collegrave, John Mudge, John Long, John Nicholls, and Samuel Taylor. Henry Coles, acting as coroner, had certified that this had been the true verdict delivered to him by the jury of inquest. The record had also been attested by Robert Pate, clerk, and Ra[?]ny[e] Bai[r][?]. Interpretations The verdict explicitly identifying the death as murder established the highest category of unlawful killing within the legal framework. This classification carried severe penal consequences and framed the act as deliberate rather than accidental or spontaneous. The extension of guilt to Sergeant Henry Jackson and all soldiers acting under his direction reflected the application of collective liability. Responsibility had been assigned not only to the individual who fired the fatal shot but also to those who had participated in the organised assault under command, indicating the legal weight given to coordinated action and obedience within a rebellion. The formal certification by the coroner confirmed that the inquest had followed recognised judicial procedure. The coroner’s role ensured that the findings of the jury were officially recorded and could serve as the basis for further legal proceedings. The identification of the assault on Fort James and the plundering of Company property within the verdict linked the murder directly to acts of rebellion and theft. This connection framed the killing as part of a broader criminal enterprise, strengthening the case for treating the conspirators as engaged in a coordinated and unlawful insurrection. | |
5 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday Present Rich[ar]d Keelinge Govern Whereas att a Consultation Held for Orphans Accordingly It is Agreed & ordered That Indentures be made signed Sealed and Fra[n]ce Rodger planter petitioned to Govern | A consultation was held on 1 May 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Stephen Pourier, Deputy. Reference had been made to an earlier consultation concerning orphans held in March. At that time, it had been agreed that a young orphan should be placed with Brooker Smith, with the understanding that he would remain for one month on approval before being formally bound as an apprentice. On this day, the orphan had declared that he was satisfied with his master and his trade, and had requested to be bound to him as an apprentice for a term of six years. Brooker Smith had confirmed his willingness to take the orphan for that period, on condition that the Governor and Council would permit the sum of £5 0s 0d to be taken from the orphan’s stock to provide clothing, as the child had been described as almost naked. It had therefore been agreed and ordered that formal indentures should be drawn up, signed, sealed, and delivered. These had bound the orphan to serve Brooker Smith for six years in the manner of an apprentice. Brooker Smith had been required to teach him the trade of a blacksmith, as set out in the indentures. The sum of £5 0s 0d had been authorised to be taken from the orphan’s stock for his clothing. France Rodger, a planter, had then submitted a petition to the Governor and Council, stating that he was able and willing Interpretations The binding of the orphan through indentures reflected a formal legal mechanism by which labour, training, and maintenance were regulated. This arrangement transferred responsibility for the orphan’s upbringing and labour to the master while securing a fixed term of service. The requirement that funds be drawn from the orphan’s own stock to provide clothing showed that such resources were treated as managed property under official oversight. The Governor and Council had exercised authority in approving expenditure from these funds, indicating institutional control over orphan estates. The condition of a one-month trial before full binding suggested a probationary stage within apprenticeship arrangements. This allowed both parties to assess suitability before entering a legally binding commitment, reducing the risk of dispute or failure during the term. | |
6 | of private Sentinall desired that he might be Entertain’d It is ordered That Seeing that the Guards now are reduced only to Simon Whatley single man did likewise It is ordered That the said whatley’s Request be granted Charles Wornall, aged abt 22 years also Petitioned It is ordered That his Request be also granted his pay begining Whereas Information having bin given that Sr Who being asked what was the reason of his uttering | France Rodger, a planter, had submitted a petition requesting that he might be accepted as a private sentinel. His request had been granted, as the number of men in each guard had been reduced to ten. His pay had been ordered to begin on Tuesday 16 May 1693. Simon Whatley, described as a single man, had also petitioned to be received into the Honourable Company’s pay and service. His request had been granted, with his pay to begin from Thursday 11 May 1693. Charles Wornall, aged about 22 years, had likewise petitioned to be admitted into the Company’s pay and service. His request had been granted, with his pay commencing from that day, 1 May 1693. Information had then been presented that Sr [...] had spoken offensive words, namely that if he had been in the valley when Sergeant Jackson and his accomplices had escaped with the ships, he did not know but that he might have joined them. When questioned, he had admitted making the statement but had claimed that it had been spoken without thought and without any real intention behind it. Nevertheless, Interpretations The admission of multiple men into the Company’s pay and service indicated an active effort to restore and reinforce the island’s defensive capacity following the recent rebellion. The reduction of guards to ten men each suggested prior losses or restructuring, requiring new recruitment to maintain security. The formal recording of start dates for pay showed the administrative precision with which military service and remuneration were managed. Payment had been tied to specific dates of entry, ensuring clear accountability in Company finances. The examination of Sr [...] for disloyal speech demonstrated the monitoring of expressions of allegiance. Even a hypothetical statement of support for the rebels had been treated as a matter of concern, reflecting heightened sensitivity to dissent and the enforcement of loyalty after the uprising. | |
7 | It is ordered – That he be Immediately dismist out of the Honble Ra[?]ny[e] | It had been ordered that Sr [...] be immediately dismissed from the Honourable Company’s service. He had been forbidden to appear again at Fort James until a ship arrived in the road, at which time he was to leave the island. The order had been recorded by Ra[?]ny[e] Bai[r][?]. Interpretations The immediate dismissal from Company service showed the exercise of summary administrative authority over employment and discipline. No extended process had been recorded, indicating that removal could be enforced directly by order of the Governor and Council. The prohibition from entering Fort James until departure restricted the individual’s movement and access to the island’s administrative and military centre. This measure reduced the risk of further influence or disruption within the seat of authority. The requirement to leave the island upon the arrival of a ship demonstrated the use of transportation as a disciplinary outcome. Removal from the island functioned as a practical means of enforcing exclusion where continued residence was considered a threat to order. | |
8 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Rich[ar]d Keelinge Gover Whereas George Lock Isaac Slaughter and It is ordered That the said Criminals Executed on wednesday next It is Further ordered That on Consideration there is no person in this place It is also ordered | A consultation was held on 4 May 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Stephen Pourier, Deputy. George Lock, Isaac Slaughter, and Joseph Davis had, at the sessions held on 1 May 1693, been found guilty by a jury of twelve men of treason, murder, burglary, piracy, and robbery. Sentence of death had been passed upon them, to be carried out by hanging until dead. It had been ordered that these three men be executed on Wednesday 10 May 1693 in accordance with their sentence. A further order had addressed the absence of any person willing to act as executioner. It had been noted that Joseph Davis had been judged by the jury as the least guilty of the three, and that the jury had spoken on his behalf, recommending that his life be spared. On this basis, it had been directed that his life be preserved on condition that he carry out the execution of George Lock and Isaac Slaughter. It had also been ordered Interpretations The conviction for multiple offences, including treason and piracy, placed the accused within the highest category of criminal liability, combining offences against both local authority and maritime order. This classification justified the imposition of capital punishment. The specification of execution by hanging reflected the standard legal method for carrying out death sentences, reinforcing established penal practice within the island’s judicial system. The decision to spare Joseph Davis on condition that he act as executioner demonstrated a pragmatic adaptation to local constraints. In the absence of an official executioner, the authorities had converted a condemned prisoner into an instrument of punishment, linking clemency directly to service. The jury’s intervention on behalf of Joseph Davis indicated that its role extended beyond determining guilt to influencing sentencing outcomes. Their recommendation had shaped the final arrangement, showing that judicial discretion could be exercised collectively within the inquest framework. | |
9 | That on Monday the 15th Instant the goods and Ra[?]ny[e] | It had been further ordered that on Monday 15 May 1693 the goods and chattels formerly belonging to Henry Jackson, Thomas Gentry, and Henry Frogg, described as traitors, be sold at the Honourable Company’s plantation by public outcry. Their plantations had also been directed to be let to any person willing to take them, with public notice to be given in advance. The order had been recorded by Ra[?]ny[e] Bai[r][?]. Interpretations The sale of goods and chattels by public outcry indicated a formal process of liquidation through open auction. This method ensured visibility, competitive bidding, and the conversion of confiscated property into funds under Company control. The designation of the men as traitors provided the legal basis for the forfeiture of their property. Such classification allowed the authorities to seize and redistribute both movable goods and landed assets as part of the punishment. The letting of plantations to new occupants showed the administrative priority of maintaining productive use of land. Rather than leaving estates idle, they were reassigned to sustain economic output and revenue. The requirement for public notice reflected an organised administrative procedure, ensuring that potential bidders and tenants were informed. This supported transparency and maximised participation in the disposal and reassignment of property. | |
10 | Island S.t Helena At a Consultation held on Wednesday Present Rich.d Kelinge Governr Whereas a warr.t was Issued out directed Robert Addis and his wife Anne French | A consultation was held on 10 May 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. A warrant had been issued directing Edward Cotton, Henry Cales, and Orlando Bag[ ]y, planters, to seize, inventory, and appraise the goods and chattels of [...] Jackson, Thomas Gaolery, and others who had forfeited their estates to the Right Honourable Company by fleeing the island through acts of piracy. These men had carried out the order and had returned the inventory to the [...] office. They had also reported that a large quantity of goods belonging to Thomas Gaolery had been missing. Information had then been received that Anne, wife of Robert Addis, quarter gunner, Mary, wife of one French [...], and a slave belonging to John Cheverley, planter, had entered Gaolery’s house after his departure. Under the pretence that Gaolery had owed debts to their husbands, they had removed goods from the house. These persons, along with others as witnesses, had been summoned to appear before the Governor and Council on that day to answer the charges and to provide information concerning Robert Addis. Robert Addis, Anne French, and John Cheverley, together with his slave, had appeared as required. The wife of Robert Addis had not attended, stating that she was heavily pregnant and Interpretations The issuing of a warrant to named planters to inventory and appraise forfeited goods demonstrated the formal administrative process for converting confiscated property into accountable assets. This ensured that property seized after acts of piracy was systematically recorded and brought under Company control. The forfeiture of estates for those who fled the island by piracy showed the legal mechanism by which criminal conduct resulted in the loss of property rights. Such forfeiture transferred ownership directly to the Company, reinforcing its authority over land and goods. The allegation that goods had been removed under a claim of debt revealed a conflict between private claims and Company authority. Even if debts had existed, the removal of goods without authorisation challenged the Company’s exclusive right to administer and distribute forfeited property. The summoning of the accused and witnesses before the Governor and Council reflected the exercise of judicial and administrative authority in a combined forum. This setting allowed both investigation and immediate decision-making within the governing body. | |
11 | high her time she could not possi[b]ly make her appearance It was demanded of the said Abow if he had heard The said Abow with what to the best of his Mary the wife of one French being sworne Mary the wife of Orlando Bagley | Robert Addis had stated that his wife, being heavily pregnant, could not attend. He had declared that he would report what she had told him, as he had not been at home when she, described as very young, had gone to Thomas Gaolery’s house. She had told him that she, together with the wife of French, had taken five pewter dishes, six delft plates, a frying pan, and a spit. He had been questioned further as to whether he had heard his wife speak of these goods. He had answered, to the best of his recollection, that his wife had said that after she and the wife of French had carried the goods to their house, they had returned again to Gaolery’s house. There they had found Mrs Bagley and her son. John Cheverley’s slave had then come in. He had added that he did not know whether his wife had seen the said Doe upon her return. Mary, the wife of French, having been sworn, had stated that, hearing that Thomas Gaolery and his family had fled, she and Mr Abow had gone to his house to take goods in satisfaction of money owed to their husbands. They had taken five pewter dishes, two delft plates, a frying pan, and a spit, and had carried them away. They had then returned to the house. As they entered, Mrs Cheverley’s slave had also come and had asked where Gaolery was and to whom the goods belonged, though no answer had been given. She had said that she did not remember whether she had seen the said Doe at that time. Mrs Bagley and her son had then come there, and some discussion had taken place concerning the matter in the presence of Mr Gaolery’s [...]. Mary, the wife of Orlando Bagley, planter, having been sworn, had stated that Mr Luffkin had sent word permitting her son Dan and a slave to go to Thomas Gaolery’s house to fetch certain goods. These had been items which her husband had received as pledges from Gaolery aboard ship for money owed to him. Interpretations The taking of goods under a claim of debt showed an attempt by private individuals to assert creditor rights over the property of an absconded debtor. However, because Gaolery had forfeited his estate through piracy, such goods had legally fallen under Company control, making these actions unauthorised removals. The involvement of multiple households, including wives and a slave, indicated that property recovery or appropriation had extended beyond formal male authority figures. This reflected how domestic and dependent members could participate in, or be directed to carry out, claims over goods in practice. The reference to goods given as pledges aboard ship pointed to a system of informal credit and security. Items had been transferred as collateral against debt, suggesting that financial dealings extended across both land and maritime settings, with obligations recognised even after departure. The repeated return to the house by different parties showed the absence of immediate central control over forfeited property. This gap had allowed competing claims and opportunistic removal before full inventory and enforcement could be secured. | |
12 | Accordingly this Depon.t did not only p[er]mitt her said Edward Bagley being Sworne saith the John Cheverlee being Sworne saith yt upon a | Mary Bagley had stated that she had not only permitted her son and slave to go to Thomas Gaolery’s house, but had gone herself. There she had found Robert Addis’s wife and the wife of French. She had asked them whether they had been set as keepers of the house. They had replied that they had not, but that Gaolery owed them money and that they had come to repay themselves. She had advised them to leave the goods alone, warning that they might come into trouble, and she had said that they had followed her advice. Edward Bagley, having been sworn, had confirmed his mother’s account. He had added that as he left the house he had found, some distance away among trees, a bag containing a little [...]. He had stated that John Cheverley’s slave had taken from there a chest, a box, a pail, and two guns. John Cheverley, having been sworn, had stated that when news of the Barbados murder of the late Governor and the escape of several persons had reached the country, he had come down to the fort. He had ordered his slave to go to his father-in-law, John Lick. Upon returning home, his slave had told him that he had been at Gaolery’s house and had taken two pillows and a little [...] in satisfaction of money owed to him by Gaolery. Cheverley had stated that he had caused these items to be returned, which had then been seized by Dixon, Mr Cales, and Mr Bagley. He had further declared that he had given no order for his slave to go to Gaolery’s house and that he did not know where any other goods formerly belonging to Gaolery might be. Interpretations The warning given by Mary Bagley, and the compliance that followed, showed an awareness among participants that the removal of goods risked formal sanction. This reflected the recognised authority of Company law over forfeited property, even where private claims were asserted. The discovery of goods concealed away from the house indicated deliberate removal and possible concealment. This suggested that some individuals had attempted to appropriate property beyond immediate visibility, complicating the process of official recovery and inventory. The statement by John Cheverley that he had ordered the return of goods taken by his slave demonstrated the expectation that masters were responsible for the actions of those under their authority. His action to restore the items reflected an effort to avoid liability under Company enforcement. The seizure of returned goods by named officials showed the continuation of the formal process of recovery and control over forfeited estates. This reinforced the Company’s exclusive claim to such property, overriding private or informal claims of debt. Speculations The removal of goods under the claim of debt immediately after Gaolery’s flight suggests a rapid, opportunistic response to the sudden legal vacuum. Because forfeiture to the Company had not yet been fully enforced on the ground, individuals appear to have acted quickly to secure repayment before formal seizure closed off that possibility. The concealment of goods among trees, rather than within the house, implies an attempt to hide property from the expected inventory process. This indicates awareness that official recovery was imminent and that some participants acted to retain items outside formal scrutiny. Mary Bagley’s warning, and the others’ decision to stop, suggests that uncertainty about enforcement timing influenced behaviour. Once the risk of punishment became explicit, informal claims were abandoned, indicating that compliance depended less on ignorance of the law than on calculation of when it would be applied. | |
13 | Upon the whole It is ordered And That seeing the said Cheverlees slave went Ri[ch] Po[ ]inge | It had been ordered that Robert Addis and French should repay to the Right Honourable Company’s plantation the goods they had taken, as previously listed, by Friday next. No further punishment had been imposed, it having been judged that the goods had been taken through the inadvertence and weakness of their wives. It had also been ordered that, since John Cheverley’s slave had gone to Thomas Gaolery’s house without any order, as Cheverley had sworn, the slave should receive thirty lashes upon his naked body at the flagstaff and then be dismissed. The order had been recorded by Richard Po[ ]inge and [... ] Turner. Interpretations The requirement that Addis and French repay the goods rather than face harsher punishment showed a distinction between restitution and penal sanction. Where property could be recovered and intent was judged less severe, financial redress had been prioritised over corporal or criminal punishment. The attribution of fault to the “inadvertence and weakness” of the wives reflected a gendered mitigation within the decision. Responsibility had been reduced by framing the act as lacking deliberate intent, which influenced the leniency of the outcome. The corporal punishment of the slave at the flagstaff demonstrated the use of public physical discipline as an instrument of control. The location and method indicated that punishment was intended not only to penalise but also to serve as a visible warning to others. The acceptance of John Cheverley’s oath that he had not ordered his slave’s actions showed the legal weight given to sworn testimony in determining responsibility. This allowed liability to be separated between master and slave within the enforcement process. Speculations The decision to require repayment without further punishment for Addis and French suggests that the authorities prioritised the rapid recovery of Company property over extended legal proceedings. By resolving the matter through restitution, administrative efficiency and restoration of assets were perhaps treated as more valuable than punitive escalation. The harsher treatment of the slave, compared to the leniency shown to the wives, indicates a deliberate use of differential punishment to reinforce social hierarchy. The visible whipping at the flagstaff was perhaps intended to deter similar unauthorised actions among slaves while avoiding broader disruption among free settlers. | |
14 | Island S.t Helena At a Consultation held on Monday Present Rich.d Ke[li]nge Governr John Frith Sen.r Desired that he might have It is Agreed and ordered. That the said Frith shall have the Plantation Peter Williams desired also to have a It is ordered | A consultation was held on 15 May 1693 at the Right Honourable Company’s plantation on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. John Frith Senior had requested to hold, for a term of 21 years, a plantation and twenty acres of land formerly belonging to Mr Paulson Ditten, deceased. It had been agreed that he should have the plantation according to his request. He had been required to pay a yearly quit rent of [...] per annum to the Company before the due time. Full permission had been granted on these terms. At the end of the 21-year term, he had been required to leave the land as well fenced as it then stood, together with as many fruit trees as were already growing upon it. Peter Williams had also requested to hold a plantation and pasture land formerly belonging to Thomas Gaolery for a term of 21 years. It had been ordered Interpretations The grant of land for a fixed term in return for a yearly quit rent reflected a structured system of tenure under Company authority. Occupation had been conditional on regular payment, reinforcing the Company’s position as ultimate landlord. The requirement that the land be returned well fenced and with its fruit trees maintained showed that tenants were held responsible for preserving and sustaining the productive value of the property. This ensured continuity of agricultural output beyond the term of occupation. The reassignment of land previously belonging to deceased or forfeited individuals demonstrated the administrative redistribution of property. Control of land had been actively managed to prevent vacancy and to maintain economic use under Company oversight. Speculations The granting of long leases of 21 years suggests an effort to stabilise landholding after recent disruption caused by death and forfeiture. By offering secure tenure over a defined period, the authorities perhaps aimed to encourage investment in cultivation and maintenance. The requirement to preserve fencing and fruit trees indicates concern with the long-term condition of the land rather than short-term use. This suggests that the Company sought to prevent tenants from exploiting resources without regard to future productivity. | |
15 | That the said Williams Request be granted Michaell Isack Petitioned that It is ordered That the said Isaacks Request Ri[ch] Ke[li]nge Isaack Michll Entertained | It was ordered that Peter Williams’s request be granted. He was to pay to the Right Honourable Company an annual rent of £5 0s 0d for the land and the fruit growing upon it, in addition to the duties due to the Company. At the end of the 21-year term, he was required to return the land in as good condition as it then stood, both in the quantity of fruit and in the state of the fences. Authority was given for the agreement to be drawn accordingly. Michael Isaack petitioned to be received into the pay and service of the Right Honourable Company in the role of a private sentinel. It was ordered that his request be granted, with his pay to begin on 25 May 1693. The order was recorded by Richard Kelinge and [... ] Turner. Michael Isaack was entered into the Company’s service. Interpretations The requirement that Peter Williams pay both a fixed annual rent and additional duties showed a layered system of financial obligation. Rent secured the right to occupy the land, while duties represented further charges tied to production or Company regulation. The obligation to return the land with its fruit stock and fencing intact imposed a contractual duty to preserve the productive value of the property. This ensured that tenants could not diminish Company assets during their term. The formal drawing of an agreement indicated that such grants were structured legal arrangements. Written terms defined the conditions of tenure and enabled enforcement. The admission of Michael Isaack into service as a private sentinel reflected continued reinforcement of the island’s guard. The fixed date for the start of his pay ensured administrative clarity in both service and accounting. Speculations The combined requirement of rent, duties, and maintenance suggests that the Company aimed to secure steady income while protecting long-term productivity. This arrangement indicates a deliberate balance between immediate revenue and sustained value. The continued intake of sentinels at this point suggests that concerns over security remained active after the recent disturbances. The steady recruitment implies that strengthening the guard was treated as an ongoing necessity rather than a temporary measure. | |
16 | Island S.t Helena At a Consultation Held on Thurs- Present Rich.d Ke[li]nge Gov.r Traise Pledg[e]rd sold.r Petitioned It is ordered That the said Pledg[e]rds Request be granted he The said Pledg[e]rds and Gregory orchard his servant John Frith Sen.r Desired that he might a little | A consultation was held on 1 June 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Traise Pledger, a soldier, petitioned to become a tenant of the Right Honourable Company by renting ten acres of waste land at the head of Dry Gutt on the windward part of the island for a term of 21 years. It was ordered that his request be granted. He was to pay a rent of 4 shillings per acre, with the rent to begin on 24 June 1693. A lease was to be drawn accordingly. Traise Pledger and Gregory Orchard, his servant, jointly requested that a record be made cancelling Orchard’s indentures of apprenticeship. It was agreed that the indentures be cancelled from that day, on condition that Orchard pay to Pledger the sum of £11 0s 0d for the remaining portion of his term. The cancellation was formally recorded. John Frith Senior then requested that he might have a young Black girl belonging to the Right Honourable Company, aged about eight years Interpretations The grant of waste land on a fixed rent per acre showed the structured expansion of cultivated land under Company control. By leasing unused ground, the authorities encouraged settlement and agricultural development while securing revenue. The requirement that rent begin from a specified future date indicated alignment with an established rent cycle. This ensured consistency in accounting and collection across tenants. The cancellation of Gregory Orchard’s indenture upon payment demonstrated that apprenticeship terms could be commuted into a financial settlement. This reflected a recognised mechanism by which labour obligations could be converted into monetary value, releasing the servant from service. The joint consent of master and servant in cancelling the indenture showed that such agreements required mutual acknowledgement, but remained subject to formal recording. This ensured that changes in labour obligations were legally recognised and enforceable. Speculations The conversion of Orchard’s remaining service into a payment of £11 0s 0d suggests that both parties saw greater advantage in immediate financial settlement than continued labour. This may indicate either that Orchard had acquired sufficient means to buy his freedom, or that Pledger preferred liquid capital over the uncertain value of the remaining term. The leasing of land to a serving soldier implies an effort to tie military personnel more closely to the island through property interests. Granting land may have been intended to encourage longer-term settlement and stability among the garrison. | |
17 | It is ordered That the said Friths Request be granted he John Nicholls planter Desires that he It is ordered That the said Nicholls have the said Girle Ri[ch] Ke[li]nge | It was ordered that John Frith Senior’s request be granted. He was to pay to the Right Honourable Company the sum of £3 0s 0d for the young Black girl, aged about eight years. John Nicholls, a planter, requested to purchase a Black girl whom his mother-in-law, Mr Smout, had held on hire from the Company for several years. He also requested to continue the hire of two cows which his mother-in-law had likewise held for some time. It was ordered that Nicholls should have the girl for the sum of £0 15s 0d, with one year allowed for payment. A bill of sale was to be drawn accordingly. He was also granted the milk of the two cows on the same terms as Mr Smout had held them, at a rate of £2 0s 0d. The order was recorded by Richard Kelinge and [... ] Turner. Interpretations The sale of the girl by the Company showed the treatment of enslaved persons as transferable property under formal contract. The use of a bill of sale established legal ownership and ensured recognition of the transaction within Company records. The difference in price between the two girls indicates that valuation could vary significantly, perhaps reflecting age, condition, or perceived utility. Such variation shows that human property was assessed within a structured but flexible market framework. The allowance of one year for payment demonstrated the use of credit in transactions involving Company property. This arrangement enabled acquisition without immediate full payment, binding the purchaser to a future financial obligation. The continuation of cow hire under existing terms showed the stability of rental arrangements for livestock. By maintaining the same conditions, the Company ensured continuity of agricultural use while preserving its income stream. Speculations The lower price set for the girl purchased by John Nicholls, compared to that paid by John Frith Senior, suggests that her prior long-term hire by his family may have influenced the valuation. Familiarity with the individual may have reduced uncertainty and encouraged a favourable price. The grant of credit for the purchase indicates that the Company preferred to facilitate transactions rather than delay them for lack of immediate payment. This suggests an interest in securing long-term obligations and maintaining active economic circulation on the island. | |
18 | Island S.t Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Rich.d Ke[li]nge Gov.r Edward Edmunds and Sam.l Wrangham It is ordered That Record be made thereof James Rider and the sd Sam.l Wrangham It is ordered That Record be made thereof accordingly. | A consultation was held on 8 June 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Edward Edmunds and Samuel Wrangham, executors to the last will and testament of John Canning, late of the island and a planter, produced his will for probate. John Lispen, Henry Francis, Edward Suffolk, and Elizabeth his wife made oath that the document presented was the true last will and testament of John Canning and that no later will existed to their knowledge. It was ordered that the will be recorded accordingly. James Rider and the said Samuel Wrangham, acting as executors to one Price, also lately deceased and a planter of the island, brought forward his will, which had been found in his chest after his death. Two witnesses made oath to its validity. It was ordered that this will also be recorded. Interpretations The proving of wills through sworn testimony demonstrated the formal legal process by which testamentary documents were validated. Witnesses confirmed authenticity and finality, ensuring that property could be distributed according to recognised legal authority. The role of executors showed the structured administration of estates after death. Executors were responsible for presenting the will, securing its recognition, and carrying out its provisions under official oversight. The recording of wills by order of the Governor and Council indicated that probate functioned within the island’s central governing body. This ensured that transfers of property were formally entered into the administrative record. The discovery of Price’s will in his chest and its acceptance upon sworn evidence showed that custody of the document did not invalidate it. What mattered was the verification by witnesses, reinforcing the evidentiary basis of probate practice. Speculations The reliance on multiple witnesses to confirm that no later will existed suggests concern over potential disputes or competing claims. This indicates that the authorities sought to prevent challenges by establishing clear finality at the point of probate. The presentation of wills soon after death implies a prompt effort to regularise estates, perhaps to avoid uncertainty over property rights. This suggests that maintaining continuity in landholding and asset control was treated as an administrative priority. | |
19 | Whereas there was an agreem.t made at It is ordered That the said Rich.d A[le]xander doe Dwell John Luffkin & Peter Wills for ye last It is ordered That Tho.r Hayes and James Rider be appointed And That John Cheverlee and John Fripse be It is further ordered | Reference was made to an agreement concluded at the end of March 1693 with William Price concerning the care of Richard Alexander’s orphan for a term of four years. As Price had died before he could perform this agreement, it was ordered that Richard Alexander should live with James Rider, one of Price’s executors, until the year expired, under the same conditions as had been agreed with Price. It was also ordered that Price’s executors should place into the orphan’s stock the sum of £9 12s 0d, which Price had owed to the orphan for goods previously received. John Luffkin and Peter Wills, who had served as overseers of the highways in the previous year, together with John Nicholls and Traise Pledger for the current year, presented before the Governor and Council the persons chosen at the church in the country by majority vote to serve as parish officers for the present year. It was ordered that Thomas Hayes and James Rider be appointed churchwardens for the year 1693. They were to receive all utensils belonging to the former churchwardens and to give receipt for them. It was also ordered that John Cheverley and John Fripse be appointed overseers of the highways for the year 1693. Warrants were to be issued to them for the execution of their office. It was further ordered Interpretations The continuation of the orphan’s placement under the same terms after William Price’s death showed that such agreements were treated as binding obligations that survived the death of the original party. Responsibility passed to the executor, ensuring continuity of care and service. The requirement that Price’s executors pay £9 12s 0d into the orphan’s stock demonstrated that debts owed to an orphan formed part of the estate’s liabilities. The orphan’s stock functioned as a managed fund, protected and enforced through official authority. The selection of parish officers by majority vote at the church indicated a local participatory element within the island’s administrative structure. However, final authority remained with the Governor and Council, who confirmed appointments. The appointment of churchwardens and the transfer of utensils under receipt showed formal accountability in the management of church property. This ensured that communal assets were documented and preserved across successive officeholders. The issuing of warrants to overseers of highways reflected the formal delegation of authority to enforce labour and maintenance obligations on public infrastructure. This role carried legal backing to compel compliance. Speculations The transfer of Richard Alexander’s orphan to James Rider on the same terms suggests that the authorities prioritised continuity over renegotiation. This implies that stability in labour and care arrangements was considered more important than adjusting terms after the death of the original contractor. The requirement for executors to settle the debt into the orphan’s stock indicates an effort to safeguard vulnerable dependants from loss through death of a debtor. This suggests a deliberate mechanism to prevent erosion of minor estates within the Company’s jurisdiction. The confirmation of parish officers chosen by local vote suggests a balance between community selection and central oversight. This arrangement implies that the Company sought to maintain local participation while retaining ultimate control over appointments. | |
20 | That both the Churchwardens & overseers The said Luffkin, and Wills Churchwardens Whereas M.r John Luffkin and [... ] Rippin wills And W.m Phillips Gunn.r Desired that Record It is ordered | It was ordered that both the churchwardens and the overseers elected for the year 1693 be sworn to perform their offices faithfully as parish officers. This was carried out. John Luffkin and Rippin Wills, churchwardens for the previous year, delivered the warrants issued to them by the Governor and Council for the collection of head money. They also presented their account, which showed that they had received £12 7s 0d under those warrants and had spent £20 0s 0d on repairs to the church in the country, which had been in great need. The account was examined and approved, and they were discharged from their office. A formal certificate was issued confirming that John Luffkin and Rippin Wills had completed their accounts and had delivered the church utensils to James Rider and William Hayes, the newly appointed churchwardens. This certificate discharged them from all responsibilities connected with the church and from their office as churchwardens, dated 8 June 1693 and signed by Richard Kelinge and J. Poirier. William Phillips, a gunner, requested that a record be made of an agreement between himself and John Lick, a planter, for John Lick to keep Elizabeth Sterling, the daughter of his late wife. It was ordered Interpretations The swearing of parish officers formalised their duties under oath, binding them to proper conduct in office. This established accountability and reinforced the legal authority attached to their roles. The collection of head money under warrant showed a structured system of local taxation. Funds raised in this way were applied to communal needs, such as the repair of the church, demonstrating organised financial management at parish level. The approval of accounts and discharge from office reflected a formal auditing process. Officeholders were required to account for funds and property before being released from responsibility, ensuring oversight and continuity. The transfer of church utensils under receipt indicated careful management of communal property. This process ensured that assets were preserved and properly accounted for between successive officeholders. The request to record an agreement for the care of Elizabeth Sterling showed that private arrangements concerning dependants were formalised through official record. This provided legal recognition and enforceability. Speculations The deficit between the amount collected (£12 7s 0d) and the amount spent (£20 0s 0d) suggests that the churchwardens either advanced funds themselves or drew on additional resources to complete urgent repairs. This indicates that maintaining the church was treated as an immediate priority, even beyond available revenue. The formal discharge issued to the outgoing churchwardens implies a need to protect them from future claims or disputes. This suggests that financial accountability in parish office carried potential risk, making official clearance an important safeguard. | |
21 | That his Desire be granted which is as followeth Ri[ch] Ke[li]nge | It was ordered that the request be granted on the following terms. John Lick was to keep Elizabeth Sterling with sufficient food and clothing for a term of six years, unless she married before that time. During this period, Elizabeth Sterling was to serve John Lick as a servant and perform work within the house. She was not to be sent to labour in the plantation or to undertake other heavy work. He was also required to ensure that she was taught needlework and reading. The order was recorded by Richard Kelinge and [... ] Turner. Interpretations The arrangement placed Elizabeth Sterling in a form of regulated service that combined maintenance with labour obligations. Her service was tied to a fixed term but could be ended earlier by marriage, indicating that marital status altered her legal and social position. The restriction against plantation labour distinguished between types of work assigned to dependants. Indoor service and skill training were treated as appropriate, while field labour was explicitly prohibited, reflecting a controlled allocation of labour based on status or expectation. The requirement that she be taught needlework and reading imposed a duty of instruction on John Lick. This showed that such agreements could include elements of training and upbringing, not solely labour extraction. The provision of food and clothing as part of the agreement demonstrated that maintenance was a formal obligation. This ensured that the dependent was supported materially in return for her service. Speculations The prohibition on sending Elizabeth Sterling to plantation labour suggests an intention to shape her future role within a domestic rather than agricultural setting. This indicates that her placement was designed not only for immediate service but also for longer-term social positioning. The inclusion of instruction in reading and needlework implies that her upbringing was being directed toward a particular standard of behaviour and skill. This suggests that the arrangement functioned partly as a controlled form of guardianship, preparing her for a specific social or economic role. | |
22 | Island S.t Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Rich.d Ke[li]nge Gov.r Capt. Rob.t Knox Comand[er] and Cheife mate of the Capt. W.m Price Comand[er] and Officers belonging to John Stevens Chirurgeon on the said Island deposeth | A consultation was held on 22 June 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena for the taking of depositions concerning the treasonable rebellion carried out on 20 April 1693. Richard Kelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor. Also present were Captain Robert Knox, commander and chief mate of the merchant Thearston Tongeveen, Captain William Price and officers belonging to Mr John Sta[...]ton’s ship Orange, as were at the Cape, and Mr Samuel Allen, late merchant of the ship Diana, Captain Thomas Mayhue commander. John Stevens, surgeon on the island, gave his sworn testimony. On Friday night, 21 April 1693, shortly after he had fallen asleep, Henry Jackson, then sergeant of the guard, came to his window and woke him. Jackson asked him to come and drink part of a bottle of wine. Stevens at first declined, but after repeated urging went with him to the room known as the sergeant’s room. There Jackson told him that he had no real desire for his company. Stevens questioned why he had been summoned. Jackson replied that they had something to say. He then declared that they intended to seize a ship, take the treasure on the island, and escape with it, and that Stevens should go with them. Stevens refused. Jackson then told him that he was a dead man, as they needed a man of his kind. Thomas Gaolery then told Jackson to send him to prison. Stevens asked leave to return to his room to dress, which was granted. Jackson, Gaolery, Matthews, Hill, and others went with him. As Stevens attempted to take his sword, Jackson noticed and accused him of intending to resist. He seized him and pulled him away to be immediately placed in prison. Interpretations The formal taking of depositions in the presence of senior officials and ship officers showed a structured judicial inquiry into the rebellion. The inclusion of external maritime figures suggests an effort to establish authoritative and widely recognised testimony. The use of sworn testimony by John Stevens placed his account within a legal framework where truthfulness was formally bound. This ensured that his evidence could be relied upon in further proceedings. The attempt to recruit Stevens through a private summons and controlled setting indicated a deliberate method of testing loyalty before revealing the conspiracy. The setting allowed the conspirators to assess his response while limiting exposure. The immediate imprisonment of Stevens after refusal demonstrated the enforcement of secrecy within the conspiracy. Those unwilling to join were restrained to prevent disclosure and to maintain control over the unfolding plan. Speculations The insistence that Stevens join the conspiracy, coupled with the threat that he was “a dead man”, suggests that his professional role as surgeon was considered valuable to the group. This implies that the conspirators anticipated the need for medical skill during their escape or in managing potential injuries. The escorting of Stevens back to his room by multiple conspirators indicates concern that he might resist or raise alarm. This suggests that once the plan was disclosed, the conspirators treated refusal as an immediate security risk requiring close control. | |
23 | I found M.r Vernon Tho. Ganger and others in the morning John Stevens And Roo[ ]er am.e and Smith on the said | John Stevens continued his sworn testimony. At daybreak he found Mr Vernon, Thomas Ganger, and others in the dungeon. Soon after, a loud trampling was heard at the head of the stairs, followed by a voice which he believed to be the Governor crying “oh, oh, oh”. Two gunshots were then fired. Shortly afterwards, Mr Solomon Heaton was brought into the dungeon and reported that the Governor was mortally wounded. Not long after, Stevens was called out of prison to dress Henry Jackson’s arm, which had been wounded by one of the shots that struck the Governor. He asked permission to attend the Governor, but this was refused. About two hours later he was allowed, together with Madame Johnson, to go to him. The Governor was found lying in blood in the guard room. Stevens, Madame Johnson, a Black servant, and another person carried him upstairs and laid him on his bed. Upon examination, three wounds were found about the temple, which were judged mortal. Later that afternoon Stevens spoke with Thomas Ga[...]ry in the hall and asked who had shot the Governor. He was told that it was probably Henry Toog. He also heard that Jackson, Ga[...]ry, and Isaac Rhuyster had entered the Governor’s closet, taken a chest of money, and carried it out of the house, after which it was conveyed aboard ship. He further observed George Cock and Thomas Willes go up the hill to Munden Mount to dismount the guns. Captain Kelinge, Captain Fitts, Thomas Goodwin, John Luffkin, and Richard Gurlinge were then taken aboard as prisoners. Roo[...]er Ame and Smith, also of the island, gave sworn testimony. He stated that on Friday night he had lodged with Thomas Goodwin. Early on Saturday 22 April 1693, Captain Fitts came and called for him and Goodwin to go aboard, as had been agreed the previous night. As they went toward the fort they met Richard Gurling and John Alexander, and all entered together. They were immediately surrounded by Henry Jackson, Thomas Ga[...]ry, Henry Toog, and others, who demanded that they surrender or be killed. Jackson discharged his fusee at him, and Toog stabbed him in the breast, while another struck him in the buttock, which ma[...] Interpretations The summoning of Stevens to treat Jackson while denying him access to the Governor showed the selective use of medical care. Treatment was prioritised for members of the conspiracy, while access to the Governor was controlled, indicating both practical need and intentional restriction. The removal of the chest of money from the Governor’s closet demonstrated a targeted seizure of concentrated wealth. This action showed that the conspirators acted with knowledge of where valuable assets were kept within the fort. The disabling of guns at Munden Mount indicated a deliberate effort to neutralise the island’s defensive positions. By rendering the artillery unusable, the conspirators reduced the risk of resistance or counterattack. The forced conveyance of named individuals aboard ship as prisoners showed the consolidation of control over key persons. These detentions removed potential opposition and secured leverage during the attempted escape. The coordinated threat and immediate violence used upon entry into the fort reflected organised enforcement within the conspiracy. The use of firearms and blades demonstrated readiness to compel submission through force. Speculations The refusal to allow Stevens immediate access to the Governor, while requiring him to treat Jackson, suggests that the conspirators prioritised preserving their own operational strength over the life of the Governor. This indicates a calculated allocation of scarce medical assistance. The rapid removal of money from the Governor’s closet implies prior knowledge of its location, suggesting that at least some members of the conspiracy were familiar with the internal arrangements of the fort. This points to planning based on insider awareness rather than opportunistic looting alone. The simultaneous disabling of artillery and seizure of prisoners suggests coordinated action across multiple objectives. This indicates that the conspirators aimed to secure both material resources and strategic control in a single, organised operation. | |
24 | him[se]lf out quarter for the Lord sake quarter then said Tho.r Ganger Thom.s Ganger being sworne saith that on Tho. Ganger Rich.d Gurling being sworne saith that | The same deponent stated that, fearing for his life, he begged for quarter. Jackson ordered that he be removed from his sight. As he moved towards the mouth of the dungeon, he saw blood and cried out that blood had already been shed. Jackson then came at him with his fusee raised to strike him, which forced him to leap into the dungeon. There he learned that the Governor had been wounded and that the blood he had seen had come from Jackson’s arm. Thomas Ganger, having been sworn, stated that on Friday night, 21 April 1693, at about ten o’clock, he had intended to go to sleep, but Sergeant Jackson told him to stay and drink. After a short time, Jackson told him that they had a design that night to seize the ship, plunder the garrison, and carry away whatever treasure could be found, and that he would share equally if he joined them. Ganger refused. Thomas Gaolery then offered that if he wished for a young woman on the island, one would be brought and taken aboard with him. Ganger again refused. Gaolery then said he must go to the dungeon. Instead, he was kept for about an hour among them on the west mount to increase their apparent number and encourage others to join, before being confined. In the morning, he heard two small shots and believed the Governor had been killed. Later, about two or three in the afternoon, Gaolery called him out and told him that all would be forgiven if he would now join them. Richard Gurling, having been sworn, stated that on the morning of 22 April 1693 he went to the fort early with Captain Fitts, Thomas Goodwin, Rooker, and Hugh Bodley. As soon as they entered, Sergeant Jackson stepped before them with a fusee in his hand and demanded that they halt and surrender themselves. Interpretations The plea for quarter and the threat of immediate violence showed that the conspirators exercised control through both intimidation and physical force. The readiness to strike with a weapon indicated that compliance was enforced at once. The temporary retention of Thomas Ganger among the conspirators before imprisonment demonstrated a tactic to increase visible numbers. This created the appearance of broader support, encouraging others to join by impression rather than actual strength. The offer of material reward and access to women as inducements revealed multiple methods of recruitment. Incentives combined promises of wealth and personal advantage to secure participation. The later offer to forgive Ganger if he joined showed that recruitment remained active even after initial refusal. This indicated that the conspirators continued to seek to expand their numbers as the situation developed. The confrontation at the fort entrance, with armed demand for surrender, reflected organised control over access. Entry into the fort was immediately converted into detention, securing key individuals at the outset. Speculations The use of Ganger to bolster numbers before his imprisonment suggests that the conspirators were conscious of the importance of perceived strength. This implies that early success depended not only on force but on convincing others that resistance would be futile. The repeated attempts to recruit those who refused, even after confinement, indicate that the conspirators faced uncertainty about their numbers. This suggests that their plan relied on continual expansion rather than a fixed, fully committed group at the outset. The combination of threats, rewards, and staged displays of strength points to a flexible strategy of control. This suggests that the conspirators adapted their approach depending on the response of each individual, rather than relying on a single method of enforcement. | |
25 | Prisoners or Else you are all Dead men, Jackson came to Rich.d Gurling Elizabeth the wife of John Luffkin Sworne | Richard Gurling continued his sworn testimony. Upon entering the fort, Sergeant Jackson had threatened that all must surrender or be killed. When Gurling asked what the matter was, Jackson replied that he would kill him as readily as any other man, despite being his father-in-law, having married Gurling’s daughter-in-law. Gurling was then immediately placed in prison until the evening. He was later called out and ordered to go aboard ship. At first he refused, but, fearing that he would die if kept in the crowded prison overnight, he agreed. He was taken aboard together with Captain Kelinge, Captain Fitts, Thomas Goodwin, and John Luffkin. While aboard, Jackson spoke privately with Gurling and asked his advice. Gurling replied that he could give none. Jackson then stated that he would go wherever Captain Fitts chose. He also said that he, John Wensley, and Robert Pickgood would remain together and would subdue Thomas Ga[...]ry and his family ashore at Cape Verde. Gurling further stated that Captain Fitts wept and asked to be allowed to go ashore, but Jackson refused, assuring him that no harm would come to him and that he would stand by him. Gurling also heard Captain Fitts suggest that they should sail to the Cape of Virginia and, as they encountered ships outward bound, divide them among their company. Elizabeth, the wife of John Luffkin, having been sworn, stated that on 22 April 1693 Stephen Lancaster, Henry Toog, and Matthew Hill came to her house in the valley. Hill told her that the Governor wished to speak with her, while Lancaster said she must attend his wedding. She replied that he was not dressed as a bridegroom, noting his sword and pistol. He answered that it was the best dress for that day’s work, which caused her great fear. As she was taken toward the fort, Lancaster swore that there was a fine galley. Upon arrival, she was taken to prison. She further stated that she saw Captain Fitts and Jackson speaking together. Interpretations The threat made by Jackson against his own relation showed that personal ties were set aside in favour of the conspiracy. This indicated that allegiance to the group overrode familial obligations. The overcrowded prison conditions described by Gurling revealed the physical constraints used to compel compliance. Confinement in a small space with many prisoners created pressure that influenced decisions, such as agreeing to be taken aboard. The discussion aboard ship concerning destinations and actions showed that plans for escape and further activity were actively considered after the seizure of the fort. The naming of Cape Verde and the Cape of Virginia indicated intended routes and objectives. The use of deception to bring Elizabeth Luffkin from her house, under the pretence of the Governor’s summons or a wedding, demonstrated a method of securing individuals without immediate resistance. This reflected controlled manipulation of information to achieve compliance. The presence of arms and the language used by Lancaster showed that the conspirators openly displayed force as part of their control. This reinforced authority and heightened fear among those they detained. Speculations The pressure of confinement described by Gurling suggests that the conspirators relied on physical conditions, as well as direct threats, to break resistance. This indicates that imprisonment itself was used as an active tool of coercion rather than simple detention. The discussion of multiple possible destinations, including Cape Verde and the Cape of Virginia, suggests that the conspirators had not fixed a single escape plan. This implies that they intended to decide their course based on opportunity once at sea. The deception used to bring Elizabeth Luffkin to the fort suggests that the conspirators sought to avoid raising alarm in the valley. This indicates a concern with maintaining control over information as well as over persons. | |
26 | And that Fitts sd come Life or some Death he would not Eliz.th Luffkin John Luffkin sworne saith that on the 22.th John Luffkin | Elizabeth Luffkin continued her sworn testimony. She stated that Captain Fitts had declared that, come life or death, he would not go with the conspirators and that they must kill him first. She was later allowed to walk within the fort, where she saw some of the men bringing powder out of the powder room with the intention of blowing up the prisoners in the dungeon. A fire stick had been brought from the valley for that purpose. Jackson prevented this, stating that they had other matters to attend to, and he locked the powder room door. She also heard Henry Toog ask for Elizabeth James, saying that she should go with him. John Luffkin, having been sworn, stated that on 22 April 1693 Thomas Willes came to him in the town and told him that the Governor wished to speak with him. He went at once to the fort, where Jackson confronted him with a fusee held to his breast and declared him a prisoner, warning that resistance would bring death but compliance would ensure his safety. Luffkin was placed in the dungeon until evening, then brought out and taken aboard ship with Captain Kelinge, Captain Fitts, Thomas Goodwin, and Richard Gurling as prisoners. Once aboard, John Wensley stood guard over them in the great cabin, where firearms lay nearby, unloaded. As Luffkin attempted to move them aside, Wensley rushed at him and threatened to shoot, mishandling the weapon. He nearly fired but was stopped before doing so. Luffkin further stated that Captain Fitts wept repeatedly before Jackson, who urged him to remain calm and assured him of protection. Fitts asked Captain Kelinge to provide a written statement to show elsewhere that he had been forced from the island, so that he might clear himself. This was granted. Interpretations The attempt to use gunpowder to destroy the prisoners in the dungeon showed the potential escalation of violence within the conspiracy. The plan, though not carried out, indicated that extreme measures were considered as a means of eliminating opposition. Jackson’s intervention to stop the use of powder demonstrated the presence of internal control within the group. Authority was exercised to prevent actions that might have disrupted their broader objectives. The repeated use of deception to bring individuals to the fort under false pretences revealed a consistent method of securing prisoners without resistance. This reflected a reliance on controlled information rather than open force at the point of capture. The handling of firearms aboard ship showed both access to weapons and the risks of their misuse. The near discharge by Wensley indicated a lack of discipline that could have had serious consequences even for the conspirators themselves. The request for a written statement by Captain Fitts showed awareness of the legal implications of being taken from the island. Such a document would serve as protection against accusations of voluntary participation. Speculations The abandoned plan to blow up the prisoners suggests that divisions existed within the conspirators over how far to proceed with violence. Jackson’s decision to stop it indicates that maintaining control and completing the escape took priority over acts of destruction that might have endangered their success. The promise made to Captain Fitts, combined with his request for written proof of coercion, suggests that the conspirators recognised the need to secure cooperation from skilled or important individuals while also managing the risk of later accountability. This indicates a pragmatic balance between coercion and reassurance. The request for Elizabeth James to be taken along suggests that the conspirators intended to carry selected individuals with them beyond those already imprisoned. This implies that their departure was planned as a broader removal of people as well as goods, rather than a simple flight. | |
27 | Philip Dorancour being Sworne saith that Philip Dorancour James Rider being sworne saith that | Philip Dorancour, having been sworn, stated that on Saturday 22 April 1693 he came down to the fort to mount guard. Upon entering, he met Thomas Gaolery, Matthew Hill, and others, who asked whether he would go off in the ship. He answered yes under pressure, as he had previously asked the Governor for leave to depart. They then told him of their design to seize the ship and carry away whatever treasure they could obtain on the island, and informed him that the Governor was badly wounded. He was also told that if any among them proved disloyal, they would be killed at once, which caused him to comply out of fear. He was then placed as a sentry, armed with sword and pistol, over Madame Johnson in her chamber, with strict orders on pain of death not to allow her to remove anything. While there, he wept and urged her to take away what she could with speed. He also directed a Black boy to obtain the key to Captain Fitts’s chest and remove the treasure within, which was done. Shortly afterwards, Doctor Stevens came to attend the Governor. Dorancour appealed to him and asked his advice. Stevens advised him to escape into the country and raise the alarm, informing others of what had occurred. Dorancour attempted this two or three times before finding an opportunity. James Rider, having been sworn, stated that on the morning of 22 April 1693 he came early to the fort. As he entered the sally port, James Henston, who stood as sentry, called for the sergeant. Seeing Jackson approach with a drawn sword, Rider attempted to withdraw, but Henston pushed him forward. Jackson struck at him, which he parried, and he then moved inside as if to run him through. At that moment, Lightfoot and another levelled their fusees, one snapping as if to fire, and demanded that he yield or be killed. Rider surrendered, and at Lightfoot’s urging his life was spared. He was then placed in the dungeon. Interpretations The coercion of Philip Dorancour into agreement showed that declarations of consent could be extracted under threat. His compliance did not reflect voluntary support but immediate fear of violence. The assignment of Dorancour as an armed sentry over Madame Johnson demonstrated the use of controlled supervision to prevent removal of goods. Guard duty was used to enforce both confinement and protection of property. The instruction to seize goods from Captain Fitts’s chest revealed that prisoners’ possessions were also targeted. The removal of such items showed that confiscation extended beyond Company stores to private property. The advice given by Doctor Stevens to escape and raise alarm indicated that resistance continued in concealed form. Communication with the wider population was seen as a means to counter the conspirators’ control. The confrontation at the sally port showed a structured method of intercepting arrivals. Individuals entering the fort were immediately challenged, disarmed, and forced into submission, securing control at the point of entry. Speculations Dorancour’s actions, both complying under threat and secretly encouraging Madame Johnson to remove goods, suggest divided allegiance under coercion. This indicates that some individuals outwardly obeyed while covertly acting against the conspirators when opportunity allowed. The attempt to escape and raise alarm implies that the conspirators’ control over the island was incomplete beyond the fort. This suggests that their success depended on preventing communication with the wider population rather than on total control. The immediate interception of arrivals at the sally port suggests that the conspirators anticipated reinforcement or resistance from those coming to duty. This indicates that controlling access points was a deliberate measure to secure the fort at an early stage of the rebellion. | |
28 | The Deposition of Thom.s Goodwin Saith on Saturday the 22.th Day of Aprill 1693 | Thomas Goodwin, having been sworn, stated that early on Saturday 22 April 1693, while at his house in Chapel Valley Town, he heard Thomas Garsty, or a person of similar name, say to Mr Rooker, who had lodged with him, that their company had been made use of, referring to the lieutenant of the guard. Shortly after, Captain Thomas Fitts, commander of the ship Brabeis, came with others then in the road and called for him to go aboard, as had been agreed the night before. Goodwin went with Andrew Rooker, and on the way to the fort they met Hugh Bodley and Richard Gurling. They all went together towards the waterside, intending to bring the boats ashore and to pass through the fort as usual. As soon as they had entered the fort, Sergeant Jackson stepped out before them from his room with a cocked fusee and ordered them to stand and surrender as prisoners or be killed. Goodwin at first thought Jackson had been drinking and moved to seize him, but saw several others behind them making the same threat. They added that their design was not to harm them but to take the ship and depart. All except Captain Fitts were taken to the dungeon. At the entrance to the dungeon there was much blood, which caused Andrew Rooker to cry out that blood had already been shed. Inside, they found several persons who said that the Governor had been killed or badly wounded. As more people arrived at the fort, the number of prisoners increased until the dungeon became so crowded that they were nearly suffocated by the heat. Around sunset, Goodwin, Mr Luffkin, and Richard Gurling were taken out, where they found Captain Kelinge and Captain Fitts. The five were then taken aboard ship. It was said that Captain Fitts would act as navigator, while Captain Kelinge, Mr Luffkin, Richard Gurling, and Goodwin were to be held as hostages so that the people would not fire upon them. Interpretations The reference to a prior agreement to go aboard ship showed that some movements on the morning of the rebellion followed pre-arranged expectations. This allowed the conspirators to exploit routine actions to draw individuals into the fort without suspicion. The immediate confrontation upon entry into the fort demonstrated a controlled seizure of persons at a predictable point of movement. This ensured that those arriving were quickly disarmed and confined. The overcrowding of the dungeon revealed the scale of detention and the use of confinement conditions as a means of control. The physical pressure of heat and lack of space increased the vulnerability of prisoners. The designation of Captain Fitts as navigator showed the reliance on specialised maritime skill within the plan. Navigation was essential to the intended escape, making his role critical. The holding of named individuals as hostages indicated a strategic measure to prevent attack. Their presence aboard the ship was intended to deter others from using force against the conspirators. Speculations The use of hostages suggests that the conspirators anticipated resistance from those outside the fort. This indicates that they did not expect uncontested departure and planned to use coercion to secure safe passage. The decision to spare Captain Fitts and assign him as navigator implies that technical expertise was prioritised over punishment. This suggests that the success of the escape depended on securing skilled individuals, even if they were unwilling participants. The severe overcrowding in the dungeon suggests that the conspirators did not initially plan for the number of prisoners taken. This indicates that the scale of detention may have expanded as more individuals arrived, rather than being fully predetermined. | |
29 | And that they might have what necessarys they yet wanted Goodwin whereas Sam now Confined &c. Which note the Rogue liked very well and sent me off Before the next morning much people came | Thomas Goodwin continued his sworn testimony. Once aboard, he and the others were taken into the great cabin, where a large quantity of firearms lay without ammunition. As he moved them aside, John Wensley rushed at him, swearing that he would secure him as well, but stumbled and fell before recovering. Goodwin explained that they were only clearing the weapons from their path. Those held as hostages feared that the people ashore might fire upon the ship, knowing that they themselves would suffer first if this happened. They therefore asked that one of them be sent ashore to dissuade the people and to explain the danger to Captain Kelinge, whose life was at risk. This request was granted, and Goodwin was chosen. The conspirators demanded provisions, including dry beans and lemons. Goodwin asked Captain Kelinge to provide him with a written note authorising him to seize such supplies from anyone who resisted and to compel compliance. This was granted. Goodwin was sent ashore about eight or nine o’clock at night with two Black rowers, with instructions that the necessary provisions be prepared by morning. With the assistance of Captain Price, these supplies were gathered. By the next morning, many people had come in from the country. Opinions differed among them, with some urging that the ship be fired upon and sunk. There was confusion and division. Goodwin stated that they were like men of war without guns, as he had inspected the line and found the guns spiked. At daybreak, they cleared, primed, and loaded several guns, though they were not to be fired while Captain Kelinge and the others remained aboard, as it was held that the life of one honest man was of greater value than the lives of the rebels. Interpretations The use of hostages aboard the ship showed a calculated restraint imposed on those ashore. The presence of respected individuals aboard prevented immediate attack, demonstrating how human leverage was used to control military response. The issuing of a written note authorising Goodwin to seize provisions reflected the temporary extension of coercive authority. This document gave him quasi-official power to compel supply, despite acting under duress. The demand for specific provisions such as beans and lemons indicated practical preparation for a sea voyage. These items suggest attention to sustenance and health during a potentially extended journey. The discovery that the guns had been spiked showed that the island’s defensive capability had been deliberately disabled. This prevented immediate retaliation and gave the conspirators a tactical advantage. The subsequent clearing, priming, and loading of guns by those ashore demonstrated an organised attempt to restore defensive readiness. This action reflected a rapid response once control of the fort began to shift. Speculations The decision to send Goodwin ashore under written authority suggests that the conspirators relied on intermediaries to manage relations with those outside their control. This indicates that they lacked direct authority beyond the ship and needed to operate through controlled agents. The division among those gathered in the country, with some urging attack and others hesitating, suggests uncertainty over how to respond to the hostage situation. This indicates that the presence of hostages effectively delayed decisive action. The prior spiking of the guns implies that the conspirators anticipated resistance from outside the fort and acted early to neutralise it. This suggests that disabling artillery was a planned step in securing their escape rather than a spontaneous act. | |
30 | of so many Rogues, in the Morning there came one of their Crew | Thomas Goodwin continued his sworn testimony. By morning, one of the conspirators, Stephen Lancaster, came to the rocks with Black rowers and demanded provisions. He was told that the goods would be delivered only if the prisoners were first brought halfway between the ship and the shore. Lancaster departed at once, warning them to act quickly, as he had seen Thomas Rooker, the armourer, clearing the vents of the great guns. Shortly afterwards, John Wensley came with the same demand, declaring that they would not negotiate on any terms and would carry their prisoners out of gunshot before releasing them. He added that there had been talk of cutting the throats of the hostages based on Lancaster’s report, but that they doubted his truth and had come to confirm the matter. He further threatened that the prisoners would be killed rather than allowed to sink with the ship. When urged to bring his boat closer, he did so, and provisions began to be loaded. As a hogshead of beans was being placed in the boat, a firearm discharged within the fort by chance. Wensley reacted in alarm and was close to firing, but Goodwin persuaded him to refrain, urging him to return aboard with the prisoners. This incident caused great fear among those held on the ship. Goodwin was then sent ashore again to collect further provisions, including a frying pan, which had previously been overlooked, and was afterwards ordered back aboard. Once the ship weighed anchor and sailed about two leagues from shore, George Cock, Isaac Naughton, Joseph Davis, and Richard Simmons were put into a boat. It was said that these men had worked to secure the release of Captain Kelinge, John Luffkin, Richard Gurling, and Goodwin himself, along with two Black men who had been held aboard. Interpretations The exchange over provisions showed an attempted negotiation under coercion, with both sides seeking advantage. The demand to bring prisoners within reach before delivering goods reflected efforts to secure leverage in the absence of trust. The reference to clearing the vents of the guns indicated active preparation ashore to restore artillery for use. This demonstrated a coordinated effort to regain military capability after it had been disabled. The threat to kill hostages rather than release them revealed the extreme measures considered to maintain control. This showed that the safety of prisoners was used as a conditional restraint on action by those ashore. The accidental discharge of a firearm illustrated the instability of the situation. Such incidents carried the risk of triggering violence even where restraint was intended. The eventual release of named prisoners after the ship had put distance between itself and the island showed a calculated timing. Control over the prisoners was maintained until the conspirators judged themselves secure from immediate retaliation. Speculations The refusal to exchange prisoners before receiving provisions suggests that the conspirators prioritised securing supplies over negotiation. This indicates that sustaining their voyage was considered more urgent than resolving the hostage situation. The reaction to the accidental gunshot shows how close the situation came to escalation. This suggests that the balance between restraint and violence depended heavily on momentary control rather than stable agreement. The delayed release of prisoners after sailing two leagues offshore indicates that the conspirators sought to reduce the risk of immediate pursuit before relinquishing their leverage. This suggests a calculated use of distance as a condition for easing control over hostages. | |
31 | The Deposition of Mr Solom[on] Hea[st]on Saith on the 22th of Aprill Last in the John Sermon’s Deposition In the 22th Day of Aprill Last past after ye Tapptoe | Mr Solomon Heaston, having been sworn, stated that on the morning of 22 April 1693, between six and seven o’clock, shortly after the reveille had beaten, he heard the Governor leave his chamber to deliver the key to the sergeant of the guard, who was then Jackson. A short time later, he heard two shots, which he took to be musket fire. Soon after, John Wensley, corporal, came to his chamber with a fusee and declared him a prisoner. He then heard a disturbance as several persons entered Mr Johnson’s chamber. Jackson called out for Heaston, who answered, and he was given only enough time to dress before being taken by Jackson and Gar[...]ry, both armed with drawn swords, to the dungeon. On the way down, he saw the Governor lying on the stairs with much blood about him and believed him to be dead. In the dungeon he found several persons who had been seized the night before, all in distress. In the evening, Mr Goodwin, Mr Gurling, and Mr Luffkin were taken out, and shortly afterwards he and the others were released. He then heard that Captain Kelinge, together with Goodwin, Luffkin, and Gurling, had been taken aboard ship as hostages to secure provisions and necessities, which were afterwards supplied. On the following day, 23 April 1693, he observed that the guns along the line had been spiked and those at Munden’s Mount and the fort thrown down. In the afternoon, after the ship had moved beyond gunshot, Jackson and his confederates threatened those ashore with force. John Sermon, having been sworn, stated that on 22 April 1693, after the tattoo had beaten, while he was in bed within the fort, he heard someone open the door of the prison where Isaac Seack, a condemned prisoner, was held. He looked out but could see no one. Shortly afterwards, he heard further [...] Interpretations The Governor’s delivery of the key to the sergeant of the guard showed the routine transfer of control at the start of the day. This moment of ordinary procedure was used by the conspirators to take control of the fort. The rapid arrest of Heaston by armed men demonstrated the immediate consolidation of authority once the attack began. Key individuals were secured quickly to prevent resistance or coordination. The sight of the Governor wounded on the stairs provided direct evidence of the violence at the centre of the rebellion. This confirmed the severity and immediacy of the assault. The use of hostages to obtain provisions showed a structured exchange under coercion. Supplies were obtained not through negotiation but through the controlled detention of key persons. The disabling of artillery by spiking and overturning guns indicated a deliberate effort to remove the fort’s defensive capacity. This ensured that resistance from those ashore could not be effectively mounted. The release of prisoners after initial confinement suggested a shift in control once the conspirators had secured what they needed. Detention was used selectively rather than continuously. Speculations The timing of the Governor’s movement to deliver the key suggests that the conspirators acted at a moment of predictable routine. This indicates that their plan relied on exploiting established patterns rather than creating entirely new opportunities. The selective detention and later release of prisoners suggests that confinement was used primarily to manage immediate risk rather than to hold all captives long term. This indicates a focus on short-term control during the critical phase of the rebellion. The continued threats made after the ship had moved out of range suggest that the conspirators sought to maintain psychological control even after securing their escape. This indicates that intimidation remained part of their strategy beyond the initial seizure. | |
32 | going that way to look out again but seeing no Body (as I before) | John Sermon continued his sworn testimony. After hearing the prison door opened, he dressed and went downstairs, suspecting that Isaac Leach had escaped. As he approached the gunner’s room, Sergeant Jackson called to him by name. Sermon asked if all was well. Jackson replied that it was, explaining that their lamp had gone out and that Leach had been looking for a steel and tinderbox. Sermon allowed him to relight the lamp from his own, and they parted. About an hour and a half later, Jackson came again and woke him, asking him to come and drink wine. Sermon agreed and went with him to the sergeant’s room. There, Jackson led him into another room where Thomas Ga[...]ry, Stephen Lancaster, Matthew Hill, and others were gathered. Jackson told him that there was no wine, but asked whether he would stand by him and be true. Sermon answered that he would, believing it his duty, as Jackson was captain of the watch. Jackson then revealed their design to seize the ships, plunder the storehouses, and take the Company’s money. Sermon expressed surprise and asked whether they intended to carry out the plan that night. He was told that they would wait for daylight and then seize the Governor. He warned them to consider the consequences and asked what would become of their wives and children. Ga[...]ry replied that they would either fetch them or take them along. Sermon refused to join them and urged them to abandon the plan. Jackson replied that their lives were already at stake, as they had secured many persons and could not withdraw. Sermon then offered that if the prisoners were released, he would risk his life to keep the matter secret. At this, Jackson and his accomplices [...] Interpretations The initial deception about the lamp showed how routine explanations were used to conceal suspicious activity. This allowed the conspirators to move without raising alarm in the early stages. The use of a false invitation to drink wine revealed a consistent method of isolating individuals before exposing the plan. This ensured that recruitment or coercion took place in a controlled setting. The statement that they would wait for daylight to seize the Governor indicated that the timing of the action was deliberate. The conspirators chose a moment when visibility and movement would favour their plan. The admission that many persons had already been secured showed that the conspiracy had progressed beyond planning into execution. This limited the possibility of withdrawal and increased pressure on those approached to comply. The offer by Sermon to guarantee silence if prisoners were released demonstrated an attempt to resolve the situation without escalation. This reflected that some individuals sought to prevent the unfolding violence. Speculations The explanation about the lamp going out suggests that the conspirators were already active before fully revealing their plan. This implies that preliminary movements were concealed under ordinary pretexts to avoid early suspicion. The insistence that they could not withdraw because they had already secured many persons suggests that the conspiracy reached a point of no return. This indicates that early actions committed them to proceed, regardless of later doubts. The choice to act in daylight rather than at night suggests that the conspirators prioritised control and coordination over concealment. This implies that they expected resistance and planned to manage it through visibility and force rather than secrecy. | |
33 | It was so far gone, but if I would not a goe a Long with them | John Sermon continued his sworn testimony. He stated that Jackson told him the matter had gone too far and that if he would not join them he must be secured. Sermon agreed, and when he was allowed to return briefly to his room to dress, he shut the door hard, which angered Jackson. He was then taken to the dungeon, where he found many prisoners, both white and Black. At daybreak, Jackson came several times to the dungeon door and warned that if any noise were made they would all be killed. After the trumpet had sounded, Sermon and the others heard the Governor open the fort house door. A struggle followed, and they heard the Governor speak before a small firearm was discharged, and shortly after another shot. This caused great fear among the prisoners. Soon after, Mr Solomon Heaston was brought into the dungeon by Jackson, whose arm was covered in blood. Heaston reported that he had seen the Governor lying at the foot of the stairs, dead or mortally wounded. This news caused great alarm among the prisoners. More were brought in until their number rose to above 30 persons. In the evening, Thomas Goodwin, John Luffkin, and Richard Gurling were taken out to go aboard ship with Captain Richard Kelinge as hostages. After they had been taken to sea, the keys of the dungeon and the remaining prisoners were entrusted to Mr Luffkin, who later released them. Sermon then went to see the Governor and found him near death. Arms and ammunition were distributed to those in the fort and at the plantation. A note was prepared to be sent to Captain Stephen Poirier, one of the Council, who lived at the Company plantation. Before the note was completed, the Governor died. Poirier came down with speed, accompanied by his two sons and eight lancers. At about ten o’clock that night, Mr Goodwin, one of the hostages, was sent ashore with a note requesting provisions and stating that Jackson and his company would remain until they received them, with the Governor and Jackson aboard as hostages. Interpretations The warning given by Jackson at the dungeon door showed the use of explicit threats to maintain silence and control. This reinforced discipline among prisoners and prevented coordinated resistance. The increase in prisoners to more than 30 demonstrated the scale of detention and the extent of the conspirators’ initial success in securing the fort population. The transfer of the dungeon keys to John Luffkin indicated a shift in control once the conspirators departed. Authority over confinement passed to a trusted individual, allowing for the release of prisoners and restoration of order. The rapid distribution of arms and ammunition after the conspirators left showed an organised effort to re-establish defence. This marked a transition from vulnerability to active preparation. The sending of a written message to Captain Stephen Poirier demonstrated the use of communication to mobilise support from outside the fort. This connected the fort with the wider administrative structure. The arrival of Poirier with armed men showed the mobilisation of force from the plantation. This reflected the capacity of the island’s leadership to respond quickly to crisis. Speculations The statement that the conspirators could not withdraw suggests that early actions, such as imprisoning others, created a point of commitment that forced them forward. This indicates that the rebellion escalated through its own momentum once begun. The entrusting of the dungeon keys to Luffkin, who then released the prisoners, suggests that the conspirators prioritised managing the hostage situation over maintaining full control of the fort. This indicates that their focus had shifted toward securing escape rather than holding territory. The rapid arming of those in the fort after the Governor’s death suggests that his authority had previously restrained such action. This indicates that his death marked a turning point that allowed others to act more decisively in organising resistance. | |
34 | not Come on Shoare till then, as also that if the Fort did John Sermon The aforesaid Depositions and Declarations was Taken before The aforesaid Consultation was also Robᵗ Knox | John Sermon continued his sworn testimony. He stated that the conspirators sent word that they would not allow the hostages to come ashore until the provisions were delivered, and that if the fort attempted to fire upon the ships, they would kill Captain Kelinge and the others held aboard. In response, it was agreed that the requested supplies would be sent in the morning. These were carried aboard by John Wensley, master. By morning, people from the country had come down in numbers. Some urged that the ships be fired upon, while others opposed it. The guns along the line could not be used, as they had all been spiked by Jackson and his companions. While this uncertainty continued, boats came ashore manned by Black rowers. Stephen Lancaster came in one of them and called out for the provisions that had been promised. However, he refused to take them back aboard. John Edmunds, planter, sent a message that the hostages should first be brought halfway between the ship and the shore before any provisions were delivered. At the same time, there was pressure on Captain Poirier to open fire on the ships, with some arguing that it was shameful to allow such men to control the guns without resistance. Captain Poirier replied that an agreement had already been made, and that if they fired, the hostages would be killed, and none would be able to save them. Those who had come down from the country, upon hearing the terms under which Captain Kelinge and the others were held, were pacified. On 23 April 1693, Goodwin, Mr Luffkin, and Mr Gurling were on shore again with others of Jackson’s company, while the ships had moved out of range of the guns and departed. The depositions and declarations were taken on 22 June 1693 and were signed separately by Robert Knox, William Thexton, William Price, Solomon Heaston, and Samuel Allen. Interpretations The threat to kill hostages if the fort fired upon the ships showed the use of conditional violence as a means of deterrence. This ensured restraint among those ashore despite the presence of force. The delivery of provisions under these conditions demonstrated compliance under duress. Supplies were provided not through agreement but through the necessity of preserving the lives of hostages. The spiking of the guns removed the immediate capacity for defence. This action prevented those ashore from responding effectively at a critical moment. The division among those gathered from the country reflected differing views on how to respond to the crisis. Decision-making was influenced by the presence of hostages and the risk attached to action. Captain Poirier’s refusal to fire showed adherence to a prior agreement and the prioritisation of the hostages’ safety. This indicated that negotiated terms constrained military response. The formal recording and signing of the depositions demonstrated the establishment of an official evidentiary record. This ensured that the events were documented for legal and administrative purposes. Speculations The refusal to fire upon the ships despite pressure suggests that the hostage threat was fully effective in shaping decisions ashore. This indicates that the conspirators correctly anticipated that personal risk to named individuals would override immediate military retaliation. The disagreement among those assembled from the country suggests that authority was not immediately unified after the rebellion. This indicates that collective action required negotiation and persuasion rather than automatic compliance. The final departure of the ships after provisions were secured suggests that the conspirators timed their withdrawal to coincide with the moment when resistance was least likely. This indicates a calculated use of negotiation and delay to ensure safe escape. | |
35 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held the 23th Day of June Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Whereas in the Consultation Held on the 4th of Ordered That the said Joseph Davis be for Ever Banished Memorandum That all the foregoing [...] | A consultation was held on 23 June 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Reference was made to the earlier consultation of 4 May 1693, when Joseph Davis, one of three persons convicted at the Court of Judicature on 1 May 1693, was reprieved from execution. After further consideration, it was now ordered that Joseph Davis be permanently banished from the island. He was to be transported by Captain Robert Knox in the ship Tonqueen, then in the road, and set ashore at any place in the habitable world at the captain’s discretion. A memorandum recorded that all the preceding consultations were sent to the Right Honourable Company in the ship Tonqueen, commanded by Captain Robert Knox, which sailed from the road on 7 July 1693. Interpretations The reprieve followed by banishment showed a shift from capital punishment to expulsion as a final sentence. This demonstrated that penalties could be reconsidered and altered after initial judgement. The order for transportation placed responsibility on the ship’s captain to remove the offender from the island. This reflected a practical method of enforcement in a remote setting where imprisonment options were limited. The authority given to Captain Robert Knox to determine the place of disembarkation showed discretionary power in carrying out the sentence. The absence of a fixed destination indicated reliance on maritime movement rather than a formal penal system. The forwarding of consultations to the Company demonstrated the requirement for reporting and oversight. Local decisions were formally communicated to the central authority for record and review. Speculations The decision to banish Joseph Davis rather than execute him suggests that his earlier reprieve was upheld in principle but adapted to remove him as a continuing risk. This indicates that expulsion was used as a compromise between mercy and security. The delegation of destination choice to Captain Knox suggests that the primary concern was removal from the island rather than controlled relocation. This implies that exclusion from the local system of order was considered sufficient punishment. The inclusion of the consultations in the departing ship indicates an intention to justify recent actions to the Company. This suggests that the authorities anticipated scrutiny and sought to provide a full record of their decisions. | |
36 | Island St. Helena At a Court of Justice Held on Monday Pres.t Rich: Hellinge Gov.r John Feild Seijt complains of Wm French sold.r in Wm French acknowledgeth the Debt and promise Wherefore It is ordered That the said French doe pay the s.d Debt to y.e s.d Then according to the accustom.d manner the Jury John Feild foreman Who were all sworne. Jonathan Higham complains of Charles Barnall in an | A court of justice was held on 4 July 1693 at the Sessions House near Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Hellinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. John Feild, sergeant, brought an action of debt against William French, a soldier, for £3 5s 0d. French acknowledged the debt and promised payment. It was ordered that he pay the sum to Feild as it became due, the debt being owed to the Honourable Company on account of his pay. The jury was then called according to the customary manner. John Feild served as foreman, with Thomas Emms, James Taylor, John Fuller, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Meares, Hugh Bodley, Joseph Trapp, John Goodwin, John Nicholls, William Mellins, and James Lascelles. All were sworn. Jonathan Higham then brought an action of trespass against Charles Barnall, stating that on 16 May 1693 Barnall had gone shooting in the Great Wood and on the said [...] Interpretations The acknowledgement of debt by William French showed that financial obligations could be enforced through formal court procedure. The linkage of the debt to Company pay indicated that wages were subject to deduction or recovery under legal authority. The order that payment be made as it became due reflected a structured approach to repayment. This allowed the debt to be satisfied over time rather than requiring immediate settlement. The calling and swearing of a jury demonstrated the application of formal legal process. A group of local men was assembled to hear and determine cases, reflecting established judicial practice. The description of the debt as connected to Company pay indicated that the Company exercised control over the earnings of its soldiers. This allowed it to regulate financial conduct and recover sums through institutional mechanisms. Speculations The acceptance of staged repayment suggests that the court aimed to ensure recovery of the debt without removing the soldier from service. This indicates that maintaining labour and military capacity was balanced against enforcing financial obligations. The involvement of a full jury for relatively small claims suggests that adherence to formal procedure was prioritised even in minor matters. This implies that the authorities sought to reinforce legitimacy and consistency in the administration of justice. | |
37 | Thereof & that the next Day there was a Calfe of the said Charles Warrall Denys the shooting of the said Mary the wife of James Castlipse being Sworne Daniel Collier Being sworne saith that ye And there being no other Evidence that That they did not find that the sd Warrall had killed And Wm Willson plant.r complained of Richard Rich.d Griffen Denys the Action & saith that it is | In the action brought by Jonathan Higham, it was stated that on 16 May 1693 Charles Warrall had gone shooting in the Great Wood, and that on the following day one of Higham’s calves was found dead, having been shot with small shot. Higham suspected Warrall. Warrall denied killing the calf, though he admitted that he had been shooting in the Great Wood on that day. He also stated that he had not been in the place where the calf was found, known as Matthews Ridge. Mary, the wife of James Castlipse, having been sworn, stated that while in the Great Wood she found the calf dead. Not knowing whose it was, she sent to the hillside of the Right Honourable Company’s plantation for a slave to collect it. The slave came and said it did not belong to the Company. Mary then informed neighbouring households, but no one claimed the calf. The following day she returned, opened the carcass, and found that it had been shot with small shot. She later learned that it belonged to Higham. Daniel Collier, having been sworn, stated that on the day before the calf was found he had seen Warrall on Matthews Ridge, at some distance from where the calf was later discovered. No further evidence was produced. The jury withdrew and, after a short time, returned with their verdict. They found that Warrall had not killed the calf. Jonathan Higham was therefore nonsuited, having no cause of action, and was ordered to pay the costs of the court. William Willson, a planter, then brought an action of trespass against Richard Griffen, a planter, alleging that Griffen had cut several trees on his land and had encroached upon it, incorporating part into his own plantation. Griffen denied the claim, though he admitted that there had been some dispute between them regarding the cutting of wood and the taking of part of the land as he [...] Interpretations The requirement for evidence linking Warrall directly to the killing of the calf showed that suspicion alone was insufficient for liability. The court required proof connecting the act to the accused before assigning responsibility. The use of sworn testimony from multiple witnesses demonstrated the evidentiary process in resolving disputes. Statements were weighed collectively to determine whether a claim could be sustained. The verdict of nonsuit indicated that the plaintiff’s case failed due to lack of sufficient evidence. This outcome not only dismissed the claim but also imposed court costs on the complainant, discouraging unsupported accusations. The identification of location, such as Matthews Ridge, showed the importance of place in determining responsibility. Establishing presence or absence at a specific site was central to assessing liability. The subsequent trespass action concerning land and timber reflected ongoing disputes over property boundaries and resource use. Such cases indicate that land control and access to materials were actively contested and subject to legal resolution. Speculations The jury’s decision to nonsuit Higham suggests that proximity alone, as in Warrall being seen on Matthews Ridge, was not considered sufficient proof of wrongdoing. This indicates a standard of judgement that required clearer causal connection rather than circumstantial suspicion. The involvement of neighbours and the Company’s slave in identifying the calf suggests that ownership of livestock could be uncertain in open or wooded areas. This implies that disputes over animals may have arisen partly from shared or loosely defined grazing spaces. The emergence of a boundary dispute immediately following the trespass case suggests that tensions over land and resources were persistent. This indicates that such conflicts were not isolated but formed part of a broader pattern of local contention. | |
38 | he pretends to his the said Griffens plantation which Difference Willm Bodley and Tho: Goodwin planters being sworne And [...] That the said Wilson be non Suited and pay Sutton Isaack planter complains of John Marsh planter The said Marsh doth not Deny that he hath beaten The afores.d Jury was called and sworne in this Cause Danl Collier the said Isaacks bro in law being sworne Michael the son of the said Sutton Isaack being | Richard Griffen stated that the land in question formed part of his own plantation and that the dispute with William Willson over cutting wood and taking land had already been referred to arbitration seven or eight months earlier. William Bodley and Thomas Goodwin, planters, having been sworn on behalf of Willson, confirmed that they had been asked to arbitrate the matter. They had viewed the damage and found it to be slight, and had ordered Griffen to pay Willson £0 2s 0d. On this basis, it was ordered that Willson be nonsuited and pay the costs of the court. Sutton Isaack, planter, then brought a complaint against John Marsh, planter, stating that Marsh had beaten one of his slaves so severely that the slave had been unable to work for a fortnight. Marsh did not deny striking the slave but stated that it had occurred on his own land, from which he had previously warned Isaack and his servants to stay away. The jury was called and sworn in this case. Daniel Collier, brother-in-law to Isaack, having been sworn, stated that the slave had not worked for half a week before the incident and that he had heard the slave say that his inability to work was due to the blows given by Marsh. Michael, the son of Sutton Isaack, having been sworn, stated that he and the slave had been repairing a wall that enclosed a plantation claimed by Marsh. They were working on the outside of the wall, on Marsh’s side. Marsh came to them and asked what they were doing, to which Michael replied that they were repairing the wall. Interpretations The reference to prior arbitration showed that disputes could be resolved outside the court through agreed judgement by selected individuals. Such decisions carried weight and could be upheld in later proceedings. The confirmation that only £0 2s 0d had been awarded in damages indicated that the harm was judged minimal. This prior assessment influenced the court’s decision to dismiss the renewed claim. The nonsuit of Willson demonstrated that previously settled matters were not reopened without new grounds. The court upheld earlier arbitration as sufficient resolution. The admission by Marsh that he had struck the slave showed that physical force could be justified when tied to claims of property defence. The issue in dispute was not the act itself but whether it was warranted by the circumstances. The testimony concerning the location of the wall highlighted the importance of boundary definition. Determining whose land the slave had entered was central to judging the legitimacy of Marsh’s actions. Speculations The reliance on earlier arbitration suggests that the court aimed to prevent repeated litigation over the same dispute. This indicates an effort to preserve stability and reduce the burden on formal judicial processes. The defence offered by Marsh implies that enforcement of property boundaries could extend to physical punishment of trespassing slaves. This suggests that control over land was asserted not only through legal means but also through immediate personal action. The emphasis on where the wall stood suggests that boundary uncertainty may have contributed to the conflict. This indicates that disputes over land demarcation could escalate into physical confrontation when limits were contested or unclear. | |
39 | which fell the other Day to whom the said Marsh replyed that After the Jury had withdrawn themselves for That the said Marsh be cast in suit and Daniell Collier complains of the said Marsh Wm Marsh Denys the action Here y.e afore.sd Jury was sworne in this Cause Rich.d Tatum and Eliz his wife being sworne Eliz the wife of Sutton Isaack being sworne After the Jury had withdrawn for some time That the said Marsh was Cast in suit and Sam.l Taylor complains of Rich.d Parrum Sam.l Taylor Dismist of the Jury and John Cotgrave | Michael, son of Sutton Isaack, continued his sworn testimony. He stated that the wall had fallen some days before, and that when John Marsh came to them he said they had no business there. Marsh then struck the slave three or four times on the lower back with a cane and attempted to strike Michael, who escaped by leaping over the wall. He further stated that the slave was unable to work for a fortnight after the beating. The jury withdrew and, after a short time, returned their verdict. John Marsh was found liable, ordered to pay the costs of the suit, and to pay Sutton Isaack damages of one dollar. Daniel Collier then brought a complaint against Marsh, alleging that Marsh had said he had broken out of prison, stolen iron, and would be hanged if he went to England. Marsh denied the claim. The same jury was sworn in this matter. Richard Tatum and Elizabeth his wife, having been sworn, stated that they had heard Marsh say that Collier was a rogue and deserved to be hanged for breaking out of prison and stealing iron. Elizabeth, the wife of Sutton Isaack, confirmed the same. After withdrawing, the jury returned their verdict. Marsh was found liable, ordered to pay the costs, and to pay Collier £2 0s 0d in the form of a beast to be valued by two impartial persons. Samuel Taylor then brought a complaint against Richard Parrum, stating that Parrum’s dog had been set upon a young bullock belonging to him. The damage had previously been referred to William Marsh and Richard Leach for arbitration, who had awarded £1 7s 0d in compensation. Parrum had refused to pay. Samuel Taylor was dismissed from the jury, and John Cotgrave was appointed in his place. Interpretations The award of damages for the beating of the slave showed that injury to enslaved labour was treated as a financial loss to the owner. Compensation was directed to the master rather than the injured person, reflecting the treatment of the slave as property. The use of a cane and the location of the blows indicated a recognised form of physical punishment. However, the court imposed limits where such force caused measurable harm beyond what was considered acceptable. The defamation case against Marsh demonstrated that spoken accusations could give rise to legal action. Claims that damaged a person’s reputation, especially involving criminal conduct, were subject to judicial scrutiny. The requirement that damages be paid in the form of a beast, valued by impartial persons, showed that compensation could be made in goods rather than money. Valuation by third parties ensured fairness in the settlement. The enforcement of an earlier arbitration award in the dispute over the bullock showed that such decisions were binding. Refusal to comply could lead to further legal action. The replacement of a juror during proceedings reflected procedural rules to maintain impartiality. Parties involved in a case could not serve on the jury hearing it. Speculations The award of one dollar for the injury to the slave suggests that the court balanced recognition of harm with acceptance of a landholder’s right to defend his property. This indicates that compensation was calibrated rather than punitive. The defamation ruling, with a relatively substantial award, suggests that reputation held significant weight within the community. This indicates that public accusation of criminal behaviour could disrupt social and economic standing, prompting stronger remedies. The reliance on arbitration in the dispute over the bullock, followed by court enforcement, suggests that informal resolution was preferred but required formal backing when resisted. This indicates a layered system in which private judgement and public authority operated together. | |
40 | The said Parrum Denys the Action Wm Marsh who was Refer as Arbitrator by the Rich Leach being sworne saith that the said After the Jury had Considered of this matter brought That the said Parrum pay to the said Taylor the | Richard Parrum denied the claim brought by Samuel Taylor. William Marsh, having been sworn, stated that Taylor had asked him to decide the dispute between himself and Parrum concerning a bullock said to have been injured by Parrum’s dog. Marsh, together with Richard Leach, who had been chosen by Parrum, investigated whether the dog had caused the damage. They concluded that it had and agreed that Parrum should pay Taylor £1 7s 0d, both parties having beforehand agreed to abide by their decision. Richard Leach, having been sworn, gave a different account. He stated that Parrum had asked him to visit Taylor regarding the loss of the bullock and to assess whether compensation should be made. At Taylor’s house, it was agreed that the matter should be settled by arbitration, with Leach chosen by Parrum and Marsh by Taylor. However, they could not reach agreement. Leach was willing to allow £1 5s 0d, while Marsh insisted on £1 15s 0d. Taylor proposed to settle at £1 10s 0d. Leach then offered £1 7s 0d, which Taylor refused, and the arbitration failed. Leach added that he had heard a boy confess that he had set his master’s dog upon the bullock, and he believed Taylor had suffered loss, though not to the full value claimed. After considering the matter, the jury returned their verdict. Parrum was ordered to pay Taylor £1 10s 0d and the costs of the court. Interpretations The conflicting accounts of arbitration showed that such processes depended on mutual agreement. Where arbitrators could not reach a shared decision, the matter reverted to formal court judgement. The prior agreement to abide by arbitration demonstrated that parties could voluntarily submit disputes to private resolution. However, the breakdown of that agreement exposed the limits of such arrangements when consensus failed. The evidence concerning the boy’s admission indicated that responsibility could extend indirectly through actions carried out by dependants or animals. Liability was linked to ownership and control rather than direct personal action. The jury’s decision to award a compromise sum reflected an evaluative judgement rather than strict adherence to either party’s claim. This showed the court’s role in balancing competing valuations. The addition of court costs to the award reinforced compliance. Financial penalty extended beyond compensation to include the expense of legal proceedings. Speculations The jury’s choice of £1 10s 0d suggests that it considered both the higher and lower estimates but sought a middle ground to resolve the dispute. This indicates that equitable settlement was prioritised over strict proof of exact value. The breakdown of arbitration implies that informal dispute resolution depended heavily on the willingness of arbitrators to converge. This suggests that without strong agreement, such mechanisms could fail and require formal enforcement. The mention of a boy setting the dog on the bullock suggests that the incident may not have been accidental. This indicates that the damage could have arisen from deliberate action, increasing the perceived responsibility of the owner. | |
41 | [...] Rider and Wm Hays Church wardens for this The said Mary Foster & Margt Harper deny Here the Jury was Sworne Tho: Swallow being Sworne saith that John Downing The said Downing being sworne saith yt Eliz: Starling Aged abt 17 years being Examined | The churchwardens, James Rider and William Hayes, presented Mary, the wife of John Foster, for violating the laws of the Church by conducting a marriage between Robert Lightfoot, who was absent, and Margaret Harper, a single woman. Margaret Harper was also presented for committing fornication with Lightfoot under the pretence of that marriage. The churchwardens requested that both be punished as their offences deserved. Mary Foster and Margaret Harper denied the accusations. The jury was sworn. Thomas Swallow, having been sworn, stated that John Downing had asked him whether he had lost a turkey, to which he replied that he had. Downing then said that it had been eaten at a wedding where Robert Lightfoot was the bridegroom and Margaret Harper the bride, and that Mary Foster had told him that Harper and Lightfoot had lain together in a bed that night. John Downing, having been sworn, confirmed that Mary Foster had told him this the day before. Elizabeth Sterling, aged about 17 years, being examined, stated that Margaret Harper had come to Mr Anion’s shop and asked her to go with them to Mary Foster’s house. They went there and afterwards to [... ] Cleveland’s house, where Lightfoot joined them. Harper asked him why he did not marry, and he replied by asking who would marry him. Mary Foster then said that she would conduct the marriage. She took a book and, addressing Margaret Harper, asked whether she would take Lightfoot as her husband, to which she agreed. She then asked Lightfoot if he would take Harper as his wife, and he also agreed. Afterwards, Margaret Harper went to bed, removing her clothes down to her shift, and Lightfoot went to her without undressing. Elizabeth Sterling was placed at the foot of the bed, where [...] Interpretations The presentation by churchwardens showed the enforcement of ecclesiastical discipline within the colony. Moral and religious offences were brought before the court as part of maintaining social order. The allegation that Mary Foster conducted a marriage indicated that authority over matrimony was restricted. Performing such a ceremony without proper sanction was treated as a violation of church law. The charge of fornication linked the act of sexual relations to the legitimacy of marriage. Without recognised authority, the union was not valid, and the relationship was judged as illicit. The reliance on witness testimony, including second-hand statements, showed the evidentiary process in moral cases. Reports of conversation and conduct were used to establish events. The involvement of a young witness, Elizabeth Sterling, indicated that testimony could be taken from a range of individuals regardless of age, provided they could recount events. Speculations The use of a mock marriage ceremony suggests that those involved may have sought to imitate formal rites to legitimise their relationship. This indicates an awareness of the social importance of marriage, even when proper authority was absent. The presence of multiple witnesses, including a young observer placed at the foot of the bed, suggests that the event was not entirely concealed. This implies that the participants may not have fully anticipated the legal consequences of their actions. The reporting of the event through several intermediaries suggests that information spread quickly within the community. This indicates that social surveillance played a role in bringing such matters before the court. | |
42 | John Cleverlee being Sworne saith that the said Mary The Jury withdrew and said some Time, and when That both Mary Foster and Margret It is ordered by the Court That Mary Foster doe Immediately Receive Whereas Wm the son of Tho Birch was on June the 18th 1693 We the Jury of Inquest Impanelled upon the Body of | John Cleverlee, having been sworn, stated that Mary Foster had told him the day after Robert Lightfoot had been there that they had been very merry at her house, that they had “robbed a shilling”, that they had read the marriage service between Margaret Harper and Lightfoot, and that Harper and Lightfoot had lain together all night. The jury withdrew and, after some time, returned with their verdict. Mary Foster and Margaret Harper were found guilty of unseemly conduct and were left to receive such punishment as the court thought fit. It was ordered that Mary Foster should receive seven lashes on her naked body and Margaret Harper five. However, upon intercession by their parents, some members of the jury, and other respected men and women, and as both appeared penitent and sorrowful, their punishment was remitted. They were dismissed with an admonition. It was then noted that William, the son of Thomas Birch, had been found dead on 17 June 1693 near White Hill. A jury of inquest and a coroner had been appointed and had gone to the house of Thomas Birch, where the body had been brought. William Birch had been out tending goats with a slave belonging to James Rider. The jury of inquest, with Will Oram and Roger Stoughton acting in that capacity, had viewed the place where he was thought to have fallen or been thrown, and had delivered their verdict dated 18 June 1693, stating that [...] Interpretations The finding of guilt for “unseemly actions” showed that the court addressed breaches of moral and religious norms under its authority. Behaviour outside accepted standards of marriage and propriety was subject to formal judgement. The sentence of corporal punishment, specified in lashes, demonstrated the use of physical discipline as a legal penalty. The distinction in the number of lashes reflected differentiation in perceived responsibility or role. The remission of punishment following intercession showed that judicial decisions could be moderated by appeals from family, community members, and expressions of repentance. This indicated that enforcement allowed room for mercy within a communal framework. The reference to “robbing a shilling” during the gathering suggested a ritual or symbolic act associated with the mock ceremony. Its inclusion in testimony showed that details of conduct were used to characterise the nature of the event. The convening of a coroner’s inquest into the death of William Birch demonstrated the formal procedure for investigating sudden or unexplained deaths. The viewing of the body and location formed part of establishing the cause. The mention of the slave accompanying William Birch indicated that enslaved persons could be present at events under investigation and might form part of the circumstances examined, though not necessarily as formal witnesses at this stage. Speculations The remission of corporal punishment suggests that the court sought to balance discipline with social cohesion. This indicates that maintaining community harmony could take precedence over strict enforcement in cases of acknowledged wrongdoing. The emphasis on penitence by the accused implies that expressions of remorse were an important factor in securing leniency. This suggests that moral reform, rather than punishment alone, was a recognised objective of the court. The uncertainty in whether William Birch fell or was thrown indicates that the cause of death was not immediately clear. This suggests that the inquest was necessary to determine whether the death was accidental or involved external agency. | |
43 | heard severall witnesses we find according to the Best of Sam: Maxwell Rich Leach foreman The above written is the Verdict of the aforesd Which said Jury was brought to Find the Thomas the son of the sd Tho Birch aged abt Rich Leach being sworne (who was foreman of the Jury of Inquest) | The jury of inquest reported that, having heard several witnesses, they found to the best of their judgement that William Birch came to his death through the actions of Jack, a slave belonging to James Rider. This verdict was signed on 18 June 1693 by Samuel Maxwell, John Cleverlee, John Godwin, Edward Russell, John Bagley, William Bagley Junior, Richard Leach as foreman, Thomas Swallow, John Shannon, Thomas Quincy, Thomas Ellis, and Joseph Frapp, and was delivered to Orlando Bagley, coroner. The jury had been required to remain together after viewing the body, so that they might further inquire whether the slave was responsible for the boy’s death. They were sworn again for that purpose, and witnesses were called. Thomas Birch, aged about 17 years, son of Thomas Birch, having been sworn, stated that on the day in question he had gone out to look after hogs, while his brother went to look after goats. He had walked with his brother and the slave for a short distance before separating. Shortly after, he saw his brother and the slave fall down together. He called to them to make haste about the goats, whereupon they both rose and continued. He then saw them going around a point and throwing stones down the hill. After some distance, the slave went a lower way and his brother another path above him. Both then passed out of sight, and he saw them no more. Richard Leach, having been sworn and acting as foreman of the jury of inquest, stated that when he and the rest of the jury examined the place from which the boy had fallen, which was very dangerous, he took the slave to show where he had last seen William Birch. The slave pointed out a place about half a mile from where the boy must have fallen. Interpretations The jury’s finding that the boy’s death occurred through the actions of a named slave showed that responsibility for death could be formally attributed even in uncertain circumstances. The inquest process allowed liability to be assigned based on collective judgement rather than direct proof. The requirement that the jury remain together and continue their inquiry demonstrated a structured investigative procedure. Jurors were kept under supervision to ensure continuity and integrity in reaching their conclusion. The use of sworn witness testimony, including that of a close relative, showed the reliance on observation and recollection in reconstructing events. Evidence was pieced together from what had been seen rather than from direct knowledge of the fatal moment. The examination of the physical location of the fall indicated that the environment formed a key part of the inquiry. The dangerous nature of the terrain was considered in assessing how the death might have occurred. The involvement of the slave in indicating locations showed that those implicated could be used in the investigative process. Their account contributed to establishing the sequence of events, even where suspicion rested upon them. Speculations The finding that the slave caused the boy’s death, despite the absence of a witnessed fatal act, suggests that the jury relied on circumstantial evidence and proximity. This indicates that being last seen together could be sufficient to assign responsibility. The difference between the place where the boy was last seen and where he fell suggests uncertainty in the sequence of events. This implies that the jury may have inferred movement or pursuit that was not directly observed. The emphasis on the dangerous terrain suggests that the fall itself may have been accidental, yet the attribution of blame indicates that the slave’s actions were believed to have contributed to or caused the fall. This suggests that indirect responsibility, such as provoking or chasing, may have been assumed. | |
44 | Rich: Alexan[dr] being Examined saith that when the boy The sd slave being Examined nothing said to Then the Jury withdrew & staid abt halfe an hour Are you all agreed upon a verdict. Jury - yea Gentlemen of ye Jury Looke well upon ye prisoner at ye Foreman Not Guilty And accordingly Record was made Then the Court was adjourned according to ye Richᵈ Keeling | Richard Alexander, having been examined, stated that when the boy was missing he went out to trace him, as his father suspected that he had fallen. He followed the tracks and found both the tracks of William Birch and those of the slave. He further stated that the boy’s tracks ran from the place shown by the slave to the point where he fell, always higher up the slope than those of the slave. The slave was then examined but nothing further could be obtained from him beyond his statement that after parting from the boy at the place described, he had not seen him again. The jury withdrew for about half an hour and then returned. Being asked whether they were agreed, they answered that they were. The prisoner was brought to the bar, and the jury was directed to consider whether he was guilty of the charge laid against him. The foreman declared that he was not guilty, and this verdict was formally recorded. The court was then adjourned in the customary manner, under Richard Keeling, Governor. Interpretations The tracing of footprints showed the use of physical evidence in determining events. Tracks were treated as a means of reconstructing movement and relative position at the time of the incident. The distinction between the positions of the boy and the slave on the slope indicated an attempt to assess causation. The relative placement suggested separation rather than direct contact at the point of the fall. The inability to obtain further statement from the slave demonstrated the limits of examination. Where no additional confession or explanation was given, the case depended on other forms of evidence. The formal presentation of the accused at the bar and the jury’s declaration of verdict reflected established judicial procedure. The process emphasised collective judgement rather than unilateral decision. The verdict of not guilty showed that the standard of proof required more than suspicion or earlier inquest findings. The court distinguished between initial attribution of cause and legal culpability. Speculations The reliance on track evidence suggests that the jury placed weight on spatial separation between the boy and the slave. This indicates that physical distance was interpreted as reducing the likelihood of direct action causing the fall. The difference between the inquest verdict and the final acquittal suggests that initial conclusions may have been revised when tested under formal trial conditions. This indicates a layered process in which preliminary findings were not decisive. The slave’s consistent statement that he had not seen the boy after parting suggests either a lack of further knowledge or a refusal to provide additional detail. This indicates that the outcome may have depended as much on the absence of proof as on the presence of evidence. | |
45 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the Prest Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ [...] Wills planter Complains of Grace Coulsen Grace Coulsen doth not Deny but that she sold Two Richᵈ Parrum saith that he Dranke John Colgrave saith that he did Drink pt Samᵗ Taylor & Catherine his wife saith the same Tho Ellis & ye sd Colgrave saith yt ye sd | A consultation was held on 13 July 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keeling, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. [...] Wills, a planter, brought a complaint against Grace Coulsen, stating that about three weeks earlier he had bought three quarts of potato arrack distilled by her. He sold part of it by retail, and those who drank it became sick. He had asked Coulsen to exchange the arrack, but she refused, and he claimed that it was not fit for sale. Grace Coulsen admitted that she had sold two quarts of potato arrack to Wills and acknowledged that she could not prove it to be good. She stated that she had given a sample to Wills’s wife before the purchase and that she herself had drunk the same arrack several times without ill effect. She also said that she had not refused to exchange it. Richard Parrum stated that he had drunk punch made from the arrack at Wills’s house and that it had made him very ill. John Colgrave gave similar evidence, stating that he had drunk from a bowl of punch made from the same arrack and had also been made unwell, as had others. Samuel Taylor and Catherine his wife confirmed the same. Thomas Ellis and John Colgrave stated that Wills had asked them to accompany him to Coulsen, where they heard him request either an exchange of the arrack or the return of his money for what remained. They stated that she refused. Interpretations The complaint showed that the sale of goods, including distilled spirits, was subject to standards of quality. Goods that caused harm could be challenged as unfit for sale. The acknowledgement by Coulsen that she could not justify the quality of the arrack indicated that sellers bore some responsibility for what they produced and sold. Admission of defective goods formed part of the evidentiary process. The reference to retail sale demonstrated that goods could be resold within the local economy. Responsibility for quality extended beyond the original transaction to those affected by subsequent distribution. The use of multiple witness testimonies concerning illness showed that harm was established through collective experience. Repeated accounts strengthened the claim that the product was defective. The attempt to seek exchange or refund before bringing the complaint reflected an expectation of remedy between parties. Formal proceedings followed only after such efforts failed. Speculations The number of individuals reporting illness suggests that the arrack may have been improperly distilled or contaminated. This indicates that production methods could directly affect public health within the settlement. The dispute over whether a sample had been provided suggests differing expectations about buyer responsibility. This indicates that tasting before purchase may have been viewed as a form of acceptance, though not sufficient to prevent later complaint. The refusal to exchange or refund the arrack suggests that the seller may have sought to avoid financial loss despite complaints. This indicates tension between maintaining trade reputation and protecting personal resources. | |
46 | It is ordered That the said Grace Coulsen be fined to the Richᵈ Parrum Complains of Wᵐ Marsh The sd Marsh Denys the sd Parrums Complaints Danᵉll Olliver being sworne saith that he heard Mary the wife of John Sinners being sworne saith John Hennens saith that an agreemᵗ was made It is ordered Richᵈ Keeling | It was ordered that Grace Coulsen be fined £0 5s 0d to the Honourable Company and £0 15s 0d to [...] Wills, and that she remove all remaining arrack from the streets. This was carried out. Richard Parrum then brought a complaint against William Marsh, stating that they had jointly built a wall dividing their lands and had agreed that each should maintain his respective side, including a stile built for shared use. Parrum alleged that Marsh had pulled up the stile, causing damage to his land and plantation, estimated at £5 0s 0d, by allowing cattle to enter. Marsh denied the complaint. Daniel Olliver, having been sworn, stated that he had heard Marsh say that if Parrum set up the stile again, he would pull it down. Mary, the wife of John Sinners, having been sworn, stated that she had asked Marsh why he and Parrum were always disputing about the stile. Marsh replied that he would pull it up before Parrum should use it once it was made. John Hennens, having been sworn, stated that he had heard the agreement between Marsh and Parrum, which provided that both were to share equally in the cost and maintenance of the wall, fence, and stile. It was ordered Interpretations The fine imposed on Grace Coulsen showed that the sale of harmful goods attracted both public and private penalties. Payment to the Company enforced regulatory authority, while compensation to the buyer addressed individual loss. The requirement to remove the remaining arrack from the streets indicated control over circulation of unsafe goods. This prevented further harm and reinforced standards of trade. The dispute over the wall and stile demonstrated the importance of shared infrastructure between neighbouring properties. Agreements governing such structures were essential to maintaining boundaries and access. The testimony confirming a prior agreement showed that obligations could arise from mutual consent rather than formal contract. Such agreements were recognised and enforced by the court. The alleged removal of the stile and resulting damage highlighted the link between boundary maintenance and protection of property. Failure to uphold shared responsibilities could expose land to loss from animals. The repeated statements attributed to Marsh indicated intentional refusal to comply with the agreement. This suggested that the dispute concerned not only damage but also defiance of established terms. Speculations The imposition of both a Company fine and private compensation suggests that the authorities aimed to deter unsafe trade while maintaining confidence in local exchange. This indicates that public order and commercial trust were closely linked. The destruction of the stile despite agreement suggests that personal conflict between neighbours may have escalated beyond practical dispute. This indicates that enforcement of shared obligations depended on cooperation, which could break down. The emphasis on cattle entering through the damaged boundary suggests that agricultural loss was immediate and tangible. This indicates that even small breaches in infrastructure could have significant economic impact. | |
47 | [...] That the said Marsh to Cast in suit & that he Grace Couleson Complains of ye sd Parrum saying The sd Parrum denys the sd Coulesons Complaint Orland Bagley Henry Coale & John Colgrave It is ordered That ye sd Parrum doe leave a Drift way through Joˢ Dixon Henʳ Coale and Orland Bagly It is ordered That Each of them have paid in the Honᵇˡᵉ Richᵈ Keeling | It was ordered that William Marsh be found liable and that he bear half the cost of making a new stile and maintaining it jointly with Richard Parrum. Grace Couleson then complained against Parrum, stating that he had stopped up a way which had existed for many years and that this had caused her loss. Parrum denied the complaint. Orlando Bagley, Henry Coale, and John Colgrave, having been examined, stated that the late Governor and Council had previously ordered them to view the way and consider whether Parrum should leave a drift way through his land. They had determined that, as it had long been used, Parrum should set up turnstile gates or bars at that place. It was ordered that Parrum should leave a drift way through the land at the place previously determined by Coale, Bagley, and Colgrave. Joseph Dixon, Henry Coale, and Orlando Bagley, having been employed by the Honourable Company to appraise the estates of Henry Jackson, Thomas Gentry, Robert Lightfoot, and Isaac Leach, all delinquents, requested reasonable payment for their work. It was ordered that each be credited in the Company’s books with £1 7s 0d for their labour, having been employed for nine or ten days in that service. Interpretations The order requiring Marsh to share the cost and maintenance of the stile enforced the prior agreement between neighbours. Joint obligations over boundary structures were upheld and imposed through the court. The recognition of the way as longstanding usage established a right of passage across private land. Customary use was treated as sufficient grounds for enforcing continued access. The earlier directive from the Governor and Council, confirmed by witnesses, showed that administrative decisions over land use remained binding in later disputes. The court relied on that prior authority rather than reopening the question. The requirement to install turnstile gates or bars showed a regulated form of access. Movement was permitted while still controlling livestock and protecting enclosed land. The payment to those who appraised confiscated estates demonstrated a formal system of compensation for Company service. Labour carried out for administrative purposes was recorded and rewarded through the Company’s accounts. Speculations The insistence on maintaining the way suggests that access routes were essential for movement between holdings. This indicates that blocking such a path would have caused practical and economic disruption. The use of gates rather than leaving the way fully open suggests a compromise between access and enclosure. This indicates that both passage and property protection were actively balanced. The payment for appraising confiscated estates suggests that this work required sustained effort over several days. This indicates that the management of forfeited property was a significant administrative task following the rebellion. | |
48 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 20ᵗʰ of Prest Richᵈ Keelinge Goverᵒʳ Whereas since the Death of one James son John It is ordered That they be Disposed off by our present Govʳ Richᵈ Richᵈ Keelinge | A consultation was held on 20 July 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. It was noted that after the death of James, son of John Blackmore, several of his goods, including clothing, had remained locked in trunks for a long time and had suffered damage from moths, with some items entirely destroyed. After consideration, it was judged proper that these goods be disposed of. It was ordered that the goods which remained fit for sale be disposed of by the present Governor, Richard Keelinge, without delay so that they did not further deteriorate. Items not subject to decay, being locked and sealed in a small chest, were excepted. The Governor was required to provide an account at the next council meeting and to enter the value of the goods, as appraised, into the Honourable Company’s books. The value was to be credited to the account of the deceased, James Blackmore, and applied toward his debts. Governor Keelinge was to receive the proceeds from the sale of the goods. Interpretations The disposal of the deceased’s goods showed the administrative management of property after death. Goods were not left idle but converted into value to settle outstanding obligations. The requirement to sell only items still fit for use demonstrated attention to preserving value. Perishable goods were prioritised for sale to prevent further loss. The exception for items sealed in a chest indicated recognition of different categories of property. Goods not at risk of decay were retained under secure conditions. The instruction to record the value in the Company’s books showed formal accounting procedures. Estate value was documented and integrated into the Company’s financial system. The application of proceeds to the deceased’s debts demonstrated that liabilities were settled from personal property. Debt recovery was enforced through controlled liquidation of assets. The role assigned to the Governor showed central authority in managing estates. Control over sale and accounting rested with senior officials rather than private parties. Speculations The deterioration of goods through long storage suggests that the estate had remained unattended for some time. This indicates delay in administration, possibly due to competing priorities or uncertainty over authority. The decision to sell goods promptly suggests concern with preventing further financial loss. This indicates that preservation of value was prioritised once the matter was addressed. The assignment of proceeds to debt repayment suggests that the deceased’s obligations were significant enough to require formal settlement. This indicates that estate management was closely tied to maintaining financial order within the community. | |
49 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday Prest Richᵈ Keelinge Govʳ Whereas it was thought convenient in the Consulta- Accordingly the Govʳ given up the said accᵗ wherein And accordingly It is ordered That the Residue of the said Govʳ Blackmores goods Richᵈ Keelinge | A consultation was held on 27 July 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Reference was made to the consultation of 20 July 1693, when it had been decided that goods belonging to the former Governor Blackmore should be disposed of, as they had already suffered damage and were liable to further decay. An account of this disposal had been required. The Governor presented this account, which showed that goods to the value of £59 9s 6d had been issued for the use of the Right Honourable Company, part of which had been used during the recent siege and in Johnston’s time. It was also recorded that goods to the value of 182 dollars remained. The account was examined, approved, and signed. Upon reviewing the remaining goods, it was considered necessary that these also be disposed of. It was ordered that the remainder of Governor Blackmore’s goods, except for enslaved persons, sheep, and goats, be sold as opportunities arose. A full account was to be provided at the next balancing of the Honourable Company’s books, so that Blackmore’s heirs might receive credit for their value. Interpretations The presentation and approval of the account showed formal oversight of estate management. Goods already distributed were recorded and validated through official review. The allocation of goods to the Company’s use indicated that estate property could be appropriated for public or administrative purposes. Such use was formally accounted for rather than treated as informal consumption. The reference to use during the recent siege and in Johnston’s time linked estate goods to earlier emergency or administrative needs. This showed that stored property could be drawn upon during periods of crisis. The distinction between goods already issued and those remaining demonstrated structured inventory control. Assets were tracked in stages to ensure full accounting. The decision to exclude enslaved persons, sheep, and goats from immediate sale indicated separate treatment for certain categories of property. These items were likely retained for ongoing productive use rather than immediate liquidation. The requirement to credit the heirs in the Company’s books showed that estate proceeds were recognised as belonging to the deceased’s successors. Accounting procedures ensured that value was preserved for rightful claimants. Speculations The use of estate goods during the siege suggests that available resources were drawn upon rapidly in times of need. This indicates that private property could be redirected to support collective defence when required. The delay in disposing of the remaining goods suggests that sale depended on available buyers or suitable conditions. This indicates that the local market may have been limited or irregular. The exclusion of livestock and enslaved persons from sale suggests that these assets were considered more valuable if retained. This indicates that their productive capacity may have outweighed immediate financial return. | |
50 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday Prest Richᵈ Keelinge Governʳ Whereas Private Instructions was given to And accordingly upon mature Consideration and It is further ordered | A consultation was held on 31 July 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Private information had been given to the Governor that, on this day of the general muster, the inhabitants intended to press for the right to choose their own military officers to command them in times of emergency and alarm, rather than remain under the discipline of the garrison officers. It was understood that this would create a divided authority, weaken allegiance, and lead to competing interests, with inhabitants following their own direction rather than the Governor’s orders. Such a change was judged likely to produce disorder, insubordination, and possibly internal breakdown, which was considered more dangerous than any external threat. As this information had been received that same morning, it was considered necessary to address the matter before the muster took place. After careful consideration, and recognising the risk posed by a strong party among the inhabitants, it was judged proper to strengthen the garrison by enrolling some of them into it. It was therefore ordered that all those already in the service of the Right Honourable Company, together with those newly admitted, should take an oath to remain faithful to the present government until another should be lawfully established. Accordingly, Griffin Wells, William Dyson, John Midge, planters, and William Coats, a single man, were admitted into the garrison. Interpretations The concern over inhabitants choosing their own officers showed the importance placed on unified military command. Authority over armed force was treated as central to maintaining order and allegiance. The fear of divided interests indicated that parallel command structures were seen as a threat to governance. Separation into factions would undermine the Governor’s authority and disrupt coordinated action. The decision to act before the muster demonstrated proactive governance. Anticipated challenges were addressed in advance to prevent open conflict. The strengthening of the garrison by enrolling inhabitants showed the use of incorporation as a means of control. Potential dissenters were brought within the formal military structure rather than left outside it. The requirement to take an oath of loyalty formalised allegiance. This created a binding obligation to the existing government and reinforced authority through sworn commitment. The inclusion of both planters and a single man indicated that recruitment extended across social categories. Service in the garrison was used to integrate different members of the community into a unified command. Speculations The report that inhabitants intended to demand control over their own officers suggests dissatisfaction with existing military leadership. This indicates that tensions between civilian settlers and the garrison had reached a point where structural change was being considered. The strategy of enrolling selected inhabitants into the garrison suggests an attempt to weaken opposition by absorbing it. This indicates that the authorities sought to reduce the strength of any organised faction before it could act collectively. The emphasis on oath-taking suggests concern over loyalty following recent unrest. This indicates that the rebellion had heightened fears of internal instability, prompting measures to secure allegiance more tightly. | |
51 | That the same Oath should be tendred to the Inhabi- The Coppy of the oath Administred is as followeth I Doe hereby Professe God and all presence solemnly vow The Late defection of our Garrison having much The Instructions for Each post and the number of At Prosperous Bay There is to be on any Allarmes Four souldiers and two | It was ordered that the same oath be offered to the inhabitants at the close of the rendezvous, to be taken freely by those willing. All present agreed and took it, except Richard Furber, who refused. This was expected to prevent the demands that had been intended. The garrison was thus strengthened, with some among the inhabitants now aligned with it. The oath administered declared that each person would profess and swear to remain faithful to the present government, to support it against all unlawful attempts to overthrow it, and to continue in that loyalty until another government was lawfully established from England. It also bound them to oppose the interests of the French King or any other enemy to the Crown of England. The recent defection within the garrison was noted to have disrupted defensive arrangements, leaving some posts without protection in the event of alarm. It was therefore considered necessary that, at this rendezvous, all persons on the island be newly assigned to posts, and that instructions be set out for each position according to the current situation. At Prosperous Bay, it was ordered that in the event of alarm there should be four soldiers and two planters stationed, making six white men in total. In addition, any inhabitants with Black servants were required, upon the approach of two ships or more, to bring them to this post. All were to remain there, observe the movements of ships, and report them to Captain Stephen Poirier at his post on the East Ridge. If ships anchored nearby or appeared to prepare for landing, one of the two guns at Prosperous Bay was to be fired as a signal, and no further signal was to be given except [...] Interpretations The administration of the oath to the inhabitants formalised their allegiance to the existing government. This created a collective and binding commitment that reinforced authority following recent instability. The refusal by Richard Furber highlighted that compliance was expected but not absolute. Individual resistance was recorded, indicating that dissent was identifiable and noted within official proceedings. The reference to recent defection showed that internal breakdown had affected the island’s defensive readiness. This prompted immediate reorganisation of personnel and positions. The reassignment of all inhabitants to specific posts demonstrated a coordinated defence structure. Both soldiers and planters were incorporated into a unified system of response. The requirement to bring Black servants to defensive posts indicated their use as part of the island’s labour and support force during emergencies. Their role was tied to observation, movement, and reinforcement rather than independent command. The signalling system using gunfire from Prosperous Bay established a method of communication across the island. This allowed rapid transmission of information about approaching ships or threats. Speculations The near-universal acceptance of the oath suggests that the authorities successfully secured outward loyalty following fears of division. This indicates that the measure was effective in preventing immediate collective challenge. The reorganisation of defensive posts suggests that the recent rebellion had exposed weaknesses in coordination. This indicates that the new system was designed to prevent similar vulnerabilities in future. The integration of both planters and their servants into the defence plan suggests that the island relied on its entire population for security. This indicates that military capacity was limited and required broad participation to function effectively. | |
52 | [...] to Capᵗ Poirier and his party that they may draw At Turk Caps are appointed Two [...] vizᵗ For all which this shall be your sufficient warrant Given Richᵈ Kelinge At the two Gunns or East Ridge Capᵗ Stephen Poirier Comandᵗ of that post in Chief Besides these 28 or there men those of them | Further instructions were issued that, upon any signal from Prosperous Bay, notice was to be sent to Captain Poirier and his party so that they might move toward that place as required. At Turk Caps, two men were appointed, namely Rippin [...] and William Coales. They were required to repair there upon any alarm and to obtain necessary ammunition from Prosperous Bay, where it was to be stored. A constant communication was to be maintained between the parties at Prosperous Bay and Turk Caps, each assisting the other as needed to defend those locations and the surrounding areas from any attempt by an enemy to land or advance into the country. Intelligence was to be sent to Captain Poirier or to Fort James. When Captain Poirier or any officer from the fort came into those parts, he was to give orders to both posts. Until such direction was given, the parties were to act by mutual agreement in supporting each other. It was further directed that any person appointed to these posts who failed, upon alarm, to hasten there and remain until it was certain that no enemy had arrived was to have his name reported to the Governor, so that he might be dealt with according to his offence. At the East Ridge, also called the two guns, the command in the event of alarm was assigned to Captain Stephen Poirier. John Frith was appointed sergeant and William Collins corporal, with eleven soldiers and fourteen planters under arms. In addition to these twenty-eight men, those who had Black servants were permitted, upon the appearance of one ship, to bring as many of them as they thought fit to the post. Upon the approach of two ships or more, all such Black servants were required to attend their masters at that position [...] Interpretations The instruction to relay signals from Prosperous Bay to Captain Poirier established a coordinated communication chain. Movement of forces was to be directed in response to observed threats, linking separate posts into a unified system. The arrangement at Turk Caps showed a decentralised defence structure with limited personnel. Small parties were assigned responsibility for specific locations, supported by shared resources such as ammunition. The requirement for mutual assistance between posts indicated that defence relied on cooperation rather than strict hierarchy in the absence of officers. Authority could shift depending on presence, but coordination remained essential. The provision that officers from the fort could assume command when present showed the primacy of central authority. Local autonomy was temporary and conditional. The enforcement mechanism requiring names of those failing to attend posts to be reported demonstrated accountability. Duty in defence was compulsory and subject to punishment if neglected. The organisation at East Ridge showed a structured command with defined ranks and numbers. The combination of soldiers and planters reflected integration of military and civilian manpower. The inclusion of Black servants in defensive arrangements indicated their use as auxiliary support. Their deployment was regulated according to the scale of perceived threat. Speculations The reliance on communication between dispersed posts suggests that rapid response to landing threats was critical. This indicates that the island’s defence depended on early warning rather than strong fixed positions. The limited number of men at Turk Caps suggests that resources were stretched and that full coverage of the island was difficult. This indicates that defence planning required careful distribution of small forces. The conditional use of Black servants, increasing with the number of ships sighted, suggests a graduated response to threat level. This indicates that manpower was expanded as risk increased, reflecting flexible mobilisation. The emphasis on reporting absentees suggests concern about reliability following recent unrest. This indicates that discipline and attendance were not assumed and had to be enforced actively. | |
53 | [...] [...] in their motion, with all to be ordered Disposed and If any one of the two Gunns at Prosperous Bay In case the said Capᵗ Poirier and his party If any souldᵗ or planter belonging to this party doe For all which this shall be your sufficient warrant Richᵈ Kelinge To Capᵗ Stephen Poirier | Further directions were given that all men at the East Ridge were to act under the command of Captain Stephen Poirier, who was to order, dispose, and deploy them as required until further instruction. If either of the two guns at Prosperous Bay was fired, or if intelligence arrived from Prosperous Bay or Turk Caps, or if any ship, boats, or vessels were seen approaching, lying offshore, or attempting to land, notice was to be sent immediately to Fort James with full details. The alarm gun nearest the fort was then to be fired. Upon this signal, Captain Poirier, with his entire party, was to move to the place concerned and join those already there to prevent any landing, or, if a landing had occurred, to stop the enemy advancing inland or to drive them off the island. If Captain Poirier and his party received information that an enemy was attempting to land at Staggs Head Bay, Sugar Loaf Barn, Turk Caps, or any other leeward part of the island, they were to proceed at once to that place. There they were to join any force already present and use all efforts to defend the island, reporting their movements and actions to Fort James. It was further ordered that any soldier or planter assigned to this party who failed, upon such an event, to go immediately to the East Ridge near the two alarm guns with arms ready, and to remain there as ordered without leaving until formally dismissed, would have his name reported to the Governor and be punished according to his offence. These orders were issued under the authority of Governor Richard Keelinge on 31 July 1693 and directed to Captain Stephen Poirier as commander. Interpretations The placing of all forces under Captain Poirier established a clear chain of command. Authority over movement and deployment was centralised to ensure coordinated action. The use of signal guns and rapid reporting created a structured communication system. Information about threats was to be transmitted quickly to enable an organised response. The requirement to move immediately to threatened landing points showed a defensive strategy based on rapid concentration of force. The aim was to prevent landing or contain any force before it could advance inland. The listing of specific locations demonstrated awareness of vulnerable coastal points. Defence planning was based on known landing areas around the island. The obligation to report actions back to Fort James maintained central oversight. Even while operating in the field, forces remained accountable to the main seat of authority. The strict requirement for attendance at alarm posts, backed by the threat of punishment, reinforced discipline. Participation in defence was compulsory for both soldiers and planters. Speculations The detailed signalling and movement instructions suggest that the island expected sudden maritime threats. This indicates that defence relied on early detection and swift mobilisation rather than permanent strong garrisons at every point. The identification of multiple landing sites suggests that the coastline could not be fully secured at all times. This indicates reliance on flexibility and rapid response to cover dispersed vulnerabilities. The emphasis on strict attendance and punishment suggests concern over reliability of forces following recent disorder. This indicates that maintaining discipline was a priority in restoring effective defence. | |
56 | Richᵈ Stacey and Edwᵈ Bagley with two of [...] For all which this shall be your sufficient warrant Richᵈ Kelinge At Lemon Valley Post Those are to be upon any and every Alarme with their [...] [...] with two Soldᵗ & five Besides these white men those who have any men If any ship or ships are seen or knowne to approach | Richard Stacey and Edward Bagley, together with two Black men, were appointed to attend at [...] Valley, where they were to oppose and prevent any enemy landing and stop any advance into the country. If any such attempt was made, they were to send immediate notice to the post at Lemon Valley and also to Captain Poirier at the Company’s Plantation House. He was then to send such assistance as he could and to inform Fort James. At Lemon Valley post, those appointed were required to attend upon every alarm with their arms ready. [...] together with two soldiers and five planters, including Richard Gurling, were assigned there. In addition to these white men, those who had Black servants were permitted, upon the approach of one ship, to bring as many as they thought fit to the post. If two ships or more approached, all such Black servants were to attend their masters and be employed as directed. In the absence of an officer from the fort, Richard Gurling was to command the whole party, both white and Black, until further orders were received. If any ship or ships were seen approaching the leeward side of the island or near this post, notice was to be sent immediately to [...] and his party at the Horse Pasture. The entire party at Lemon Valley was then to prepare for defence to prevent any landing. If an attempt was made to land at Friars Valley or at [...] Rock, men could be sent from this post to join forces from other posts, including those stationed at the mouth of Johnson Valley and the mouths of Plantation Valleys, in order to prevent enemy landings at those points. Interpretations The assignment of small, named parties to specific valleys showed a dispersed defensive system covering multiple landing points. Each location was given responsibility for immediate response within its area. The requirement to report first to nearby posts and then to central command demonstrated a layered communication structure. Information moved from local observation to coordinated response. The instruction that Richard Gurling assume command in the absence of an officer showed contingency planning. Authority was delegated to ensure that action could continue without delay. The integration of Black servants into the defensive force reflected their role as auxiliary labour and support. Their deployment was controlled by their masters and adjusted according to the scale of threat. The direction to reinforce neighbouring posts indicated a flexible defence strategy. Forces were expected to move between locations to concentrate strength where needed. The identification of multiple landing sites such as Friars Valley and Johnson Valley showed detailed knowledge of vulnerable coastal access points. Defence planning was closely tied to the geography of the island. Speculations The distribution of small groups across several valleys suggests that the island lacked sufficient forces to defend all points strongly at once. This indicates reliance on rapid reinforcement rather than fixed defence. The emphasis on communication between posts suggests that early warning was essential to the system. This indicates that detection of approaching ships was as important as the ability to fight. The provision for movement between posts suggests that the defenders expected enemy landings to be uncertain in location. This indicates that flexibility and coordination were necessary to respond effectively. | |
57 | If any posted to this post doe not forthwith upon any For all which this shall be your sufficient warrant To [...] Morris Richᵈ Kelinge At the Horse Pasture There to be on the Horse pasture, Tho: Bux with one of Capᵗ Poiriers Sons Two Besides these thirteen white men those If any ship or ships appeare to the leeward parts [...] some Blacks with some Whites for the two Blacks of Company with Crows on the Ridge one Whiteman at least with his armes, and two Blacks of | It was ordered that any person assigned to this post who failed, upon any alarm, to repair immediately to the place with arms ready and to remain there under orders would have his name reported to the Governor. No one was to be dismissed until it was known that those arriving were friends. These instructions were issued on 31 July 1693 and directed to [...] Morris, with Richard Gurling named in authority in the absence of an officer, under the authority of Governor Richard Keelinge and Captain Poirier. At the Horse Pasture, Thomas Bux, one of Captain Poirier’s sons, and two vignerons, together with other planters, were appointed, making thirteen white men in total. In addition to these, those who had Black servants were permitted, upon the approach of one ship, to bring as many as they thought fit. If two ships appeared, all such Black servants were to attend their masters and be employed as directed. If any ship or ships appeared on the leeward side of the island, notice was to be sent immediately to Fort James and also to Captain Poirier’s party at the two guns or bay. If an enemy anchored there, the whole party was to move toward the shore, especially to the valley mouths between Stone Valley and Lemon Valley, or any other place where ships might anchor or attempt a landing, and they were to oppose such attempts as far as possible. It was further directed that both white men and Black servants be stationed at key valley mouths. At the ridge between Woman’s Valley and Prosperous Valley, at least one white man with arms and two Black servants equipped with tools were to be posted. Similarly, between Ruarly Valley, Break Neck, and Lemon Valley mouths, one white man and two Black servants with tools were to be stationed. Interpretations The requirement that all assigned persons attend immediately upon alarm and remain until formally dismissed reinforced strict discipline. Defence duties were compulsory and subject to oversight by the Governor. The appointment of named individuals and defined numbers at Horse Pasture showed detailed allocation of manpower. Specific roles and locations were carefully organised to cover vulnerable areas. The inclusion of vignerons among those assigned indicated that specialised labourers were also incorporated into defence arrangements. Military responsibility extended beyond formal soldiers and planters. The structured use of Black servants alongside white men demonstrated their integration into operational roles. Their deployment was coordinated and tied to specific tasks and locations. The instruction to move toward valley mouths in the event of enemy approach showed a defensive focus on likely landing points. Control of these access routes was central to preventing inland movement. The placement of small mixed parties at ridges and valley mouths indicated a layered defence system. Observation and obstruction were combined to slow or prevent enemy advance. Speculations The detailed positioning of small groups suggests that the island relied on surveillance and early resistance rather than large defensive concentrations. This indicates a strategy of monitoring and delaying enemy movements. The use of both white men and Black servants at exposed points suggests that manpower was limited and had to be distributed carefully. This indicates that every available resource was used to maintain coverage. The emphasis on tools alongside arms suggests preparation for physical obstruction as well as combat. This indicates that defenders may have intended to block paths or alter terrain to hinder enemy progress. | |
58 | Besides these Blacks with Crows there are also some from The [...] of what a party of men are to do in Sandy If any souldᵗ or planters that are appointed to keep For all which this shall be your sufficient warrant given To Thomas Broe Richᵈ Kelinge At Sandy Bay There are to be upon any Alarme Besides these Eight white men those men of this party | Further instructions were given that, in addition to the Black servants already assigned with tools, others from [...] were to be placed at such locations as Thomas Broe considered appropriate. Directions concerning the conduct of a party at Sandy Bay in the event of alarm were also issued. It was considered necessary to station one or more persons, either white or Black, at or above Lemon Valley or nearby, to observe whether any enemy attempted to land along the beach or shore. These observers were to send immediate notice to the party at Horse Pasture so that all or part of that force could proceed at once to Sandy Bay, especially to any place suspected to be under threat. If an enemy succeeded in landing, the parties at Horse Pasture and Sandy Bay were to unite and oppose them with all possible effort, while sending prompt notice to Fort James of both their first movements and subsequent actions. It was further ordered that any soldier or planter assigned to the Horse Pasture party, or to the Sandy Bay party after they had joined together, who failed to repair immediately to the appointed place with arms ready upon alarm, or who neglected duty, dispersed, or left before being formally dismissed, would have his name reported to the Governor and be punished according to his offence. These instructions were issued on 31 July 1693 to Thomas Broe as commander, under the authority of Governor Richard Keelinge and Captain Poirier. At Sandy Bay, James Riker and seven additional planters were appointed, making eight white men in total. In addition to these, those who had Black servants were permitted, upon the appearance of one ship, to bring as many as they thought fit to the post. If two ships or more approached and drew near [...] Interpretations The delegation of authority to Thomas Broe to position additional personnel showed flexible command at the local level. Officers were permitted to adapt deployment according to immediate conditions. The placement of observers near Lemon Valley demonstrated the importance of surveillance in coastal defence. Early detection of enemy movement was treated as essential to effective response. The requirement for rapid communication between Sandy Bay and Horse Pasture showed an integrated defensive network. Separate posts were expected to act in coordination rather than isolation. The instruction that forces from different posts unite in the event of a landing indicated a strategy of concentration. Dispersed units were to combine strength when direct engagement became necessary. The strict enforcement of attendance and discipline, with reporting of absentees, reinforced the compulsory nature of defence duties. Accountability was maintained through formal reporting to the Governor. The defined composition of the Sandy Bay party, combining planters and their servants, showed continued reliance on mixed manpower. Civilian and labouring populations were incorporated into the defensive system. Speculations The emphasis on observation posts suggests concern that enemy landings might occur without warning. This indicates that visibility of the coastline was a critical weakness being addressed. The instruction to unite forces from multiple posts suggests that individual posts were not strong enough to resist alone. This indicates reliance on reinforcement to meet significant threats. The detailed coordination between posts suggests that previous disorder had exposed gaps in communication. This indicates that these measures were designed to prevent confusion and delay in response. | |
59 | [...] Draw neere the [...] Island or cast anchor at any place As also notice is to be sent unto Tho: Broe & his party But in case the ships that approach the said For all which this shall be your sufficient warrant given To James Broe Richᵈ Kelinge John Hemmings is to give Intelligence to To John Hemmings Chief Richᵈ Kelinge These are the true Instructions Made in order to the Defence Richᵈ [...] | Further instructions were issued that if ships approached the island or anchored within sight, appearing likely to attempt a landing, especially at Sandy Bay beach, then all Black servants belonging to the party, estimated at about five, were to be assembled at such places as James Broe should appoint. Immediate notice was to be sent to Fort James reporting what had been observed of the ships and their movements, together with the party’s judgement. Notice was also to be sent to Thomas Broe and his party at Horse Pasture so that, if necessary, they might descend into Sandy Bay to join forces. Their purpose was to prevent any landing or, if one had occurred, to oppose it. Once both parties were joined, Thomas Broe was to command them until further orders were given. If the approaching ships did not remain on the windward side or near Sandy Bay but instead moved toward Prosperous Bay or Barn Point, then as soon as this was known the entire Sandy Bay party was to move to join Thomas Broe at Horse Pasture. They were to remain together, particularly if an attempt was made to land on any part of the leeward side of the island, and were not to disperse until it was certain that those arriving were friends. These orders were issued on 31 July 1693 to James Broe as commander, under the authority of Governor Richard Keelinge and Captain Poirier. John Hemmings was separately instructed to provide intelligence to those at Sandy Bay if there was uncertainty about the position of ships between that place and Prosperous Bay. He was also to assist the Sandy Bay party and to notify Captain Poirier’s force whenever an attempt to land was made there. This duty was declared essential and was not to be neglected. These were certified as the official instructions for the defence of the island in the event of an attempted landing, signed on 31 July 1693. Interpretations The instruction to report not only observations but also the party’s judgement showed that local commanders were expected to interpret as well as observe. Decision-making was partly decentralised within the wider command structure. The provision for forces to move between Sandy Bay, Horse Pasture, and other points demonstrated a mobile defence system. Units were expected to redeploy quickly according to the direction of threat. The designation of Thomas Broe as overall commander once forces combined established a clear hierarchy during joint operations. Authority was consolidated when separate units acted together. The conditional movement depending on whether ships approached windward or leeward showed strategic awareness of geography and prevailing conditions. Defence planning adapted to different approaches by sea. The requirement that forces remain assembled until the identity of arrivals was confirmed emphasised caution. Premature dispersal was treated as a risk to security. The assignment of John Hemmings as a dedicated intelligence agent indicated the importance of continuous observation and communication. Specific individuals were made responsible for ensuring the flow of information. Speculations The emphasis on reporting opinions as well as sightings suggests that communication delays may have required local judgement to guide immediate action. This indicates that central command could not always respond in time to direct events. The detailed coordination between multiple posts suggests that the island expected attacks at uncertain locations. This indicates that defence depended on flexibility rather than fixed expectations of where an enemy would land. The strict instruction that intelligence duties were not to be neglected suggests prior failures or concerns about reliability. This indicates that effective communication had become a critical priority following recent instability. | |
64 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Fryday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Goverᵣ Information having been given yesterday by It is ordered That the said John Goodwin, James Rider, James Duffee James Duffee being examined saith that | A consultation was held on 6 September 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, was present, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Information had been given the previous day by James [...] that John Goodwin, a planter, had reported that James Rider and Thomas Swallow had been discussing a rumour that the Black population of the island intended to rise and kill their masters. In order to prevent any such event, the matter was taken into consideration. It was ordered that John Goodwin, James Rider, James Duffee, Thomas Swallow, James Wilson, and John Downing, all of whom were said to have spoken on the matter, should appear for examination. They all attended as required. James Duffee, having been examined, stated that while near the house of John Goodwin in the country, Goodwin had called to him, saying that he wished to speak with him. Duffee replied that he would come shortly, but was delayed and did not go at that time. Later, at about seven in the evening, he went to the house of Thomas Harper, who told him that Goodwin had something to say to him and wondered that it had not been said earlier, adding that it concerned the Black population. Duffee then went immediately to Goodwin, who told him that James Wilson had reported that James Rider had told Thomas Swallow that he had heard that the Black population intended to rise. Duffee further stated that, on his way home, he stopped at the house formerly of Leister Seaton, now belonging to the Honourable Company, where James [...] Interpretations The rapid response to reported rumours of a rising showed the sensitivity of the authorities to threats of rebellion. Even unverified information was treated as requiring immediate investigation. The summoning of multiple individuals for examination demonstrated a method of tracing the origin of information. Statements were followed through successive links to identify how the report had spread. The focus on spoken reports indicated that informal communication was taken seriously. Rumours were treated as potential evidence of unrest or conspiracy. The involvement of named planters showed that responsibility for circulating such information was attributed to individuals. Speech itself could become the subject of official scrutiny. The concern over a possible rising reflected underlying tensions within the social structure. The authorities treated the enslaved population as a potential source of organised threat requiring surveillance. Speculations The chain of reported statements suggests that the rumour may have spread quickly through personal communication. This indicates a high level of sensitivity within the community to perceived threats. The decision to investigate before any confirmed action suggests that the authorities aimed to prevent unrest at an early stage. This indicates that control relied on monitoring intentions as much as responding to events. The emphasis on identifying who said what suggests concern not only with the rumour itself but with its circulation. This indicates that spreading alarming information may have been seen as destabilising in its own right. | |
65 | of their slave dwell, but did not find the man slave at home John Goodwin saith that James James Wilson saith that he heard James James Rider saith that on Saturday last Tho: Swallow saith that Downing being one John Downing saith that the only ground But the Information having also been given to | James Duffee further stated that he went to the house where a slave belonging to James [...] lived but did not find him there. He asked the slave’s wife where her husband was, and she replied sharply that it was no concern of his. He also reported that he had heard that Peter, a slave belonging to Mr [...], had gone out for the whole of the night toward Monday, but he gave no further account. John Goodwin stated that, in the presence of James Wilson, he had been told that James Rider and Thomas Swallow had been heard discussing that the Black population of the island intended to rise. James Wilson stated that he had heard James Rider tell Thomas Swallow that he had heard that the Black population were going to rise. James Rider stated that on the previous Saturday he had been at a place called Pound in Sandy Bay with Thomas Swallow, Wilson, and Greenstree. During conversation about the killing of the late Governor Joshua Johnson and the seizure of the fort by Jacob and his associates, Swallow had remarked that he wished there were not another king involved and that trouble might follow. Rider replied that he did not think so, as troops would keep matters under control. Thomas Swallow stated that John Downing had once told him at his house that he feared the Black population might rise because they had become more insolent than before. Swallow added that this was the same matter already described by James Rider. John Downing stated that his only reason for saying he feared a rising was his own imagination, based on what he perceived as increased insolence among the Black population. It was further reported that information had been given that several Black people belonging to Captain [...] plantation had met and assembled at a house belonging to Peter Tomney, now belonging to the Honourable Company, where only two Black people resided [...] Interpretations The examination of multiple individuals showed a systematic effort to trace the origin and transmission of the rumour. Statements were compared to determine how the information had circulated. The repeated reference to second-hand reports indicated that the concern rested on hearsay rather than direct evidence. The inquiry focused on verifying whether any concrete basis existed. The mention of the earlier killing of Governor Joshua Johnson and seizure of the fort showed that recent events shaped perceptions of risk. Past rebellion influenced interpretation of present rumours. The attribution of concern to “insolence” among the Black population reflected how behaviour was interpreted as a sign of potential unrest. Social conduct was monitored as an indicator of threat. The admission by John Downing that his statement was based on imagination showed that rumours could arise from personal fear rather than fact. Such statements still prompted official response. The report of a gathering among enslaved people indicated that assemblies were treated as suspicious. Collective meetings were monitored as possible signs of organisation. Speculations The reliance on repeated layers of reported speech suggests that the rumour may have spread without a clear origin. This indicates that anxiety within the community could amplify uncertain information. The reference to recent rebellion suggests that fear of renewed disorder remained strong. This indicates that authorities were alert to even minor signs that might resemble earlier events. The concern over gatherings of enslaved people suggests that ordinary social interaction could be interpreted as threatening. This indicates that surveillance extended into everyday activities where collective behaviour might be misread as organisation. | |
66 | The said slave with the planters with two of Mr [...] negroes It is ordered That the said Charlestown Black named Peter doe But for the prevention of the Meeting and Island St Helena By the Governᵣ & Councill Whereas at a Councill held the 22ᵗʰ of June 1686 an | The slaves belonging to the planters, together with two belonging to Mr [...], [...] Fanaday, three belonging to the Honourable Company who lodged at the house formerly of Seaton, and two who lived at [...] Downey’s house, were all brought down and examined. Upon examination, it was found that none were culpable except one slave named Peter, belonging to Mr [...] Charlestown, and one belonging to Fanaday. It was also determined that none would have assembled at Downey’s house had it not been for Black Will, regarded as the head among them. It was therefore ordered that Peter, the slave of Charlestown, should immediately receive forty lashes on his naked body, and that the slave of Fanaday should receive thirty lashes. All others were dismissed without punishment, as not being found culpable. To prevent future meetings and assemblies among the Black population, by which any design might arise, it was considered proper to revive and strengthen a proclamation first issued on 22 June 1686, with additional penalties. A proclamation was accordingly set out by the Governor and Council. It referred to the earlier order made on 22 June 1686, which had been intended to keep the Black population in discipline. Under that order, all persons possessing enslaved individuals were required to take strict care in keeping them at home, especially during the night, and also during the day unless there was an exceptional reason. Masters and mistresses were not to send them abroad unnecessarily, but were to maintain close supervision over them. Interpretations The examination of multiple enslaved individuals showed a formal investigative process applied to suspected gatherings. Responsibility was assigned selectively rather than collectively. The identification of particular individuals as culpable indicated that leadership or initiative within such assemblies was recognised and punished more severely. The reference to Black Will as a central figure showed attention to influence within the group. The use of corporal punishment demonstrated the enforcement of discipline through physical means. The number of lashes reflected differentiation in perceived responsibility. The revival of an earlier proclamation showed continuity in regulatory measures. Existing rules were reasserted and strengthened in response to renewed concern. The requirement for masters to control the movements of enslaved people indicated that responsibility for discipline was placed upon owners. Authority was exercised through household supervision. The restriction on movement, especially at night, showed an attempt to prevent communication and assembly. Control of mobility was used as a means of maintaining order. Speculations The attribution of the gathering to a leading individual suggests that authorities believed organisation depended on particular figures. This indicates that control efforts focused on limiting influence as well as behaviour. The decision to revive an earlier proclamation suggests that existing rules were either insufficiently enforced or no longer effective. This indicates a perceived need to reinforce authority in response to changing conditions. The emphasis on restricting night movement suggests that gatherings were thought more likely to occur outside normal working hours. This indicates that control measures were targeted at times when supervision was weaker. | |
67 | Should doe their Endeavᵣ to Restrain them from all Idle And That if any such owner of a Slave or Which order and Proclamation of the then And whereas in the formᵉʳ order the owner of Now upon Serious Consideration That if any Person or Persons shall be found remiss Likewise it is further ordered | The proclamation required that masters and mistresses should use their best efforts to restrain enslaved people from idle wandering, from assembling, and from keeping company with one another outside the household. Such meetings were regarded as occasions where mischief might be planned and wrongdoing encouraged. It was further established that if any owner allowed an enslaved person to wander abroad without a pass or token, a fine of £0 5s 0d would be imposed for each offence. Any white inhabitant who encountered enslaved people assembled or walking together was permitted to take them to Fort James and would receive half of the fine for each person apprehended. It was noted that the earlier order and proclamation of 22 June 1686 had not been properly observed. This neglect was considered to have caused damage and to have endangered the safety of the island by allowing too much liberty. The order was therefore reinforced, requiring all owners to keep enslaved people at home under stricter control. It was further ordered that, whereas the previous penalty had been £0 5s 0d, any person now found negligent in observing the order would be fined £0 10s 0d for each offence. One half of this sum was to be paid to the person who apprehended the enslaved individual, and the other half to the Honourable Company. The fine was to be levied upon the owner before the enslaved person was released from the fort. It was likewise further ordered Interpretations The restriction on movement and assembly showed a system of social control aimed at preventing collective action. Limiting contact between enslaved people was treated as a means of reducing the risk of organised resistance. The requirement for passes or tokens indicated a regulated system of mobility. Movement outside the household was subject to formal permission and could be enforced through penalties. The provision allowing any white inhabitant to apprehend enslaved people demonstrated decentralised enforcement. Authority to police behaviour was extended across the settler population. The division of fines between the captor and the Company created an incentive structure. Financial reward encouraged participation in enforcement while also benefiting the Company. The increase in the fine from £0 5s 0d to £0 10s 0d showed an escalation in penalties. Stronger sanctions were introduced in response to perceived non-compliance. The requirement that fines be paid before release from the fort ensured immediate enforcement. Detention functioned as a mechanism to secure payment and compliance from owners. Speculations The reinforcement of the earlier proclamation suggests that previous measures had failed to control behaviour effectively. This indicates that enforcement may have been inconsistent or resisted. The extension of enforcement powers to all white inhabitants suggests a need for wider surveillance. This indicates that official authority alone was insufficient to monitor the entire population. The focus on preventing gatherings suggests that authorities feared coordinated action among enslaved people. This indicates that even ordinary social interaction was interpreted as a potential threat. | |
70 | Island St Helena At a Court of Justice Holden on Munday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Governᵣ After the Court was opened by proclamation according Henry Cole foreman — — — one were all sworne Hugh Bodley planter complains of John The said Lupkin Denys the said Bodleys accusation Matthew Barret being sworne saith that he | A court of justice was held on 2 October 1693 at the Sessions House near Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. The court was opened by proclamation in the usual manner, and a jury of twelve men was called and sworn, with Henry Cole serving as foreman. The other jurors included John Colgrave, Leif Field, Thomas Goodwin, Robert Addis, John Goodwin, Orlando Bagley, Thomas Sam, Samuel Hemsley, John Tripp, and [...] Hugh Bodley, a planter, brought an action of defamation against John Lupkin, also a planter. He alleged that Lupkin had reported that he had intended to ravish Mary Gagen, Lupkin’s daughter, and had also accused him and his son of causing the death of his father-in-law, John Charlestown. Lupkin denied the accusations. Matthew Barret, having been sworn, stated that while in company with Bodley, Lupkin, and Rebeccah Charlestown, he heard a heated exchange between Bodley and Lupkin. During this dispute, Lupkin said that Bodley would have ravished Mary Gagen and that Bodley and his son were responsible for the death of John Charlestown. Bodley then called upon Rebeccah Charlestown to take notice of these words, and Lupkin responded that she should do so, though he added that he did not say Bodley alone but “you and amongst you”. Barret stated no further. Interpretations An action of defamation referred to a legal claim that a person’s reputation had been harmed by spoken or written accusations. Such cases were treated as civil matters, with the court assessing whether damaging statements had been made without sufficient proof. The allegation of “ravishing” carried a serious implication of intended sexual violence. Even without an act being carried out, such an accusation could significantly damage reputation and standing within the community. The accusation that Bodley and his son were “the death” of John Charlestown suggested responsibility for causing or contributing to a death, whether directly or indirectly. Such a claim implied grave wrongdoing and could border on an accusation of homicide. The use of witnesses to recount spoken words showed that defamation cases depended on testimony regarding what had been said in conversation. Verbal exchanges were treated as admissible evidence when confirmed by those present. The appeal to a bystander, Rebeccah Charlestown, to “take notice” of the words indicated an attempt to establish immediate witness to the statement. This strengthened the claim that the words had been publicly spoken and could be proven. The qualification “you and amongst you” suggested an attempt to diffuse or soften the accusation by spreading responsibility more broadly. This reflected how speakers might adjust statements when challenged, affecting how the court interpreted intent and meaning. | |
71 | [...] Charlestown being sworne saith After that the Jury withdrew and stayed about Which they Delivered to the Court as followeth That John Lupkin be Cast in Suit and pay Charges Daniell Collier Complaines of John Oliver The sd Oliver saith that he never Reported any such Thom: Dixon Serjᵗ being sworne saith yt Wᵐ Hayse being sworne saith that Oliver [...] | Rebeccah Charlestown, having been sworn, confirmed the same account as Matthew Barret. The jury withdrew for about half an hour and, upon returning, delivered their verdict that John Lupkin should be found liable, pay the costs of the case, and pay Hugh Bodley damages of £1 0s 0d. Daniel Collier then brought a complaint against John Oliver, alleging that Oliver had reported that Jack, a slave belonging to Sutton Snatch, Collier’s father-in-law, had lain with Naomi, Collier’s wife and Snatch’s daughter. Oliver denied that he had spoken such words about Collier’s wife. However, he stated that Jack had told him that he had lain with his young mistress Naomi, now Collier’s wife. Thomas Dixon, a sergeant, having been sworn, stated that Oliver had told him there was a report, and that Derrick, a slave belonging to Mr Beale, and Rob, the gunner’s slave, were both present, that Sutton Snatch’s slave Jack had lain with Naomi, now Collier’s wife. Dixon further stated that Oliver had said that the slave himself had told him that an arrangement had been made with Naomi for her to leave her chamber door open so that he might go to her after her parents were in bed. The slave had reportedly failed to act at the agreed time, having overslept, and on that same night Collier returned home from abroad, before Naomi had become his wife, and found her door open, and went into the slave’s room. William Hayes, having been sworn, stated that Oliver had come to his house and said that there was a story that Naomi Snatch, now Collier’s wife, was with child, and that it might not be by a Black man, for Jack had told him that he had lain with her several times [...] Interpretations The verdict against John Lupkin showed that defamation actions could result in financial penalties. Damages of £1 0s 0d, together with court costs, were awarded to compensate for injury to reputation. The second complaint also concerned defamation, but involved allegations of sexual relations across racial boundaries. Such accusations carried severe social consequences, particularly for a married woman. The repeated use of reported speech demonstrated how defamation cases relied heavily on the transmission of statements through multiple individuals. The court examined whether the defendant had actively spread the allegation. The reference to a “young mistress” indicated the hierarchical relationship between a slave and the daughter of his owner. The term reflected both household authority and the social position of the woman within that structure. The account of an arrangement involving access to a chamber showed how private domestic spaces were treated as sites of potential misconduct. Testimony described behaviour in detail to establish credibility. The suggestion that a child “might not be a Black child” reflected concern over paternity and status. Questions of lineage had implications for legitimacy, inheritance, and social order. The involvement of multiple witnesses, including a sergeant and household members, showed that such matters were examined through a wide range of testimony. Statements were corroborated or challenged through comparison. Speculations The persistence of the allegation through several individuals suggests that the story may have circulated widely within the community. This indicates that reputational harm could spread rapidly through informal networks. The emphasis on whether Oliver had merely repeated what he had been told suggests that the case turned on responsibility for transmitting the claim. This indicates that repeating a rumour could itself be treated as actionable. The detailed narrative involving timing, location, and behaviour suggests that witnesses attempted to reconstruct events to lend plausibility to the claim. This indicates that even indirect evidence could be shaped into a coherent account to influence judgement. | |
72 | Margrett Manning and Ruth Queeny being Robert Coster being sworne saith That Dorothy the wife of John Haysle being sworne saith After the Jury had considered of the That the said Oliver was non suited & that he It is ordered by the Court | Margaret Manning and Ruth Queeny, having been sworn, stated that several people had told them that Mr Isaack had found the slave out of bed with Naomi before she became the wife of Daniel Collier. Robert Coster, having been sworn, stated that he had never seen any immodest act between the slave and Naomi. However, he reported that on one night, after drinking and suffering from a headache, he asked Mrs Isaack for a handkerchief. When she went into another room to fetch it, she found the slave Jack there with Naomi. Upon being seen, the slave immediately ran out of the door. Coster added that Isaack was in such a rage that he might have killed the slave had he not been restrained. Dorothy, the wife of John Haysle, having been sworn, stated that before Naomi became Collier’s wife, her children had seen Isaack and Naomi together in Isaack’s plantation, kissing. On another occasion, they had seen them together there at night, lying on the ground. She reported that her children had told her this, and that she had relayed it to Mr Draper, now Mr Manning. She further stated that Isaack had reacted with such anger that he would have hanged his daughter had he not been prevented. After considering the evidence, the jury returned a verdict that John Oliver was not liable in the action and should pay the costs of the court, with damages of £0 1s 0d awarded to him. It was ordered by the court that the slave belonging to Isaack should receive thirty-nine lashes on his naked body at the gallows, as the principal cause of raising the report, whether true or false. Interpretations A verdict of “non-suited” meant that the complainant’s case failed, either for lack of sufficient evidence or because the claim was not legally sustained. In this case, Daniel Collier did not succeed in proving that John Oliver had wrongfully defamed him. The award of £0 1s 0d to Oliver, despite his acquittal, reflected a nominal recognition of harm or inconvenience caused by the accusation. Such small damages could accompany a failed claim. The punishment of thirty-nine lashes at the gallows was a severe corporal penalty. The gallows served not only as a place of execution but also as a public site of punishment, reinforcing authority through visibility. The designation of the slave as the “criminal cause” of the report showed that responsibility for the spread of the allegation was ultimately attributed to him, regardless of whether the claim was true. This shifted accountability away from the white participants in the dispute. The use of testimony based on what others had said, including children’s reports, demonstrated that indirect evidence was admitted in court. Statements were evaluated collectively rather than requiring direct observation. The repeated focus on sexual conduct within a household reflected the importance placed on moral regulation and reputation. Allegations of improper relations had implications for family honour and social standing. The reaction attributed to Isaack, including extreme anger and threats of violence, illustrated the expectation of control over household members. Authority within the household extended to enforcing moral conduct. Speculations The decision to punish the slave despite uncertainty over the truth of the allegation suggests that maintaining order was prioritised over establishing factual certainty. This indicates that punishment could serve as a preventative measure. The reliance on indirect testimony suggests that clear evidence may have been lacking. This indicates that the court may have resolved the case by assigning responsibility where it would most reinforce social hierarchy. The focus on the slave as the origin of the report suggests that authorities sought to contain the source of rumours within the enslaved population. This indicates an effort to limit the perceived spread of disorder from that group. | |
73 | Richard Leache planter Complains of him The sd Whalley saith that Benjamin Miller But the Jury not being satisfied with what And accordingly It is ordered And It is agreed All which was accordingly performed and the Jury We whose names are hereunto affixed being Impannell | Richard Leach, a planter, brought a complaint against Simon Whalley, stating that Whalley had selected a parcel of ten acres of land from the Honourable Company adjoining Leach’s land. Leach claimed that this parcel could not exist without encroaching upon his own land and therefore requested that Whalley should not be granted it. Whalley replied that Benjamin Miller had previously held ten acres of land there from the Honourable Company, and that Miller had left the island and transferred his interest to Thomas Currant. Currant had then surrendered the land back to the Company. Whalley therefore requested that the land be granted to him. The jury, not being satisfied with the evidence presented, requested that the verdict be postponed until they had inspected the land and examined its boundaries. It was ordered that the jury should assemble the following day on the land in question and that it should be measured if a person could show it. It was also agreed that the Governor and Council should attend in order to resolve the dispute. These steps were carried out, and the jury returned the following verdict. The jurors stated that they had heard and examined the dispute between Richard Leach and Simon Whalley concerning a parcel of land taken by Whalley from the Honourable Company under lease, which Leach alleged encroached upon his land. The jurors had viewed the land and examined it, and according to the way it had formerly been measured by Captain Shatto Seale, then surveyor [...] Interpretations A complaint concerning land “taken… by lease” referred to land held from the Honourable Company under a formal agreement granting use for a fixed term. Such leases defined rights of occupation rather than outright ownership. The reference to land previously held and then “thrown up” to the Company indicated surrender of a lease. When a tenant abandoned or relinquished land, it reverted to the Company for reassignment. The jury’s decision to suspend judgement until inspection showed that physical evidence was required in land disputes. Boundaries could not be determined solely by testimony. The instruction to measure the land reflected the role of surveying in resolving disputes. Measurement provided an objective basis for defining boundaries. The mention of a survey conducted by Captain Shatto Seale indicated reliance on earlier official records. Surveyors established recognised boundaries that could later be used as authoritative reference. The involvement of the Governor and Council in attending the site demonstrated that land disputes could require direct administrative oversight. Authority extended beyond the courtroom into practical resolution on the ground. The concern over encroachment showed that precise boundary definition was essential in allocating land. Overlapping claims required formal adjudication to prevent conflict. Speculations The need to inspect and re-measure the land suggests that earlier boundaries may not have been clearly marked or maintained. This indicates potential instability in land allocation over time. The reference to successive holders of the land suggests that transfers and surrenders may have created uncertainty about entitlement. This indicates that administrative records may not always have been clear or consistently applied. The involvement of senior officials in a local land dispute suggests that such conflicts could escalate beyond routine resolution. This indicates the importance of landholding within the island’s economic and social structure. | |
74 | To Honble Compᵃ we give as our verdict to the best of Witness our hands this 5th day of 8ber 1693 Jno Tripp Roland Bagley foreman Whereas the Barracks in the Fort being It is ordered Therefore And whereas one of the powder Roomes belonging | The jury declared that, according to their judgement and conscience, Richard Leach had no cause of action against Simon Whalley, as Whalley had not encroached upon Leach’s land. It was therefore ordered that Leach should pay the costs of the court and £0 5s 0d damages to Whalley. The verdict was signed by the jurors on 5 October 1693. It was then reported that the barracks within the fort, built of plank and timber, had decayed and were in danger of collapse. They had required continual repair for many years, dating back to the time of St John Wishborne. The present condition was considered inadequate, and it was judged necessary to rebuild them in a stronger and more convenient form. It was ordered that the barracks should be repaired as soon as possible, and that the upper rooms should be made as strong as practicable. This would allow a curtain to be constructed at the rear, providing improved strength and defensive advantage to the garrison compared with the previous arrangement. It was further noted that one of the powder rooms within the fort was situated on the leeward side at the end of the structure. Because of its position, sparks carried by the wind could strike the door, which was not sufficiently strong. The room above it was also unstable and at risk of collapse, making the powder store highly exposed and vulnerable to damage [...] Interpretations The verdict awarding £0 5s 0d damages to Whalley, despite his successful defence, reflected compensation for the inconvenience or harm caused by the claim. Court costs and damages could be imposed on the unsuccessful party. The reference to barracks built of “plank and timber” indicated temporary or lightly constructed military housing. Such structures required frequent maintenance and were vulnerable to decay in the island environment. A “curtain” in this context referred to a defensive wall or screen connecting or backing fortifications. Its construction would strengthen the defensive layout of the fort by improving protection and structural coherence. The concern over the powder room’s location highlighted the risk of storing gunpowder near exposed or unstable structures. Gunpowder was highly sensitive to sparks, making its secure placement critical to safety. The term “leeward” referred to the side sheltered from the prevailing wind. However, in this case, wind conditions still carried sparks toward the powder room, demonstrating how environmental factors affected fort design. The mention of continual repairs since the time of St John Wishborne indicated long-term structural neglect or the limitations of earlier construction. Maintenance demands had accumulated over time. The emphasis on strengthening upper rooms and defensive features showed that the fort served both residential and military functions. Buildings were adapted to improve defensive capability as well as habitation. Speculations The repeated need for repair suggests that earlier construction may have prioritised speed over durability. This indicates that the fort’s infrastructure may not have been designed for long-term use. The concern over sparks reaching the powder room suggests that fire risk was a persistent hazard within the fort. This indicates that daily activities could pose ongoing danger to stored munitions. The decision to improve defensive structures alongside repairs suggests that recent events may have exposed weaknesses. This indicates that rebuilding efforts were influenced by perceived threats as well as physical decay. | |
75 | by the Smith Forge though his great anvil off & nearer Upon consideration of all the Inconveniencies It is ordered Rich: Kelinge | It was further reported that the blacksmith’s forge posed an additional danger to the powder room. Each blow of the smith’s hammer upon the anvil produced sparks, which were thrown toward the powder room door, as the anvil and ironwork were positioned directly against it. This had been a continuing concern raised by the gunner and his assistant. At the same time, soldiers had been reprimanded for carrying burning firebrands within the fort, indicating ongoing risk of fire. Upon consideration of these dangers, together with the decayed condition of the structure above the powder room, it was judged necessary to act. It was therefore ordered that the powder room should be removed to the upper end of the fort, near another powder store, where it would be both more convenient and less dangerous. The order was issued under the authority of Governor Richard Keelinge and Captain John Poirier. Interpretations A “powder room” referred to a storage space for gunpowder, a highly explosive material used for firearms and artillery. Its safe storage was critical, as exposure to sparks or fire could cause catastrophic explosion. A “smith’s forge” was the workplace of a blacksmith, where iron was heated and shaped using hammer and anvil. The process produced frequent sparks, especially during heavy striking, which posed a serious fire hazard in close proximity to gunpowder. The reference to the gunner and his mate indicated their responsibility for the care and safety of artillery and munitions. Their complaint reflected an official concern about the unsafe positioning of the powder store. The mention of soldiers carrying “firebrands” referred to burning sticks or torches used for light or ignition. Their presence within the fort increased the risk of accidental fire, particularly near sensitive materials. The decision to relocate the powder room showed an administrative response to cumulative risk. Structural decay, poor placement, and unsafe practices were addressed through reorganisation of the fort’s layout. The relocation “to the upper end of the fort” suggested a deliberate effort to separate hazardous functions. Concentrating powder storage in a safer area reduced the likelihood of accidental ignition. Speculations The continued presence of a forge near the powder room suggests that the original layout of the fort had not adequately separated industrial and military functions. This indicates that practical working needs may have overridden safety considerations in earlier planning. The repeated complaints about sparks and firebrands suggest that fire risk was a persistent and recognised problem. This indicates that enforcement of safety practices may have been inconsistent. The decision to move the powder room rather than relocate the forge suggests that powder storage was considered the more critical risk. This indicates prioritisation of protecting munitions over altering essential craft activity within the fort. | |
76 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Richᵈ Kelinge Governᵣ Wᵐ Marsh Complains of Richᵈ Parrum Saying The sd Parrum Denys the sd Marshes Complaint Tho: Dufson being sworne as also Ruth and H[...] Daniell Collier being sworne saith that It is ordered | A consultation was held on 12 October 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. William Marsh brought a complaint against Richard Parrum, alleging that Parrum had driven away his cattle and that one had since gone missing. Marsh further claimed that Parrum had boasted of driving the cattle and that some had been driven “to their long home”. Parrum denied the complaint. Thomas Dufson, together with Ruth and H[...], having been sworn, stated that they had heard Parrum say that he had driven some of Isaack’s cattle toward the hills and that he believed some would take a long time to return. Daniel Collier, having been sworn, stated that while passing Parrum’s house, Parrum called to him and asked for assistance in driving Marsh’s cattle into his pasture. Parrum suggested that they could later drive them away during the night to the same place where others had already been taken. When Collier asked whether cattle had already been driven away, Parrum replied that they had, and that some had gone “to their long home”, meaning that they would not return. Dufson further stated that Parrum had asked him to assist in digging a pit or ditch, which he believed was intended to trap Marsh’s cattle and cause their death. It was ordered that [...] Interpretations The complaint concerned interference with livestock, which represented a form of property. Cattle were valuable assets, and their loss or destruction could result in financial damage. The phrase “to their long home” referred to death. In this context, it implied that the cattle had been driven in such a way that they would be lost permanently, either by death or by being unable to return. The allegation that Parrum intended to dig a pit or ditch to trap cattle indicated deliberate harm to another person’s property. Such acts would be treated as trespass or damage. The use of witness testimony based on spoken admissions showed that statements made outside court could be used as evidence. Reported boasts or plans were treated as relevant to establishing intent. The reference to driving cattle into another pasture suggested disputes over land use and boundaries. Movement of livestock could be used to assert control or cause loss. The involvement of multiple witnesses demonstrated the importance of corroboration. Statements were strengthened when supported by more than one account. Speculations The reported planning of a pit to trap cattle suggests that disputes over land or livestock could escalate into deliberate acts of destruction. This indicates that conflict between neighbours could involve calculated harm. The reliance on statements attributed to Parrum suggests that direct evidence of the act may have been limited. This indicates that the case depended on proving intention as much as action. The emphasis on cattle being driven away or lost suggests that livestock management was vulnerable to interference. This indicates that control over animals could be contested in disputes between landholders. | |
77 | That the said Parrum have till the Seventh day of he promiseth two of the sd Marshes mark an halfe foat that if the sd Parrum should not find the sd beast Richard Leach planter humbly prays that Whereupon his case being considered It is ordered | It was ordered that Richard Parrum should have until 7 December 1693 to find the missing cow. William Marsh was to provide the identifying marks by which it might be recognised, which he did. The cow was described as having Marsh’s mark, consisting of a half ear-cut both above and below, with a slit in the ear, and one of its teats also slit. If Parrum did not find the animal within the time allowed, Marsh was permitted to bring a further action against him at the next court session. Richard Leach, a planter, then petitioned that, as Thomas Whalley by survey had taken four acres of land from him under grant from the Honourable Company, including the best part of his ground, the remainder of his twenty-acre holding was left largely rocky and unfit for cultivation, with only about six acres capable of improvement. He therefore requested that he might retain ten acres of his land there and be granted ten acres elsewhere in exchange. Upon consideration, it was acknowledged that Leach’s twenty acres formed an irregular lot not suitable for habitation or cultivation due to the limited amount of workable land. It was ordered that Leach might surrender ten acres of his twenty-acre holding back to the Honourable Company. However, as he requested ten acres in another location in exchange, and the Company’s authority for such an arrangement was insufficient at that level, the matter was referred to the Honourable Company for decision. Interpretations The requirement to identify the cow by ear marks and a slit teat reflects common livestock marking practices. Such physical alterations functioned as a system of ownership identification in the absence of written registration. The phrase “prosecute… at the next Sessions” referred to bringing a formal legal action at the next sitting of the court. Sessions were periodic court meetings where civil and criminal matters were heard. The term “throw up” land referred to surrendering a lease or holding back to the Honourable Company. Land held under Company authority could be relinquished and reassigned. An “odd lot” described a parcel of land that was irregular in shape or composition, making it unsuitable for efficient use. Such land might include rocky or unproductive ground. “Improvable” land referred to ground capable of cultivation or productive use. The distinction between usable and unusable land was central to the value of a holding. The reference to the Company not having “sufficient power” indicated limits on local authority. The Governor and Council could not grant new land in exchange without approval from the central Company administration. The process of survey determining land allocation showed the importance of measurement and official demarcation. Surveys could alter existing holdings and lead to disputes over quality and extent. Speculations The detailed marking of livestock suggests that disputes over animals were frequent enough to require clear identification systems. This indicates reliance on physical markers rather than formal registries. The request to exchange land suggests dissatisfaction with earlier allocations. This indicates that surveys may not have fully accounted for land quality when assigning acreage. The referral to the Company suggests that local governance operated within defined limits. This indicates that significant changes to landholding required approval beyond the island administration. | |
78 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thurs- Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Goverᵑ Whereas since the last Booke of Account It is ordered That every officer and soldᵗ in the sd Honoble Compᵃ pay It is likewise ordered That Robᵗ Sexton Mason and John Arden shall have Further It is ordered That the following parcells of good Recᵈ under be | A consultation was held on 26 October 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. It was noted that since the last account book had been made up to the end of August, three months’ pay remained due to the officers and soldiers of the garrison. It was ordered that every officer and soldier in the service of the Honourable Company should receive credit in the Company’s books for three months’ pay, according to their rank and salary. It was likewise ordered that Robert Sexton, a mason, and John Arden should be credited in the Company’s books according to their bills for various works carried out for the Company. These works included the construction of a kitchen for use at the fort, other repairs and building works, the placing of a new line of cannon, and the construction of a room on Mundens Mount to replace one that had been destroyed during the recent disturbance led by Henry Jackson and his associates. It was further ordered that the following parcels of goods received into the Company’s store should be recorded for use and service at the fort and for the general table there [...] Interpretations The entry of pay as “credit in the Company’s books” indicated a system in which wages were recorded rather than immediately paid in cash. Personnel could draw against this credit or have it settled at a later time. A “balance due” referred to unpaid wages accumulated over a period. Delays in payment were managed through accounting rather than direct disbursement. The term “general table” referred to a communal provision of food for those serving at the fort. Supplies held in store were used to support this shared arrangement. The recording of “parcels of goods” in the Company store reflected a centralised supply system. Goods were issued and accounted for through official storage rather than private provision. The crediting of workers such as a mason according to their “bills” showed that labour was compensated based on submitted accounts for completed work. This reflected a contractual or task-based payment system. The reference to “planting a new line of cannon” referred to the emplacement or positioning of artillery for defensive purposes. Cannon were installed according to strategic layout rather than merely stored. The rebuilding of a structure destroyed by “the late Rogue Jackson and his accomplices” referred to repairs following the recent rebellion. Damage caused during that event required reconstruction of defensive infrastructure. Speculations The use of book credit instead of immediate payment suggests that cash resources may have been limited. This indicates reliance on accounting mechanisms to maintain obligations. The inclusion of food supplies for the general table suggests that provisioning the garrison was a central concern. This indicates that collective subsistence was organised at an institutional level. The reference to rebuilding after the rebellion suggests that its effects were still being addressed. This indicates that infrastructure damage had ongoing administrative and financial consequences. | |
79 | [...] [...] Charged to their accᵗ of Debts as also Vizᵗ 6 yards of Canvas at 4 s p yard - - - 12 04 0 Totall 79 05 3 It is also ordered That the following totall of good Recᵈ out of the sd Two Grind stones at - - - - 02 06 8 03 03 0 Likewise It is Further That the severall persons hereafter mentioned Given Bevan for a Cow - - - - 05 17 0 Some over - - - - - - - - 19 10 11 Some over - - - - - - - - 03 03 00 | A consultation was held on 26 October 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Three months’ pay remained due to the officers and soldiers of the garrison since the last account book had been made up to the end of August. Each officer and soldier in the service of the Honourable Company was therefore entered with three months’ credit in the Company’s books according to rank and salary. Robert Sexton, mason, and John Arden were also entered with credit according to their bills for work carried out for the Company. This work included building a kitchen for the fort, performing several repairs, placing a new line of cannon, and constructing a room on Mundens Mount to replace one destroyed by Henry Jackson and his accomplices. Various goods received into the Company’s store for use at the fort and at the general table were charged to account as debt, together with £0 12s 0d in cash paid for ironwork and iron supplied for the Company’s stable. The entries included 6 yards of canvas valued at £1 4s 0d, payment to John Holden, carpenter, of £0 7s 0d, and to Robert Sexton, mason, of £0 6s 0d. Half a hide of tanned leather for a book was valued at £0 8s 0d, and 30 bushels of lime at £1 10s 0d. John Taylor received £0 2s 8d for work, Mr Johnson, smith, £0 8s 0d, and Thomas Marsh £0 12s 0d for spoons. A further £51 8s 3d was charged to the plantation account for ironwork. The total amounted to £79 5s 3d. Additional goods issued from the Company’s store for plantation use were also entered as debt. These consisted of two grindstones valued at £2 6s 8d, 40 lb of iron at £0 8s 4d, one pair of tongs at £0 2s 0d, 12 lb of small shot valued at £0 0s 0d, and three bushels of lime at £0 8s 2d, making a total of £3 3s 0d. Credit was also entered in the Company’s books for cattle and beef supplied by the Company or its plantation. Given Bevan received credit for one cow valued at £5 17s 0d and one heifer. John Broadway received £3 14s 9½d for one bullock. Rebecca Chasleworth received £6 16s 10d for two bullocks, and David Emmons received £3 2s 3½d for one bullock. Further sums were carried forward of £19 10s 11d and £3 3s 0d. Interpretations The entry of three months’ pay as credit in the Company’s books shows that wages were not immediately paid in coin but recorded within an internal accounting system. Payment was therefore deferred and managed through balances held by the Company. The charging of goods “to account as debt” shows that supplies issued from the Company store were treated as recoverable costs. Individuals or departments remained financially accountable for materials received, which formed part of a controlled provisioning system. The “general table” refers to a shared system of food provision for those serving at the fort. This indicates that subsistence was organised centrally rather than left to individual arrangement. The payment of Robert Sexton and John Arden “according to their bills” shows that labour was compensated through submitted accounts for completed work. This reflects a structured, task-based system rather than fixed wages for all forms of labour. The reference to replacing a building destroyed by Henry Jackson and his accomplices shows that the recent rebellion continued to shape expenditure and labour. Reconstruction was treated as part of routine administrative accounting. The detailed valuation of cattle, including cows, heifers, and bullocks, shows that livestock formed part of the Company’s managed resources. Their allocation and use were formally recorded within the same accounting system as materials and labour. The recording of fractional pence, such as 9½d and 3½d, shows a high level of precision in financial accounting. Even very small sums were formally entered and tracked. Speculations The reliance on book credit for wages suggests that ready money was not always available on the island, which required the Company to maintain control through accounting rather than immediate payment. The inclusion of building works, military repairs, and provisioning within a single account suggests that financial management was centralised, with all activity tied into one system of control. The continued reference to damage caused by Henry Jackson indicates that the rebellion had lasting material consequences, and that recovery was being managed through ordinary administrative processes rather than separate emergency measures. | |
80 | [...] brought over - - - - 08 05 0 John Tucker 1 Bullock - - - - 05 00 0 53 04 4 Sume Totall is - 56 07 4 Also It is Further ordered That Capᵗ Poirier have an order for the bringing 677 Black Slaves in bringing downe - - 08 09 03 51 08 3 Also that the said Capᵗ Poirier have To the Honble Compᵃ for ye use of To Officers & Soldᵗ Vizᵗ Some over - - - - 27 08 00 Some more - - - - 51 08 2 | Further livestock and provisions were entered to account. A balance brought forward of £8 5s 0d was recorded. John Tucker was credited for one bullock valued at £5 0s 0d. Thomas Scratton was credited for one bullock and one cow valued together at £6 7s 0d. Edmund A[...] was credited for two bullocks valued at £0 7s 6d. David [...] was credited for two bullocks valued at £13 1s 11d. Greenway [...] was credited for one cow valued at £2 17s 6d. These entries amounted to £53 4s 4d, bringing the sum total to £56 7s 4d. Captain Poirier was authorised to receive rice and provisions for the preceding three months for use at the general table. The charges included £8 9s 3d for 677 slave labourers employed in bringing down goods, and £3 2s 0d for work and timber supplied to Fort James. Thirty-one bushels of wheat were valued at £1 5s 10d. Three and a half units of beef were valued at £3 5s 0d. Three casks of biscuit were valued at £28 18s 0d. One quantity of tallow was valued at £0 3s 0d. One and a half goats and a quarter [...] were valued at £0 13s 6d. Five and a half casks were valued at £0 8s 8d. Seven thousand yams were valued at £3 8s 0d. These items amounted to £51 8s 3d. Captain Poirier was also authorised to receive payment for arrears of cash already expended, which had been charged to their proper accounts. £12 4s 0d was assigned for the use of the general table at Fort James. Mr Pryce was credited for 30 gallons valued at £6 0s 0d. Mr Beale was credited for 9 gallons valued at £1 16s 0d. John Colgrave was credited for 6 gallons valued at £1 4s 0d. Richard Gurling was credited for 3 gallons valued at £0 12s 0d. Further issues to officers and soldiers were recorded. John Field was credited for 24 yards valued at £4 16s 0d. Thomas Goodwin was credited for 1 yard valued at £0 4s 0d. Samuel Bowlinge was credited for 3 yards valued at £0 12s 0d. Additional sums were carried forward of £27 8s 0d and £51 8s 2d. Interpretations The authorisation given to Captain Poirier to “have an order” shows a formal mechanism by which supplies and payments were released. Such orders functioned as written authority within the Company’s administrative system, allowing goods or funds to be issued and accounted for. The entry for 677 slaves employed in “bringing down” goods reflects the organised use of labour under Company direction. The cost attached to this labour shows that it was treated as an accountable resource within the same financial structure as materials and provisions. The “general table” again reflects a centrally managed system of provisioning for those attached to the fort. Food and supplies were issued collectively and their cost recorded against Company accounts. The listing of “arrears of cash already out” shows that expenditures were often made in advance and later regularised through official accounting. This indicates a system where immediate needs were met first, with formal financial recognition following afterwards. The recording of goods such as wheat, biscuit, and yams alongside labour and timber within a single account shows that subsistence, construction, and transport were all integrated into one administrative framework. The repeated use of “some over” indicates carried balances within the accounts. These entries show that totals were not always settled immediately but were extended forward within the bookkeeping system. Speculations The formal issuing of orders to Captain Poirier suggests that control over supplies was tightly regulated, and that no goods could be distributed without explicit written authority. This indicates a deliberate effort to maintain oversight following the recent instability on the island. The large number of slaves recorded in transporting goods suggests that significant labour mobilisation was required to sustain the fort. This indicates logistical strain and the need to coordinate movement of provisions across difficult terrain. The recording of arrears after expenditure suggests that administrative processes followed practical necessity. Payments were probably made first to ensure continued supply, with documentation completed later to preserve accountability. | |
81 | Brought over - - - - 51 08 3 Brought over - - - - 27 08 00 Wᵐ Collin 1½ yard - - - - 00 06 00 44 9 00 Sume Totall - 95 17 3 It is Further ordered That the said Capt Poirier have also an order to deliver | Sums were carried forward of £51 8s 3d and £27 8s 0d. Further issues of cloth and other goods were then entered. William Collin was credited for 1½ yards valued at £0 6s 0d. Samuel Booker received 1½ yards valued at £0 6s 0d, and Abraham Booker received 13½ yards valued at £2 14s 0d. Richard Evans received 2 yards valued at £0 2s 0d. George Hodgkin received 1 yard valued at £0 4s 0d. Jonathan Lightlin received 4 yards valued at £0 10s 0d. Henry Manning received 10 yards valued at £2 0s 0d. John Sinning received 4 yards valued at £0 16s 0d. Richard Witt received 10 yards valued at £2 1s 0d. [...] received 11 yards valued at £0 4s 0d. Noah Scope received 4½ yards valued at £2 6s 0d. Andrew Jehuce received 3 yards valued at £1 8s 0d. Samuel De[...] received 2 yards valued at £0 8s 0d. Daniel Goble received 2 yards valued at £0 8s 0d. John Se[...] received 2 yards valued at £0 8s 0d. Henry Manning received a further 1½ yards valued at £0 6s 0d. James Orris was credited for 12 gallons valued at £2 8s 0d. These entries amounted to £44 9s 0d, bringing the total to £95 17s 3d. It was further ordered that Captain Poirier should have an order to deliver to Henry Tersiter 29 bushels of potatoes at the rate of 2 shillings per bushel, amounting to £2 18s 0d. Interpretations The repeated issuing of measured quantities of cloth, expressed in yards, shows that textiles formed part of the Company’s provisioning system. Such distributions were recorded as financial charges rather than gifts, indicating that recipients remained accountable for their value. The continuation of carried sums demonstrates that accounts were cumulative. Balances were regularly brought forward and extended, rather than settled at each stage, reflecting an ongoing ledger system. The authorisation granted to Captain Poirier to deliver potatoes to Henry Tersiter shows that the distribution of even basic provisions required formal written approval. This reflects a controlled system in which access to resources was regulated through administrative orders. The pricing of potatoes at a fixed rate per bushel shows that standardised valuation was applied to provisions. This allowed goods to be consistently entered into accounts and compared across transactions. Speculations The detailed recording of cloth allocations suggests that clothing or textile supply was centrally managed, perhaps to maintain uniform provision among soldiers and workers rather than leaving individuals to obtain materials independently. The need for a formal order to issue potatoes to Henry Tersiter suggests that supplies were tightly controlled and not freely available, indicating an environment where access to food resources required administrative approval. The continued accumulation of balances rather than immediate settlement suggests that the Company relied on deferred accounting to manage limited cash flow while still maintaining oversight of all transactions. | |
82 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 2d Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Governᵑ Whereas Peter Williams Soldᵗ was found guilty It is ordered That the sd Peter Williams doe Immediately Restore Thomᵃ Harper who the 10ᵗʰ of 8ber 1692 was bound to It is ordered That the sd Harper be Cleared of the said Recognizance | A consultation had been held on Thursday 2 November 1693 at Fort James on St Helena. Richard Keeling had presided as Governor, with Captain Poirier as Deputy Governor. Peter Williams, a soldier, had been found guilty of taking away a tub that had been made for use at the house at Bunkers. He had removed it when he left that post, and those now quartered there had complained of its absence. It was ordered that Peter Williams immediately restore the tub. For this offence, he was also ordered to ride the wooden horse for one hour the next time he mounted guard. Thomas Harper, who on 10 October 1692 had been bound to good behaviour in a recognisance of £10 0s 0d, had requested that he be released from that obligation. It was ordered that Thomas Harper be discharged from the recognisance. This was declared by proclamation and carried into effect. Interpretations The removal of the tub from the house at Bunkers showed that even basic equipment issued for communal or military use had been treated as controlled property. Its unauthorised removal had been treated as an offence against shared resources rather than a private dispute. The punishment of riding the “wooden horse” referred to a form of military discipline in which the offender was made to sit astride a narrow wooden structure, often with added weights. This served as both a physical penalty and a public display of punishment within the garrison. The term “quartered” indicated that soldiers were assigned to specific lodgings or posts. Complaints from those currently stationed at Bunkers showed that such assignments carried expectations regarding the provision of necessary equipment. A “recognisance of £10 0s 0d” represented a formal legal bond requiring Thomas Harper to maintain good behaviour under penalty of forfeiting the sum. Its discharge by order of the Council showed that such obligations could be formally lifted when deemed appropriate. The use of proclamation to clear the recognisance indicated that official decisions were publicly declared to give them force and visibility within the community. Speculations The complaint from those newly quartered at Bunkers suggests that the tub had been considered essential for daily use, perhaps for storage or sanitation. The swift order for its return indicates that maintaining functional living conditions for soldiers was treated as a practical priority. The imposition of the wooden horse punishment at the moment of mounting guard suggests an intention to maximise visibility among fellow soldiers. This timing appears designed to reinforce discipline within the ranks by making the penalty a public example. Thomas Harper’s request to be released from his recognisance, and its approval, suggests that he had fulfilled the conditions of good behaviour over time. The formal proclamation implies that clearing such a bond restored his standing and removed any lingering suspicion attached to his earlier offence. | |
83 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govᵑ Whereas Mary the Orphan of [...] But after some discourse passed between John The whole Computed for the terme of time 60:10:5 Total [...] Debt in the whole halfe whereof wch John [...] Therefore for the Totall Rent that sd 17:19:0 30:05:2½ | A consultation was held on 9 November 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Mary, an orphan of [...] deceased, had been married to John Bowman. Bowman sought to have his wife’s portion placed under his own control. Mr [...] who then held the property by rent was required to attend and deliver it up according to the articles of her contract and agreement. He appeared but at first refused to surrender it. After discussion between John Bowman and Mr [...], consent was given for the surrender. The property was to be transferred to Bowman, being that part of the estate belonging to John [...] which Rebecca [...] had held by contract for a term of seven years, notwithstanding that Mary [...] was now married. By this arrangement, John Bowman became debtor to his brother [...] for the remaining term of the agreement, which extended for four and a half years. It was then considered necessary to determine the rent due to John [...] for that remaining period. The total value calculated for the full term amounted to £60 10s 5d, of which half, £30 5s 2½d, belonged to John [...]. The total debt was calculated at £25 4s 5d. Half of this sum, which John [...] was to pay, was taken into account. The total rent that John Bowman was required to pay to the estate of John [...] was fixed at £17 19s 0d together with £30 5s 2½d. Interpretations The reference to Mary as an orphan with a “portion” shows that she possessed property or financial entitlement derived from her deceased parent’s estate. Such portions were often managed under formal agreements until marriage. The requirement that Mr [...] surrender the rented estate according to the “articles of her contract and agreement” shows that property rights were governed by binding written terms. These agreements defined both possession and duration. The transfer of control upon marriage reflects the legal position in which a husband assumed authority over his wife’s property. John Bowman’s claim to manage the portion arose from this marital status. The continuation of the lease term, with Bowman becoming debtor for the remaining four and a half years, shows that contractual obligations remained in force despite the change in possession. Responsibility was transferred rather than extinguished. The calculation of rent and division into halves shows that the estate’s income was shared between parties with defined interests. Financial rights attached to property were therefore divisible and could persist alongside changes in occupancy. The use of precise monetary calculations, including halfpence, shows that estate settlements were handled with detailed accounting to ensure that all parties received their proper share. Speculations The initial refusal by Mr [...] to surrender the property suggests that possession under the original agreement gave him a degree of leverage, and that the transfer required negotiation rather than automatic enforcement. The recalculation of rent for the remaining term indicates that the arrangement was being adjusted to reflect the new control exercised by Bowman, suggesting an effort to preserve the financial expectations of the original agreement while accommodating the change in circumstances. The division of sums between Bowman and other interested parties suggests that the estate was subject to overlapping claims, requiring careful balancing to avoid dispute following the marriage. | |
84 | for the Due Division of the Estate between the sd John Rᵐᵍ | The division of the estate between John [...] and John Bowman was not settled at that time. It was decided that the matter should be deferred until Tuesday 16 November 1693. Richard Keelinge Interpretations The decision to defer the division shows that the allocation of the estate required further consideration or agreement. Such delays indicate that property settlements were not always resolved immediately, especially where multiple interests were involved. The reference to a “due division” reflects the expectation that the estate should be apportioned according to recognised rights and agreements. This suggests a formal process aimed at ensuring equitable distribution under existing legal or contractual claims. Speculations The postponement to a fixed later date suggests that additional information, negotiation, or calculation was required before the estate could be divided. This indicates that the settlement involved complexities that could not be resolved within the same sitting. | |
83 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ In pursuance to the ordʳ of Councill held the 9ᵗʰ But seeing it could not properly be done by the It is ordered Rᵐᵍ | A consultation was held on 16 November 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. In accordance with the order made on 9 November 1693, John Bowman attended to settle matters arising from his marriage to the daughter of John Charleworth [...], and to obtain his wife’s portion from the estate of John Charleworth according to the terms of that will. The division could not be properly undertaken by the Governor and Council because the estate consisted partly of provisions and cattle, together with their increase. It was therefore considered more suitable that two persons should be appointed to carry out the division. One was to act on behalf of John Charleworth, who was absent, and the other was to be chosen by John Bowman. Mr Edmund [...], planter, was appointed by the Governor and Council, and Samuel Wrangham, planter, was chosen by John Bowman. Edmund [...] and Wrangham were entrusted with the management of the estate relating to Charleworth’s wife. They were required to take an oath to make a true division of the estate between John Charleworth and Mary his sister, according to the meaning and intent of John Charleworth’s will. They were also required to return an account of their proceedings on Sh[...] Day next, clearly stating what belonged to John Charleworth and what belonged to Mary his sister. Richard Keelinge Interpretations The appointment of two named individuals to divide the estate shows the use of delegated authority in resolving property matters. Rather than deciding directly, the Governor and Council relied on selected representatives to carry out the task. The requirement that both appointees be sworn indicates that the division was treated as a formal and binding process. The oath served to enforce honesty and accountability in managing property belonging to others. The reference to provisions, cattle, and their increase shows that the estate included productive assets whose value could change over time. This made division more complex than a simple allocation of fixed goods. The instruction to divide the estate according to the “true meaning and intent” of the will shows that interpretation of written testamentary instructions was central to determining ownership. The will functioned as the governing authority over distribution. The requirement to return an account of proceedings shows that the process was subject to review. The division was not final until reported back and examined by the governing authority. Speculations The decision to appoint one representative for each side suggests an attempt to balance competing interests and reduce dispute, ensuring that neither party controlled the process alone. The emphasis on livestock and their increase suggests that timing affected the value of the estate. The delay between death and division may have required adjustment to account for growth or consumption of assets. The need for a sworn division and a formal account suggests concern about potential disagreement or mistrust, indicating that estate distribution could be a source of conflict requiring structured oversight. | |
84 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 23 Pres.t Richd. Kellingo Govern [...] Edmunds and Saml Wrangham plan[...] John Charleworths part is one House & one parcell of land ..... 60 00 00 Some over ..... 178 19 0 | A consultation was held on 23 November 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Mr Edmunds and Samuel Wrangham, planters, who had been sworn at the previous consultation to make a true division of the estate of John Charleworth, deceased, between his children John and Mary according to the terms of his will, attended and produced their account as ordered. The portion assigned to John Charleworth consisted of one house and a parcel of land valued at £60 0s 0d, one slave named Peter valued at £20 0s 0d, and one house at Fort James valued at £18 0s 0d. There were also 38,500 yams valued at £46 0s 0d and 35 casks of tobacco valued at £23 10s 0d. Additional property included a parcel of land valued at £2 15s 0d, one old cow with a calf valued at £4 5s 0d, one cow called Jenny with a calf valued at £3 15s 0d, and one cow called Motley with a calf valued at £4 0s 0d. Further parcels of land were valued at £1 18s 0d, £1 15s 0d for Browney, and £1 15s 0d for Jenny. Livestock also included one mare of Seffey valued at £2 0s 0d and one mare of Nancy valued at £1 16s 0d. One bullock from the valley was valued at £2 5s 0d, another from Browney at £2 0s 0d, and two from Findley at £3 5s 0d. The balance carried forward for John Charleworth’s share amounted to £178 19s 0d. Interpretations The formal division of the estate by appointed and sworn individuals shows a structured process for enforcing wills. The authority of Edmunds and Wrangham derived from their oath and their appointment by the Governor and Council. The detailed valuation of every item, including land, livestock, crops, and a slave, shows that all forms of property were treated as quantifiable assets within a single accounting framework. The inclusion of a named slave with a fixed monetary value reflects the treatment of slaves as property within the estate system. Ownership and transfer were handled in the same manner as land or livestock. The large quantity of yams and tobacco shows that agricultural produce formed a substantial part of the estate’s value. These goods were not only for subsistence but also functioned as economic assets. The listing of animals by name or origin, such as Jenny, Motley, Browney, and Findley, shows that livestock identification was important for valuation and transfer. These distinctions ensured that specific animals could be recognised and accounted for. The use of “some over” indicates that the account included a running balance. Totals were accumulated progressively rather than recalculated from the beginning. Speculations The careful valuation of both fixed property and movable goods suggests that the division aimed to achieve a balanced distribution between the heirs, indicating concern to avoid later disputes. The prominence of agricultural produce in the valuation suggests that the estate’s wealth depended heavily on cultivation, indicating that control of productive land and crops was central to inheritance. The reliance on sworn appraisers suggests that trust alone was insufficient, and that formal procedures were necessary to ensure acceptance of the division by all parties involved. | |
85 | Brought over — — — — — — 178 19 0 John Bowman to & for one Silver spoone — — — — 00 08 00 one Table & Frame — — — — 00 14 00 Two Do: Bungany Sheets & — — — 01 02 00 one fire of Iron for a Negro — — 00 03 00 At the Fort House one Table with a Drawer & — — 00 12 00 Some over — — — — — 20 02 00 Brought over — — — 178 19 0 | A balance of £178 19s 0d was brought forward as the share assigned to John Charleworth. A separate portion was set out for John Bowman in right of Mary his wife. This included one silver spoon valued at £0 8s 0d, one feather bed and bolster valued at £3 0s 0d, one quilt valued at £1 0s 0d, and two pillows valued at £0 8s 0d. One bedstead was valued at £0 10s 0d, and a set of bed curtains with valances at £2 15s 0d. An old quilt was valued at £0 4s 0d, and a chest with a drawer at £1 0s 0d. A desk was valued at £3 0s 0d, and a table with frame at £0 14s 0d. Two further items of similar kind, with a turned book, were valued at £0 5s 0d. A coarse-pattern china set was valued at £1 4s 0d. A stock with two cases and two [...] was valued at £0 15s 0d. Two feather pillows were valued at £0 5s 0d, and an old rug at £0 5s 0d. An old bedstead was valued at £0 6s 0d, and a carpet at £0 5s 0d. A case for the same was valued at £0 3s 0d. Two bungany sheets were valued at £1 2s 0d, and one long wash [...] at £0 2s 0d. An old tablecloth with towels was valued at £0 3s 0d. An old lignum vitae bottle was valued at £0 1s 6d, and a brass ring dial at £0 3s 0d. Two pewter dishes were valued at £0 18s 0d, and one basin at £0 5s 0d. Two pewter plates were valued at £0 3s 0d, and a fire [...] with filliand at £0 3s 0d. One iron implement for a slave was valued at £0 3s 0d. Three large new pewter plates were valued at £0 9s 0d. Part of a grindstone was valued at £0 5s 0d. One old shirt was valued at £0 5s 0d, and five diaper napkins at £0 6s 0d. A table with frame and chair was valued at £0 14s 6d. At the fort house, one table with a drawer was valued at £0 12s 0d, a frame at £0 10s 0d, and a damask case at £0 10s 0d. A further balance carried forward amounted to £20 2s 0d. The earlier sum of £178 19s 0d was again brought forward. Interpretations The allocation of goods to John Bowman “in right of Mary his wife” shows that a married woman’s property was transferred into her husband’s control. The husband acted as the legal holder of her share within the estate. The detailed listing of household goods, including bedding, furniture, tableware, and textiles, shows that domestic property formed a distinct and carefully valued portion of the estate. Such items were treated as transferable assets alongside land and livestock. The inclusion of items both at the main dwelling and at the fort house shows that property could be held across multiple locations. Estate division required identification and valuation of goods in each place. The presence of items such as china, damask, and a brass ring dial indicates the circulation of imported or specialised goods within the settlement. These objects carried both practical and monetary value. The reference to an iron implement “for a slave” shows that tools associated with labour were included within personal property and transferred with the estate. This reflects the integration of labour management within household assets. The repeated use of “brought over” shows that the account was structured as a running total. Values were accumulated progressively rather than restated in full at each stage. Speculations The careful valuation of domestic goods suggests an effort to balance movable property between heirs, indicating that disputes over household items were considered significant alongside land and livestock. The inclusion of goods at the fort house suggests that part of the estate’s value was tied to official or semi-public spaces, indicating overlap between private property and Company-controlled locations. The transfer of Mary’s portion into Bowman’s control suggests that marriage was used as a mechanism to consolidate property, which may have influenced the timing or arrangement of the union. | |
86 | Brought over — — — 178 19 0 Brought over — — — 20 02 00 one Pewter Dish — — — 00 12 00 To Receive of Johns Part — — 007 01 00 wch being Taken out of his 178:19:0 Signed Edm: Edmunds This is the true Division of the Estate of John | A balance of £178 19s 0d and a further £20 2s 0d were brought forward. Additional items were assigned and valued. One pewter dish was valued at £0 12s 0d, one tankard at £0 1s 0d, one china bowl at £0 1s 6d, and three cups at £0 1s 6d. One old looking glass was valued at £0 2s 0d, and three pictures at £0 1s 0d. One dictionary was valued at £0 6s 0d, three knives at £1 0s 0d, and sixteen spoons at £4 15s 0d. A slave named Roger was valued at £21 0s 0d. Twenty-five acres of land were valued at £25 0s 0d, and one hut with its appurtenances at £23 0s 0d. Thirty-five bushels of potatoes were valued at £3 10s 0d, and 38,500 yams at £46 0s 0d. Livestock included one cow named Tolley with a calf valued at £4 0s 0d, one cow named Stanley with a calf valued at £4 5s 0d, and one cow named Fannys with a calf valued at £4 0s 0d. One bullock of Catley was valued at £3 0s 0d, one bull at £3 5s 0d, one heifer of Brackley at £2 15s 0d, one bullock of Haskley at £2 15s 0d, one bullock of Maffly at £2 10s 0d, one heifer of Bose at £2 15s 0d, and one bullock of Hyde at £2 10s 0d. A sum of £7 1s 0d was to be received from John’s share. When this amount was deducted from the £178 19s 0d previously assigned, the remainder left to him was £177 18s 0d. The division of the estate of John Charleworth, deceased, into two parts was certified under the hands of Edward Edmunds and Samuel Wrangham, who had been sworn for that purpose. Interpretations The adjustment made by deducting £7 1s 0d from John’s portion shows that estate division involved balancing accounts after initial valuation. Shares were corrected to ensure that each party received an equivalent portion according to the will. The inclusion of both movable goods and fixed assets, such as land, buildings, livestock, and slaves, shows that the estate was treated as a single financial entity. All forms of property were converted into monetary value to enable division. The certification under the hands of Edmunds and Wrangham confirms that their sworn authority extended to finalising and validating the division. Their signatures gave formal legal weight to the settlement. The presence of both domestic items and productive assets within the same share shows that inheritance combined household property with income-generating resources, linking domestic life with economic function. Speculations The need to deduct a specific sum from John’s share suggests that the initial allocation may have produced an imbalance, requiring correction to meet the terms of the will. The careful listing and valuation of every item, including relatively small goods, suggests an intention to prevent dispute by ensuring that nothing was left unaccounted for. The formal certification at the end of the division indicates that the process was intended to be final and binding, reducing the risk of later challenges between the heirs. | |
87 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday the Pres.t Richd Kellinge Govr [...] on Saturday last abt 10 or 5 or 6 of clock It is Therefore ordered | A consultation was held on 28 November 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. On the previous Saturday, at about five or six in the evening, Thomas [...] who was quartered at Ruperts, discharged one of the great guns while in drink. The act caused an alarm across much of the island and created concern among the inhabitants. The alarm was judged unnecessary and dangerous, as repeated false alarms might lead to neglect when a real threat arose. The man was described as frequently given to drink and prone to serious misconduct when intoxicated. It was therefore determined that a severe punishment should be imposed to deter similar behaviour. He was ordered to ride the rounds for half an hour during each watch of the guard until the next general muster, a period of seven weeks. At that time he was to run the gantlet through all the soldiers and was then to be dismissed from the service of the Honourable Company. During this period he was to receive only half pay and was required to work at the fort for the Company. In return, he was to be provided with food there. Interpretations The offence of firing a “great gun” without cause was treated as a serious breach because alarm signals formed part of the island’s defensive system. False alarms risked weakening collective response by creating uncertainty about genuine threats. The requirement to “ride the rounds” refers to a disciplinary duty involving regular patrol during guard watches. This imposed both labour and public accountability as part of punishment. The punishment of “running the gantlet” was a formal military penalty in which the offender passed between ranks of soldiers who struck him. This functioned both as physical punishment and as a public example to enforce discipline. The reduction to half pay shows that financial penalty formed part of disciplinary measures. Pay was used as a means of control alongside physical punishment. The requirement that he work at the fort in return for food shows that labour obligations could be imposed as part of punishment, integrating discipline with the needs of the garrison. Dismissal from the Company’s service indicates that continued employment depended on conduct. Serious breaches could result in exclusion from the Company’s system of pay and provision. Speculations The emphasis on the danger of false alarms suggests concern that repeated misuse of signals could undermine the island’s defence readiness, indicating that the alarm system depended heavily on trust and prompt response. The combination of prolonged minor punishment, public corporal punishment, and eventual dismissal suggests an intention to both discipline the individual over time and make a visible example of him to the wider garrison. The reference to habitual drunkenness suggests that alcohol-related misconduct was an ongoing issue, and that this case was used to reinforce stricter control over behaviour within the military community. | |
88 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Thurs- Pres.t Richd Kellinge Govr [...] French Sold.r being Drunk last night It is ordered | A consultation was held on 1 December 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. [...] French, a soldier, had been drunk while on guard the previous night and behaved abusively and disorderly after taps had been beaten and the guard set. He was brought to account and appeared penitent, promising to amend his conduct and not to commit such offences again. In view of this, it was decided that he should ride the wooden horse at the relieving of the guard that day and then be dismissed without further punishment. He was strictly warned that any future disorder would result in his dismissal from the service and pay of the Honourable Company. Interpretations Drunkenness while on guard was treated as a serious breach of discipline because guard duty formed part of the island’s defensive system. Disorder at that time risked undermining security. The phrase “after taps had been beaten” refers to the signal marking the close of the day and the setting of the guard. Conduct after this point was expected to be strictly regulated. “Riding the wooden horse” was a form of military punishment in which the offender was made to sit astride a narrow structure, often with weights attached, causing discomfort. It functioned as a public disciplinary measure intended to shame as well as punish. The decision to limit punishment in this case reflects the weight given to visible repentance. Behaviour could influence the severity of discipline imposed by the Governor and Council. The warning that future offences would lead to dismissal shows that continued service depended on maintaining discipline. Employment within the Company’s system could be withdrawn as a sanction. Speculations The relatively lenient punishment suggests that the authorities distinguished between isolated misconduct and repeated or dangerous offences, indicating a flexible approach to discipline based on circumstances. The emphasis on repentance suggests that maintaining order relied not only on punishment but also on encouraging conformity through warning and example. The explicit threat of dismissal indicates that loss of employment and pay was considered a significant deterrent, suggesting that access to Company service was valued and not easily replaced. | |
89 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 28th of 9ber Richd Kellinge Governr Whereas on Monday last in the Evening after Comming order The Govr disposing a little black boy of the s.d Honble It is ordered & Agreed Capt Poirier likewise having occasion for a black boy to It is ordered & agreed | A consultation was held on 28 November 1693 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. On the previous Monday evening, after returning to the fort during an alarm, the royster, being much overcome with drink, quarrelled with the gunner Marshall to such a degree that a fight almost followed. Order was restored when the Governor commanded him to go to sleep. The royster and the gunner were then called to account, and witnesses were examined. The cause of the quarrel was found to be trivial and chiefly arose from the royster’s drunkenness, a fault to which he was frequently subject and which led to neglect of his duty. Despite this, he had been retained because he served as smith and no replacement was available without causing difficulty. He was therefore admonished and pardoned on this occasion, with a strict warning to abstain from drunkenness and disorderly conduct in future. The Governor required a young slave belonging to the Honourable Company, named Harry and aged about six years, to attend his children. It was agreed that he should have the boy at a charge of £5 0s 0d to be entered in his account in the Company’s books. Captain Poirier also required a young slave to attend him and a young girl to attend his daughter. He requested a boy aged about six years named [...] and a girl aged about [...] years named [...], both described as small and useful servants. It was agreed that he should have the boy and girl at a charge of £5 0s 0d each, to be entered in his account in the Company’s books. Interpretations The decision to admonish rather than punish the royster shows that disciplinary action could be moderated by practical necessity. His retention as smith indicates that skilled roles were difficult to replace and could outweigh repeated misconduct. The term “royster” refers to a soldier assigned to guard or artillery duties. His conduct was judged in relation to his responsibility for maintaining order and readiness at the fort. The entry of £5 0s 0d to the Governor’s and Deputy Governor’s accounts shows that slaves were treated as Company property and allocated through a system of internal charge rather than private ownership. Their value was formally recorded within the Company’s accounts. The allocation of young slaves for domestic service shows that labour was distributed according to rank and need. Service within households formed part of the wider system of labour control. The description of the children as “useful servants” indicates that even at a young age they were considered as labour resources within the household structure. Speculations The decision to retain the royster despite repeated drunkenness suggests that the settlement faced constraints in skilled labour, making dismissal impractical even when discipline was compromised. The allocation of slaves to senior officials suggests that authority was reinforced through access to labour, indicating that status within the administration carried material privileges tied to the Company’s resources. The charging of slaves to personal accounts rather than granting them outright suggests an attempt to maintain Company ownership while still allowing officials to benefit from their service, indicating a controlled system that balanced authority with oversight. | |
90 | Island St. Helena At a Court of Justices Held on Monday The 8th of Pres.t Richd Kellinge Governr The Court was opened according to the accustomary manner Orlando Bagley foreman Grace Coulson widow whose husband was formerly Executed for John Colgrave Deny That his wife did ever say Katherine the wife of Saml Taylor being sworn [...] | A court of justice was held on 8 January 1694 at the Governor’s House near Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. The court was opened in the usual manner and a jury was impanelled. Orlando Bagley served as foreman, with John Frith, Thomas Goodwin, James Rider, Thomas Dixon, Robert [...], William Snook, Richard Leach, [...] [...], Thomas Sheper, Edward Browne, and John Goodwin. Grace Coulson, a widow whose husband had been executed for the recent rebellion, brought a complaint against John Colgrave, planter. She alleged that Margaret, the wife of Colgrave, had insulted her by referring to the manner of her husband’s death, saying that Coulson had “her hanging enough took down” or words to that effect. She sought judgment under a proclamation issued by a former Governor and Council, styled as a court martial order, which forbade any person on the island from reproaching or reflecting upon those executed for crimes or upon their relations. The penalty set was £1 0s 0d, divided equally between the injured party and the Honourable Company. John Colgrave denied that his wife had spoken the words alleged. Katherine, the wife of Samuel Taylor, was sworn and stated that she had heard Coulson and Margaret Colgrave quarrel. During the exchange she heard Margaret Colgrave say that Coulson had “had hanging” [...] Interpretations The reference to a prior proclamation forbidding reproach against those executed shows an attempt by the authorities to regulate speech and prevent social disorder following the rebellion. The rule extended protection not only to the deceased but also to their surviving relatives. The division of the fine between the injured party and the Company shows that enforcement combined private redress with institutional gain. The Company benefited financially from breaches of order while also recognising personal injury. The use of a jury to hear a case of verbal insult shows that defamation and abusive speech were treated as matters of formal legal process. Social conflict could therefore be brought under judicial control. The identification of Grace Coulson as the widow of an executed man shows that association with those punished for rebellion carried continuing social and legal consequences. Her claim relied on official protection against further reproach. The description of the earlier order as being “by the name of a court martial” suggests that military forms of authority had been applied to civil regulation, reflecting the overlap between military and civil governance on the island. Speculations The existence of a specific rule against reproaching the relatives of executed rebels suggests that tensions remained within the community after the rebellion, requiring active management to prevent conflict. The willingness of Grace Coulson to bring a formal complaint suggests that the proclamation gave her a recognised means to defend her position, indicating that such protections were intended to stabilise social relations. The denial by John Colgrave, despite witness testimony of quarrelling, suggests that disputes of this kind depended heavily on spoken evidence, indicating the importance of witness credibility in maintaining order through the courts. | |
91 | hanging Enough loose Downe yonder Eye pointing towards the Corp.ll Barrett being Sworne saith That mrs Coulson Bridgett the wife of Matthew Baggett being Sworne Corp.rall Hayes being Sworne saith the same The said Mrs Coulson complaine again[t] The said Colgrave Denys the action Edwd Edmunds being Sworne saith that the said Sam Taylor being Sworne saith the same | Katherine Taylor further stated that Margaret Colgrave said that Grace Coulson had “had hanging enough loose down yonder”, pointing towards the gallows, although she did not hear what had been said beforehand as she stood at some distance. Corporal Barrett was sworn and stated that Coulson and Margaret Colgrave had quarrelled. Coulson told Margaret that since she had gained a few dollars she had grown proud and would not answer when spoken to. Margaret replied that Coulson had obtained her clothing through immoral conduct. Coulson then told her to go and hang herself. As Coulson turned away, Margaret replied that she had “had hanging enough loose down yonder”, again pointing towards the gallows. Bridget, the wife of Matthew Baggett, was sworn and gave evidence to the same effect regarding the reference to the gallows. Corporal Hayes was also sworn and confirmed the same account. Grace Coulson then brought a further complaint against John Colgrave in an action of defamation. She alleged that Margaret Colgrave had said that whatever she possessed had been gained through impudence and shameless behaviour, and at another time that she had obtained her goods through improper relations with a captain and a doctor. John Colgrave denied the accusation. Edward Edmunds was sworn and stated that Colgrave had come to Coulson’s house to purchase arrears owed to her, but she refused to sell. Colgrave became dissatisfied, and words followed. Coulson told him to leave her house and, when he did not, she forced him out. Margaret Colgrave then came and stood at the door and called for Coulson, describing her as an impudent woman and saying that whatever she had, she had gained by improper conduct. Samuel Taylor was sworn and gave the same evidence. Interpretations The repeated reference to the gallows shows that the insult directly invoked the execution of Coulson’s husband. This fell within the scope of the earlier proclamation, which prohibited reproach connected to executions and extended protection to surviving relatives. The description of the words as defamatory shows that spoken accusations concerning sexual conduct and reputation were treated as actionable offences. Damage to personal reputation could be pursued through formal legal process. The involvement of multiple sworn witnesses shows that proof in such cases relied heavily on oral testimony. The consistency of accounts strengthened the credibility of the complaint. The reference to “arrears” being offered for sale shows that debts or claims could be transferred between individuals. Disputes arising from such transactions could escalate into personal conflict. The presence of both parties within the same domestic space during the dispute shows that household settings could become sites of legal conflict, with behaviour within them subject to public scrutiny and formal judgement. Speculations The repetition of the reference to the gallows by several witnesses suggests that this aspect of the insult carried particular weight, indicating that the memory of executions remained a sensitive and divisive issue within the community. The escalation from a dispute over arrears to accusations of immoral behaviour suggests that financial disagreements could quickly become personal, indicating underlying tensions between individuals beyond the immediate transaction. The willingness of multiple witnesses to testify against Margaret Colgrave suggests that her conduct may have been widely observed, indicating that such disputes were public events that drew the attention of the surrounding community. | |
108 | [...] to buy other lands which are contiguous to what now in its It is agreed with the s.d Booker Thomas Ganger Adm.r to the Estate of Rich.d Euling Before Robert S[...][...] in the truly faithfull and good purpose The said Inventory was Returned to the s.d Ganger […] […] | […] land was sought to be purchased that lay adjoining to property already held, the greater part of the surrounding ground being in the possession of the Honourable Company and adjacent to the plantation concerned. An agreement was reached with Booker that he should receive credit in the Honourable Company’s account books in the sum of £52 0s 0d for twenty [...] acres of land, of which about seven acres were enclosed. The property included thriving crops estimated at about 40,000 yams, together with one horse, one [...], and ten head of cattle consisting of five cows, one yearling, and four calves. Thomas Ganger, administrator to the estate of Richard Euling, deceased, presented an inventory of that estate. As his knowledge of the property depended largely upon Mary Euling, the widow, he requested that she be sworn to confirm that nothing had been concealed. Mary Euling was sworn and declared that, to the best of her knowledge, she had delivered to Thomas Ganger a true and faithful account of all the estate of her late husband Richard Euling, who had died intestate, and that she had concealed no part of it either directly or indirectly, without equivocation or mental reservation. The inventory was then returned to Ganger after inspection, as the division had not yet been completed or settled. He was ordered to perfect the account and to return it again on Thursday 15 December 1693. Interpretations The entry of £52 0s 0d as credit in the Company’s books shows that land transactions were recorded within a formal accounting system rather than treated as purely private exchanges. Property could be converted into a financial entry under Company oversight. The reference to enclosed land indicates that fencing was recognised as adding value. Enclosure marked control, improvement, and investment in land, affecting its assessed worth. The description of crops and livestock alongside land shows that valuation included both fixed property and productive assets. Agricultural output formed a central component of property value. The requirement that the widow be sworn reflects a legal mechanism to secure full disclosure of an estate. The oath imposed moral and legal obligation to prevent concealment of assets. The statement that Richard Euling died intestate shows that, in the absence of a will, the estate required formal administration. Authority passed to an appointed administrator who was responsible for compiling and verifying the inventory. The instruction to “perfect” the inventory before returning it shows that estate administration was subject to review and correction. Accounts were not accepted until considered complete and satisfactory. Speculations The emphasis on adjoining land suggests that consolidation of property was being pursued, indicating that control over contiguous landholdings was valued for practical or economic reasons. The reliance on the widow’s knowledge for the inventory suggests that household members held essential information about property, indicating that formal authority depended on informal knowledge within the family. The delay in completing the division suggests that uncertainty or incompleteness in the inventory may have risked dispute, requiring further refinement before settlement could proceed. | |
109 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held on Monday Pres.t Rich.d Kelinge Gov.r After the Court was opened according the usuall Manner Hen: Coley foreman - - - one Eliz: Suffolk Complained of Capt.n Booker And Sayes The s.d Booker Denys the accom and replys that | A court of justice was held on 2 April 1694 at the Sessions House near Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. The court was opened in the usual manner and the jurors were called. Henry Coley served as foreman, with Sergeant Field, Thomas Goodwin, Robert Browne, Edmund Edmunds, Robert [...], John Goodwin, Sergeant Dixon, John Colgrave, James Rider, Thomas Nevins, and John Long. Elizabeth Suffolk brought a complaint against Captain Booker. She stated that Booker had previously accused two of her children of stealing several parcels of limes from his land, for which they had been questioned. She further alleged that he had recently repeated the accusation and had also quarrelled with her son. She added that her children had in their possession two forehead cloths made from or edged with lace, for which they had also been accused. Captain Booker denied the accusation of wrongdoing on his part and stated that the children had not been wrongly accused. He asserted that he could prove that they had given information, and that one of them had first discovered that Elizabeth Suffolk had taken items from his land. He further stated that several things had been found missing from his property, as would be shown. Interpretations The complaint shows that accusations of theft could themselves become the subject of legal action. A person who believed that they had been wrongly accused could seek redress through the court. The reference to goods such as limes and lace-edged cloths shows that both agricultural produce and small manufactured items were treated as property subject to protection and dispute. The involvement of children in the accusation indicates that responsibility for alleged theft could extend within households. Family members could be drawn into legal proceedings through association. The mention of questioning the children shows that informal investigation preceded formal court action. Allegations were examined before being brought into the judicial process. The defence that the children had given information suggests that testimony and disclosure were used to justify accusations. The claim of prior discovery implies an attempt to establish credibility and shift blame. Speculations The repetition of the accusation suggests an ongoing dispute rather than a single incident, indicating continuing tension between the households. The reference to quarrelling alongside accusations of theft suggests that personal conflict may have intensified or shaped the legal complaint. The emphasis on missing goods and claimed proof suggests that control over property and its boundaries was contested, indicating the importance of land use and produce within the settlement’s economy. | |
110 | his wife giving again to the s.d Sarah Cosby wch Here the Jury was Sworne Mary the wife of Tho: Harper being Sworne Saith Margrett Harper being Sworne saith that she saw Eliz Morris being Sworne saith that she never did Elizabeth James being Sworne saith that she did question Sarah the wife of Edw: Cosby being Sworne saith that | Captain Booker further denied that his wife had given any such item to Sarah Cosby in connection with the accusations against Elizabeth Suffolk’s children. He rejected all remaining points raised in the complaint. The jury was sworn. Mary, the wife of Thomas Harper, stated that Sarah Cosby had been at her house together with Elizabeth Morris and her daughter Elizabeth James. She heard one of them ask Cosby where she had obtained a coif. Cosby replied that it did not matter, as she had come by it honestly. Elizabeth James then remarked that it resembled a coif she had lost from Booker’s land, for which Suffolk’s children had been blamed. Margaret Harper stated that she had seen Booker’s wife give a coif to Sarah Cosby. She added that Elizabeth James had questioned Cosby about it, saying that it resembled a coif she had lost on Booker’s land, again referring to the accusation made against Suffolk’s children. Elizabeth Morris denied ever questioning Cosby about a coif or claiming to have lost one. Elizabeth James stated that she had asked Cosby where she had obtained a coif she was wearing, as she believed it might be one she had lost. Cosby replied that Mrs Booker had given it to her. However, James denied that it had been the same coif for which Suffolk’s children had been accused, and stated that she did not know whether she had lost any item on Booker’s land. Sarah, the wife of Edward Cosby, stated that she had been asked where she had obtained the coif she was wearing and had replied that she did not know but believed she had come by it honestly. She added that she could not recall whether it had been given to her by Mrs Booker or by Elizabeth James, as she had received some items from James. She also stated that she did not remember any mention of Suffolk’s children in connection with the matter. Interpretations The dispute centred on the ownership and transfer of a coif, a small item of clothing, showing that even minor goods could become the subject of formal legal proceedings when linked to accusations of theft. The conflicting testimony demonstrates the reliance on witness credibility in resolving disputes. Variations in memory and statement created uncertainty that the jury had to assess. The allegation that Booker’s wife had given the coif to Sarah Cosby suggests that property could circulate informally between households, complicating claims of ownership. The repeated reference to Booker’s land indicates that the location of a supposed loss was important in establishing responsibility. Property boundaries and control over goods within them were central to the dispute. The denial by several witnesses of key details shows that sworn testimony did not always produce a clear or unified account, reflecting the limits of evidence in cases based on recollection. Speculations The inconsistency in the witnesses’ statements suggests that the case may have been difficult to prove conclusively, indicating that the outcome would depend heavily on how the jury weighed credibility rather than on clear material evidence. The suggestion that items had been given between individuals implies that informal exchange may have been common, which could easily lead to suspicion or accusation when goods went missing. The absence of firm agreement about whether the coif was the same item suggests that the accusation against Suffolk’s children may have rested on uncertain identification, raising the possibility that the dispute was driven as much by prior tension as by clear proof. | |
111 | George Hodgkinson being Sworne saith that Mary Shannon Katherine Seffey being Sworne saith that she being Prudence Sherrin being Sworne saith that the said The Lace of the forehead Cloath being compared with some The Jury after having heard all the evidences and that the Plaintiffe be Cast in Suites and pay John Bagley Complaines of John Nicholls in an John Nichols owns that he was Indebted to The said Bagley saith that he desired the said | George Hodgkinson was sworn and stated that Mary Shannon had come to the house of Elizabeth Morris some time before and left a forehead cloth that Mrs Sherrin had lost. Morris remarked that the lace on that cloth resembled a piece of lace for which Suffolk’s children had been accused. Katherine Seffey was sworn and stated that, while she was washing at the house of Elizabeth Morris, Elizabeth James brought out a forehead cloth and asked whether she recognised the lace. She replied that she could not distinguish it. Later, when Morris and James questioned her again, she said that she believed it to be lace she had sold to Elizabeth Booker, and that Booker had said it was the same lace for which Suffolk’s children had been accused. Prudence Sherrin was sworn and stated that the cloth she had lent to Mary Shannon had never been in her daughter’s possession, and that the lace on it had come from goods belonging to William Darby. She added that she had never made a forehead cloth from that lace. The lace on the cloth was then compared with other lace which Katherine Seffey stated she had sold to Elizabeth Booker, and which Booker had later sold to Elizabeth James. The lace was found to be of the same pattern and workmanship, being bone lace. It was therefore considered probable that Seffey might [...] After hearing all the evidence and the dispute between Seffey and Suffolk, the jury withdrew for about half an hour. On their return they delivered a verdict that the plaintiff should be cast in suit and pay the charges of court together with £0 2s 0d damages to Booker, the defendant. John Bagley then brought a complaint against John Nicholls in an action of debt for £1 10s 0d. John Nicholls admitted that he owed Bagley the sum of £1 10s 0d but stated that Prudence Sherrin was responsible for paying him. Bagley stated that he had requested payment of the £1 10s 0d from Sherrin, as Nicholls had directed, but that she had refused to pay. Interpretations The comparison of lace as evidence shows that physical characteristics of goods were used to establish identity and ownership. Material similarity formed part of the proof in disputes over property. The reference to “bone lace” indicates a specific type of handmade lace, suggesting that such items were distinctive enough to be recognised and traced between individuals. The verdict that the plaintiff was cast in suit shows that the court required sufficient proof to uphold an accusation. Where evidence was inconclusive or conflicting, the complainant bore the consequence. The award of damages to the defendant shows that unsuccessful claims could result in financial penalty, discouraging weak or unproven accusations. The admission of debt by Nicholls shows that obligations could be acknowledged even while responsibility for payment was contested. Liability could be disputed by shifting responsibility to a third party. Speculations The reliance on lace comparison suggests that goods circulated through multiple hands, making ownership difficult to trace and increasing the likelihood of dispute. The jury’s decision against the plaintiff suggests that uncertainty in identifying the lace weakened the case, indicating that material resemblance alone was insufficient without stronger corroboration. The attempt by Nicholls to assign payment responsibility to Sherrin suggests that debts could be informally transferred, creating ambiguity that required judicial clarification. | |
112 | The Jury do their Verdict that the said Nicholls pay that John Nicholls Complains of Prudence Sherrin saying The s.d Sherrin Denys the Action Sam: Taylor and Corporall Haile being Sworne Katherine the wife of the s.d Taylor being Sworne saith that The Jury withdrawn and then returned delivered their John Herveston who had Entered an action against Jno Bagley [Ri][ch][a][r][d] [K][e][l][i][n][g][e] [B][a][r][r][e][r] | The jury returned a verdict that John Nicholls should pay John Bagley the debt of £1 10s 0d together with the charges of court. John Nicholls then brought a complaint against Prudence Sherrin. He stated that she had purchased a still and the house in which it stood from him, and that John Bagley, a carpenter, had carried out work on that house to the value of £1 10s 0d for Nicholls. At the time of the sale, Sherrin had agreed to pay Bagley that sum, but had failed to do so. Prudence Sherrin denied the claim. Samuel Taylor and Corporal Haile were sworn and stated that they had been present when the agreement was made between Sherrin and Nicholls concerning the still and house. They heard Sherrin say, before receiving the earnest money, that she would pay and satisfy Bagley for his work. Katherine, the wife of Samuel Taylor, was sworn and stated that she had heard Sherrin say that she would pay John Bagley, although she was uncertain whether this had been said at the moment when the earnest was given. The jury withdrew and, on returning, gave their verdict that Sherrin should be cast in suit and pay the charges of court. As her failure to pay had led Bagley to arrest Nicholls, she was also ordered to pay the court charges arising from Bagley’s earlier action against Nicholls, together with £0 4s 0d damages to Bagley and £0 2s 0d to Nicholls for their trouble and loss of time. John Herveston, who had brought an action against John Bagley senior, was called to prosecute his case but did not appear. His action was therefore dismissed. Interpretations The reference to “earnest” shows that part payment or a token sum was used to confirm a binding agreement. Such a payment marked the point at which obligations between the parties became enforceable. The case shows that liability for a debt could be transferred as part of a property transaction. By agreeing to pay Bagley, Sherrin had effectively assumed Nicholls’s obligation. The ruling that Sherrin must also pay the costs arising from Bagley’s earlier action against Nicholls shows that the court recognised consequential liability. Responsibility extended beyond the original debt to include losses caused by failure to fulfil the agreement. The mention of arrest indicates that civil debt enforcement could involve detention. Creditors could initiate legal action that resulted in the debtor being held until the matter was resolved. The dismissal of Herveston’s case for non-appearance shows that active prosecution was required. Failure to appear led to immediate loss of the claim. Speculations The emphasis on the agreement made at the moment of receiving earnest suggests that this point was considered decisive in establishing contractual responsibility, indicating that verbal commitments at that stage carried particular weight. The requirement that Sherrin compensate both Bagley and Nicholls suggests that the court aimed to restore all parties affected by the dispute, indicating an intention to resolve not only the primary debt but its wider consequences. The dismissal of Herveston’s claim for non-appearance suggests that attendance was strictly enforced, indicating that the court prioritised efficiency and avoided prolonging unresolved cases. | |
113 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 3d Pres.t Richd Keelinge Gov.r Whereas Thomas Ferndale being Visted with a grie It is ordered That the said Mary Berry (the pretended wife of Tho: The said Thomas Ferndale by this false pretence has It is ordered That the said Land of Ferndale be not at present Memorandum [...] | A consultation was held on 3 April 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Thomas Ferndale, being seriously ill, made a confession concerning the woman who had lived with him. He admitted that she had never been his lawful wife, and that she had in fact left her husband in England, whose name was Berry. He declared that he wished to be free from her, describing her as disorderly and frequently drunk, and stating that she had taken advantage of his weakness during his illness. In order to remove the scandal caused by this situation, it was directed that Mary Berry, who had lived with Ferndale under the pretence of marriage, should not come near his house or live with him in any way. She was required to provide surety to ensure compliance with this order until the next homeward-bound ship arrived, at which time she was to be sent off the island. It was further noted that, under this false appearance of being part of a family, Ferndale had for twenty years held twenty acres of land. As a single man he would ordinarily have been entitled to only ten acres. However, he possessed a deed granted by a former government for the full twenty acres. It was therefore decided that the land should not be challenged at present, pending the decision of the Honourable Lords Proprietors. Interpretations The requirement that Mary Berry provide surety shows that enforcement of the order relied on a formal guarantee. Surety imposed responsibility on others to ensure compliance, extending accountability beyond the individual. The instruction that she be removed on the next ship shows that expulsion from the island was used as a means of social and legal control. Removal addressed behaviour considered harmful to the community. The reference to scandal “offensive both to God and man” shows that moral conduct formed part of governance. The authorities acted not only to enforce law but also to regulate behaviour according to accepted moral standards. The rule that land allocation depended on family status shows that access to land was structured by household composition. A family unit was entitled to a larger holding than a single individual. The decision not to challenge Ferndale’s land despite the irregularity shows that existing grants could be upheld pending higher authority. The deed provided legal weight even where its basis was questionable. The reference to the Lords Proprietors indicates that ultimate authority over land and governance lay outside the island. Local decisions could be deferred to superior oversight. Speculations The timing of Ferndale’s confession during serious illness suggests that the statement may have been prompted by fear of death or a desire to resolve matters affecting his standing, indicating that illness could bring latent issues into the open. The decision to remove Mary Berry rather than impose immediate punishment suggests that the authorities prioritised eliminating the source of perceived disorder over pursuing further legal action, indicating a pragmatic approach to maintaining social order. The choice to delay action on the land grant suggests concern about the legal validity of past decisions, indicating that the council preferred to avoid reversing earlier authority without confirmation from higher powers. | |
114 | Whereas at the Consultation held the 7th of Septembr last order was Whereupon it being Seriously Considered by us that the said It is ordered That Tho: Goodwin shall appraise so many Cattle of the said Sherwin Memorandm That the foregoing Consultation from Richd Keeling | A consultation recorded that, following an earlier order made on 7 September 1693, an inventory had been taken of the estate of Thomas Sherwin. The estate was valued at £138 0s 0d and consisted of slaves and cattle. Orlando Bagley and Thomas Bate had entered into an obligation to ensure that the estate would be forthcoming when the arbitration between Thomas Sherwin and Thomas Smout was concluded before the Governor and Council. Smout was indebted to the Honourable Company in the sum of £143 8s 0d. As the arbitration had not yet been completed, and as Mary Sherwin, the wife of Thomas Sherwin, wished to leave the island, she sought to settle matters so that she might dispose of the slaves. She offered to sell to the Company a quantity of cattle equal in value to the £138 0s 0d estate, but stated that she would not accept payment from Smout until the arbitration between her husband and Smout had been determined, so that her bondsmen might be discharged. She further offered favourable terms, agreeing to reduce the total by £10 0s 0d if the Company accepted. The matter was considered in detail. Sherwin’s cattle were judged to be in the best condition on the island, grazing in the principal range. At the same time, the Company’s own cattle, especially males, had become scarce owing to several years of dry seasons, and there was little stock available elsewhere on the island. It was also noted that any arrears would remain entered in the Company’s books as a debt, thereby securing the Company’s position if, after arbitration, Sherwin were required to pay any sum to Smout. It was therefore agreed that Thomas Goodwin should value a number of Sherwin’s cattle amounting to £128 8s 0d. In return, Sherwin was to receive credit for £128 8s 0d in the Company’s books, where the sum would remain until the arbitration was concluded. Orlando Bagley was to have the obligation returned to him in accordance with the agreement. A memorandum noted that the consultations from 7 September 1693 to this date were sent to the Honourable Company aboard the ship Little Josias. Richard Keeling Interpretations The use of an obligation entered into by Bagley and Bate shows that surety was used to guarantee that assets would be produced when required. This created a legally enforceable responsibility extending beyond the principal parties. The arrangement to credit Sherwin in the Company’s books rather than pay immediate cash shows that financial settlement could be managed through accounting entries. The Company’s books functioned as a central mechanism for recording and securing debts. The decision to delay final settlement until arbitration was complete shows that competing claims were formally suspended. Property could be provisionally assigned while legal outcomes remained unresolved. The valuation of cattle by an appointed individual demonstrates the role of appraisal in converting goods into monetary terms. This allowed livestock to be used in settlement of debts. The emphasis on scarcity of cattle, particularly males, shows that environmental conditions affected economic decisions. Drought directly influenced the availability and value of livestock. The note that Smout was already indebted to the Company shows that overlapping debts were considered together. The Company’s financial position was protected by ensuring that obligations remained recorded and enforceable. Speculations The acceptance of cattle instead of waiting for arbitration suggests that the Company sought to secure valuable resources immediately, indicating that practical needs, such as livestock shortages, influenced financial decisions. The reduction offered by Sherwin suggests a willingness to settle quickly, indicating that the desire to leave the island created pressure to convert assets into a form acceptable to the Company. The decision to retain the credited sum in the books until arbitration suggests that the Company aimed to maintain flexibility, allowing adjustment once the final liabilities between Sherwin and Smout were determined. | |
115 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the Pres.t Richd Keelinge Gov.r Memorand since the Consultation held on the 8th It is Ordered That Every Officer and Sold.r shall have Three months pay It is Likewise ordered That John Dorrington Carpenter, Francis Hodges It is further It is Ordered That the following parcells of Goods be [...] out of | A consultation was held on 12 April 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. It was recorded that, since the consultation of 8 January 1694, three months’ pay had become due to the officers and soldiers of the garrison. It was therefore directed that every officer and soldier should receive three months’ pay credited in the Honourable Company’s books of account, according to their respective ranks, salaries, and the stations in which they had served during that period. It was also directed that John Dorrington, carpenter, Francis Hodges, turner, John Worrall, tailor, John Bowman, John Frost, mason, James Duffe, bookbinder, and John Stringer, tailor, should receive credit in the Company’s books for the sums set against their names, representing payment for various works and labour carried out for the Company’s use. Further directions were given that goods should be issued from the Company’s store. A sum of £9 14s 0d was attributed to items received from the ship Little Josea under Captain [...] as commodore, and £4 5s 0d to items received from the ship Little Charles under [...] Thurber, master. These goods, together with the specified items, were for the use of the fort and the general store and were to be charged to the appropriate accounts. Interpretations The crediting of wages in the Company’s books shows that payment was often made through accounting entries rather than immediate cash. The Company’s ledger functioned as a system of deferred payment and financial control. The inclusion of each individual’s rank and station in determining pay shows that remuneration was structured according to both position and service. Duties performed influenced entitlement. The listing of trades such as carpenter, turner, tailor, mason, and bookbinder shows that specialised labour was formally recognised and compensated. Skilled work formed an essential part of the fort’s maintenance and operation. The charging of goods from ships to the Company’s accounts shows that imported supplies were integrated into the accounting system. Goods were treated as financial assets once entered into the store. The distinction between goods for the fort and for the general store indicates separate channels of supply and use within the settlement’s administration. Speculations The reliance on book credit for wages suggests that cash may have been scarce, indicating that the Company managed liquidity by deferring payment through its accounting system. The detailed recording of labour payments suggests that maintaining the fort required continuous specialised work, indicating ongoing investment in infrastructure and repair. The allocation of goods from arriving ships suggests that supply depended heavily on maritime arrivals, indicating that the island’s provisioning system was closely tied to shipping schedules. | |
116 | Acc.t of Debts &c Acco Three pounds Nine shill.s to To Acc.t of Shipp Little Josea Capt. Acc.t of Shipp Little Charles given 11½ lb of Iron at 2 s. p lb 00 19 2 To John Downing Carpenter for Reperations of the building of one Lodging To Ball John Bowman Mason for do 04 00 00 To Acc.t of Cash for do Soape 02 05 00 To Do for Oyle to mend the Flaggs 04 00 To Mary Seale for 3½ q yam 3 10 0 To p Acc.t of [...] Plantation for provissions 39 19 2 Sume Totall is Ninety five pounds seven shill.s | An account of debts and disbursements was recorded. A sum of £3 9s 0d was charged for cash paid for soap and oil used in repairing the flags. A further £5 10s 0d was paid to Mary Seale for yams supplied for use at the general table. Goods received from the ship Little Josea, under Captain [...] Gutter, commander, were entered in the ledger at £9 16s 0d. Goods received from the ship Little Charles, under John Thurber, master, were entered at £4 0s 6d. Materials included 11½ pounds of iron valued at £0 19s 2d and 14½ pounds of steel valued at £0 5s 2½d. Thirty-three cattle of barrack were valued at £8 5s 0d, and fourteen cattle of swine at £4 7s 0d. A further 42 pounds previously omitted from the store were entered at £0 7s 0d. Payments for labour included £11 10s 6d to John Downing, carpenter, for repairs to a lodging at Fort James for Captain Poirier, the Governor, and Mr Yeoman, covering workmen’s wages. John Bowman, mason, received £4 0s 0d for the same work, and John Frost £1 18s 0d. Francis Hodges, turner, received £0 15s 0d. John Worrall, tailor, received £1 0s 0d for making two field flags and repairing others. James Duffe received £1 1s 0d for binding three paper books. John Stringer received £0 18s 0d for making one suit for a slave. Further sums included £2 5s 0d for soap, £2 5s 0d paid to Mr Sherwin according to account, and £0 4s 0d for oil used in repairing the flags. Mary Seale received £3 10s 0d for 3½ quarters of yams. A further £39 19s 2d was charged to plantation accounts for provisions. The total amount recorded came to £95 7s 5½d. Interpretations The use of the general table shows that provisions were centrally managed for communal or official consumption, with costs recorded and allocated through the Company’s accounts. The entry of goods received from ships into the ledger shows that imported supplies were formally incorporated into the Company’s accounting system. Maritime deliveries formed a key source of materials and provisions. The detailed listing of labour payments shows that construction and maintenance work at the fort was organised through contracted or assigned tradesmen, whose wages were carefully recorded. The inclusion of materials such as iron and steel shows that imported resources were essential for repairs and construction, indicating limited local production of such materials. The reference to making and repairing flags shows that military signalling equipment required ongoing maintenance, reflecting its importance to communication and defence. The provision of clothing for a slave as a charged expense shows that upkeep of labourers formed part of the Company’s operational costs. Speculations The repeated expenditure on repairs and maintenance suggests that the fort required constant upkeep, indicating that environmental conditions or earlier damage had left structures in need of ongoing work. The reliance on ship-borne supplies suggests that shortages or delays in shipping could significantly affect operations, indicating a dependence on external supply lines. The recording of all expenses in detail suggests a need for strict financial oversight, indicating that the Company sought to monitor and control expenditure closely within the settlement. | |
117 | It is also ordered That the Severall pticulers of goods hereafter mentioned Store Goods Viz.t To 1 pr Pewter Buttons 00 04 08 To Acc.t of Shipp Josea Capt. [...] Gutter To acc.t of Shipp Little Charles of New Likewise It is ordered That the Severall p[...][...] hereafter mentioned have To Thomas Henn[e]y [...] for 8 head sum 17 10 00 To John Stringer Taylor for makeing of Sume Totalls is 257 09 11 | It was further directed that various goods issued from the Honourable Company’s store for use on the plantation should be charged to the plantation account as debts. These included items valued at £9 15s 0d received from the ship Little Josea under Captain [...] Gutter, and £3 8s 0d received from the ship Little Charles of New York under John Thurber, master. Among the goods were one pair of pewter buttons valued at £0 4s 8d, [...] valued at £0 0s 9d, and two shoots valued at £0 3s 0d. The remaining sums were entered in the ledger under the accounts of the two ships. It was also directed that several individuals should receive credit in the Honourable Company’s books for cattle and beef supplied to the plantation, these amounts being charged to their respective accounts of debt. Thomas Henne[...] was credited £17 10s 0d for eight head of cattle. Edward Edmonds was credited £6 2s 6d for two head, Mrs Beale £5 19s 0d for two, John Cannady £4 10s 0d for one, Thomas Marsh £8 16s 0d for three, James Morrell £2 10s 0d for one, and Prudence Sherwin £4 0s 0d for one. A further entry for Prudence Sherwin recorded £188 0s 0d for ninety-six head. Thomas Ferndale was credited £2 15s 0d for one head. John Stringer, tailor, was credited £3 0s 0d for making twenty-five jackets for slaves. The total sum of these entries amounted to £257 9s 11d. Interpretations The charging of plantation supplies to accounts of debt shows that goods issued from Company stores were not freely given but recorded as liabilities. This reflects a controlled system in which resources were distributed on credit and later accounted for. The separation of goods received from different ships indicates that supply sources were tracked individually. This allowed the Company to maintain oversight of imports and their allocation. The crediting of individuals for cattle supplied shows that the Company relied on local producers to provision its plantation. Livestock was integrated into the Company’s economy through formal accounting. The large entry for ninety-six head of cattle credited to Prudence Sherwin shows that substantial quantities of livestock could be transferred in a single transaction, indicating significant scale in agricultural operations. The provision of clothing for slaves, recorded as a paid service, shows that the maintenance of labourers was organised through contracted work and accounted for as part of operational costs. Speculations The detailed recording of plantation supplies suggests that the Company aimed to maintain strict oversight over resource distribution, indicating concern to prevent loss or misuse of goods. The reliance on local cattle suppliers suggests that internal production was essential to sustaining the settlement, indicating that dependence on imported provisions was supplemented by local agriculture. The large transfer of cattle from Prudence Sherwin may reflect a need to secure livestock quickly, possibly due to shortages noted earlier, indicating a response to environmental or supply pressures. | |
118 | Likewise It is ordered That Capt. Poirier have an order for the brandy To Fort acct Capt Poirier 33 .. 14 .. 12 .. 00 Some over 667 642 58 18 3 | It was further directed that Captain Poirier should be issued an order covering the brandy and wine he had already distributed, these quantities being charged to the respective accounts of those who received them. The amounts were entered under the fort account for Captain Poirier, John Vernon, James Stevens, James Phillips, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Rawns, Sergeant Hill, Sergeant Haselbury, Sergeant Rushing, Sergeant Dixon, Arthur Booker, Robert Evill, Corporal Hales, Corporal Booker, Corporal Barrett, Corporal Neill, Henry Judy, Thomas Garrow, Richard Cheney, Thomas Ashley, Edward Blake, Thomas Birch, Orlando Bagley, Edward Corby, John Gale, Thomas Gale, George Wright, James Duffe, Richard Beering, John Burton, Richard White, James Easty, and James Easting. Each individual’s share of brandy and wine was recorded and charged to their personal account as a debt. Interpretations The distribution of brandy and wine through formal accounting shows that such goods were treated as controlled supplies rather than informal allowances. Consumption was recorded and charged to individuals. The charging of these items to personal accounts indicates that provisions issued by the Company were not freely granted but formed part of an individual’s financial obligations. The inclusion of both officers and lower-ranking personnel in the list shows that access to such goods extended across ranks, though each person’s share was individually recorded. The entry under the fort account indicates that distribution of provisions was organised through institutional channels rather than private exchange. The recording of a cumulative total shows that these transactions were integrated into the wider accounting system, contributing to ongoing balances rather than being treated as isolated entries. Speculations The careful recording of alcohol distribution suggests concern about regulating its use, indicating that such supplies were both valuable and potentially disruptive if not controlled. The allocation across many individuals suggests that brandy and wine may have been used as part of routine provisioning or rationing, indicating their role within daily life at the fort. The accumulation of these charges into a total balance suggests that the Company tracked consumption closely, indicating an effort to maintain financial oversight over even minor distributions. | |
119 | Brought over - - - 61 64 2 35 18 3 Wm French - - - - - - 1 - - - 00 5 0 147 0 14 0 100 100 some over - - - 66 00 00 | The account was continued, listing further individuals to whom goods or drink had been issued, each amount being charged to their personal account. William French was charged £0 5s 0d. John Frister was charged £0 1s 6d. John Gatey was charged £0 5s 6d. John Hoo[...]ton was charged £0 8s 0d. George Hodgkinson was charged £0 14s 9d. Jonas Higham was charged £0 4s 6d. John Hannon was charged £0 8s 6d. Thomas Igley was charged £0 0s 0d. Simon Lace was charged £0 8s 0d. Thomas Landowne was charged £0 7s 0d. Samuel Marcelle was charged £0 4s 6d. William Medling was charged £0 8s 0d. Henry Manning was charged £0 9s 0d. John Miles was charged £0 4s 6d. Francisco Bridge was charged £0 6s 0d. John Shilings was charged £1 6s 6d. Jacob Aaron was charged £0 4s 6d. John Norman was charged £0 6s 0d. Peter Mirian was charged £0 3s 0d. Simon Nobelly was charged £0 9s 9d. John Young was charged £0 8s 0d. Samuel Defountaine was charged £1 0s 0d. An[...]hal DeLino was charged £3 18s 0d. Hank Roberts was charged £2 18s 0d. David Graile was charged £0 7s 6d. John Seliver was charged £0 0s 0d. James Gerrin was charged £3 17s 0d. William Sam Allen was charged £0 15s 0d. John Bowman was charged £0 4s 0d. Mr Beale was charged £2 12s 0d. John Everlee was charged £0 8s 0d. John Downing was charged £0 8s 0d. Edward Browns was charged £0 8s 0d. John Ellet was charged £0 12s 0d. Mary Gunling was charged £1 19s 0d. John Goodrick was charged £0 18s 0d. Mary Perster was charged £0 8s 0d. Richard Leach was charged £0 19s 0d. John Legg was charged £0 15s 0d. William Marsh was charged £0 0s 0d. John Quelly was charged £0 3s 0d. John S[...]l was charged £0 8s 0d. Joseph Trapp was charged £0 3s 0d. Richard Rance was charged £0 6s 0d. Thomas Iversdale was charged £1 0s 0d. A further sum carried forward was recorded as £66 0s 0d. Interpretations The consistent charging of small sums to named individuals shows that distributed goods were closely monitored and recorded, indicating a system of detailed financial accountability. The inclusion of a wide range of individuals suggests that such accounts extended beyond military personnel to include inhabitants connected with the Company’s operations. The variation in sums indicates that distribution was not uniform but depended on individual circumstances, role, or level of consumption. The recording of zero-value entries suggests that participation or allocation could be noted even where no charge was ultimately applied. Speculations The pattern of small, repeated charges suggests that goods were issued in controlled portions over time rather than in bulk, indicating an attempt to regulate consumption. The breadth of names recorded suggests that such distributions formed a routine part of provisioning, indicating their integration into daily life within the settlement. | |
120 | Brought over - - - - - - 15 00 00 It is likewise ordered That Capᵗ Poirier have also an order for 84 Flegons of Rice & bringing Corn 40 01 2 It is also ordered That the sd Capᵗ Poirier have also an order 90 lb Beife to Sergᵗ Field - - - 00 14 8 John Nicholls for the space of 5 06 14 8 Summe Totall is - - - 112:15:10 [Ri][ch][d] [Ke][l][i][n][g] | A balance of £15 0s 0d was carried forward. It was directed that Captain Poirier should receive an order covering provisions he had issued during the previous three months for the use of the garrison cattle. These provisions included 84 flagons of rice and the transport of corn, provisions, and timber to Fort James, valued at £7 6s 0d. Thirty-six bushels of potatoes at 2s 6d per bushel were valued at £3 12s 0d. Pork, amounting to £3 7s 8d, was issued. Thirteen pounds of butter at 10d were valued at £0 10s 10d. Nine pounds of beef at 5s 6d were valued at £2 12s 0d. One turkey was valued at £0 8s 0d. Two goats were valued at £1 2s 0d. Forty-three cabbages at 2d each were valued at £0 7s 2d. A further direction was given that Captain Poirier should receive an order for 90 pounds of beef issued to Sergeant Field, valued at £0 14s 8d. Provision for the public increase of two cows for one year was valued at £2 0s 0d. John Nicholls was accounted £4 0s 0d for five months’ use and the increase of two cows over two years. The total sum of these entries was £112 15s 10d. Interpretations The recording of provisions issued for garrison cattle shows that livestock maintenance was formally accounted for, indicating the importance of animal resources to the settlement’s sustenance. The inclusion of transport of goods alongside food supplies shows that logistical labour formed part of the provisioning system and was valued within the same accounting framework. The reference to the “increase” of cattle shows that breeding was treated as an economic asset. The future growth of livestock was assigned a monetary value and incorporated into financial records. The allocation of provisions to named individuals, such as Sergeant Field and John Nicholls, shows that responsibility for livestock and their produce was distributed among personnel and formally recognised. The use of detailed measurements and pricing shows that provisioning was carefully quantified, reflecting a structured approach to resource management. Speculations The valuation of cattle increase suggests an effort to encourage or regulate livestock breeding, indicating that long-term supply was being actively managed. The detailed accounting of provisions over a fixed three-month period suggests that supply cycles were monitored regularly, indicating an organised system of periodic review and settlement. The inclusion of transport costs alongside provisions suggests that moving goods across the island was a significant part of operations, indicating that geography and distance affected resource distribution. | |
121 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 5ᵗʰ day Prest Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ P[...] Elizᵗʰ the wife of Edwᵈ Suffolk an Infant It is ordered That the sd Joseph and Mary Gatey Desire be granted Hugh Bodley planter Complains of John Bowman The sd Bowman saith that he Knows nothing of John Rebecca Charleton the widdow of the sd John Charleton | A consultation was held on 5 May 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keeling, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Elizabeth, the wife of Edward Suffolk, acting on behalf of her children Joseph Gatey and Mary Gatey, applied to the Governor and Council. These children had received various goods and chattels under a deed of gift made for their benefit, with John Cannady, now deceased, having acted as trustee. As the children intended to leave the island with their mother, they requested that she be appointed their guardian and overseer of their estate, with authority to manage and dispose of it. Their request was granted. It was directed that Mr Diminick and Samuel Strangham, as executors of John Cannady’s estate, should deliver to Elizabeth Suffolk the children’s estate, together with the deed of gift previously made in their favour, which remained in their custody by virtue of their executorship. Hugh Bodley, planter, then brought a complaint against John Bowman, planter. He stated that John Charleton, recently deceased, had given him six timber trees from land held by Bowman on lease, which had formerly belonged to Charleton, but that Bowman had refused to deliver them. John Bowman replied that he had no knowledge of any such agreement made by John Charleton, and that he would not deliver the trees without proof. Rebecca Charleton, widow of John Charleton, made a sworn statement that her husband, during his lifetime, had promised to give Hugh Bodley the value of two trees or boards. She added that her husband had previously used boards that properly belonged to Katherine, the wife of Hugh Bodley. Interpretations The reference to a trustee holding goods on behalf of children shows that property could be formally managed for minors through appointed individuals. This arrangement ensured that assets were preserved until the children were able to control them. The appointment of Elizabeth Suffolk as guardian with authority to dispose of the estate shows that guardianship included both care and legal control over property. The Council’s approval indicates that such authority required formal recognition. The role of executors in holding and transferring the estate shows that responsibility for administering property continued after death through legally recognised representatives. The dispute over timber trees shows that rights to natural resources attached to land could be contested, especially where land was held under lease rather than full ownership. The sworn testimony of Rebecca Charleton shows that oral promises could be supported by oath in court, indicating that verbal agreements were admissible as evidence when formal proof was lacking. The reference to prior use of boards belonging to Katherine Bodley suggests that claims could be justified through reciprocal obligation, linking past use to present entitlement. Speculations The decision to grant Elizabeth Suffolk control of the estate suggests that the impending departure from the island required rapid consolidation of property rights, indicating that mobility influenced legal decisions. The dispute over timber suggests that resources such as building materials were valuable and contested, indicating their importance in a settlement where supply may have been limited. The reliance on Rebecca Charleton’s oath suggests that written proof was unavailable or insufficient, indicating that personal testimony played a crucial role in resolving property disputes. | |
122 | Richard Stacy now also did attest likewise that to his knowledge It is ordered That the sd John Bowman doe deliver to Hugh Bodley two Whereas the Fort House is so farr decayed that of necessity It is ordered That for the future no Timber Trees belonging to the Honᵇˡᵉ [Ri][ch][a][r][d] [Ke][l][i][n][g] | Richard Stacy also gave sworn testimony that, to his knowledge, John Charleworth had promised to give Hugh Bodley the redwood trees. This statement was made in the presence of John Vernon and John Field, who confirmed it. It was therefore directed that John Bowman should deliver two redwood trees to Hugh Bodley in accordance with John Charleworth’s promise. Attention was then given to the condition of the fort house, which had become so decayed that it required rebuilding. It was reported to be close to collapse, having previously been shaken and supported by the former Governor. The fortifications, plantation houses, and store rooms were also in need of substantial repair or rebuilding. Timber on the island had become scarce, and there was concern for its preservation. It was therefore directed that no timber trees belonging to the Honourable Company should be cut or sold for private use in future, and that all such timber should be reserved for the Company’s service and for public buildings. Interpretations The confirmation of testimony by multiple witnesses shows that corroboration was used to strengthen claims based on verbal promises. Agreement between witnesses increased the weight of evidence. The enforcement of John Charleworth’s promise demonstrates that obligations made during a person’s lifetime could be upheld after death, particularly when supported by sworn testimony. The prohibition on cutting timber for private use shows that natural resources were subject to central control. The Company regulated access to ensure supply for essential works. The reference to the decay of the fort house and other structures shows that maintenance of infrastructure was a continuing concern, requiring both materials and coordinated labour. The restriction on timber use indicates that building materials were limited and strategically important, linking environmental conditions directly to administrative decisions. Speculations The decision to reserve timber for Company use suggests that shortages had reached a level where unrestricted cutting posed a risk to essential construction, indicating a response to environmental pressure. The timing of the restriction, alongside reports of structural decay, suggests that the authorities anticipated major rebuilding works, indicating forward planning to secure necessary materials. The reliance on witness confirmation in the timber dispute suggests that formal written agreements may not always have been made, indicating that memory and reputation played a key role in enforcing obligations. | |
123 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Prest Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ Whereas Katherine Jessey had bin It is now Agreed wᵗʰ her That she shall be allowed for her said Labour [Ri][ch][d] [Ke][l][i][n][g] | A consultation was held on 16 May 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Keeling, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Katherine Jessey had been employed at the plantation since March 1694, overseeing daily work and instructing the slaves in their duties. An agreement was made that she should be paid for this labour, including her work in supervising daily tasks and assisting with washing clothes belonging to the fort, as the slaves were not skilled in this work. Her payment was set at the rate of £13 0s 0d per year, or £0 5s 0d per week, for as long as she remained employed in this service. Interpretations The reference to Katherine Jessey instructing slaves shows that labour was organised under supervision, with responsibility placed on individuals to direct and train the workforce. The inclusion of washing duties alongside plantation oversight shows that roles could combine different types of labour, indicating flexible use of workers according to need. The statement that slaves were unskilled in washing shows that certain tasks required specific knowledge, and that training or external labour was necessary to maintain standards. The fixed rate of pay, expressed both annually and weekly, shows that wages were structured and could be calculated over different periods, indicating a formal approach to employment terms. Speculations The decision to employ Katherine Jessey for both supervision and washing suggests a shortage of skilled labour, indicating that individuals capable of multiple tasks were particularly valued. The explicit mention of instructing slaves suggests that improving labour efficiency was a concern, indicating an effort to increase productivity through training. The dual expression of wages may indicate flexibility in payment arrangements, suggesting that her employment could be adjusted in duration depending on need. | |
124 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the Prest Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Assistants in Councell Capt Robᵗ Dorrel [...][...] of Ships Mary Leach whose Husband was Convicted The Governᵒʳ made knowne the Gentlemen of Upon Mature Consideration It is unanimously agreed & ordered That the further determination of this matter be | A consultation was held on 25 June 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Present in council were Captain Robert Dorrell of the ship Charles the Second and Captain William Dibley of the ship Modena. Mary Leach, whose husband had been convicted of murder by a jury of twelve men and had also been involved with Henry Jackson in the killing of Joshua Johnson, Governor of the island, submitted a petition. As a result of those crimes, her husband’s estate had been seized for the use of the Honourable Company. She requested relief and asked that she be restored to possession of her husband’s estate, citing her distressed condition. The Governor explained the matter to Captain Dorrell and Captain Dibley, who were not previously acquainted with the case. He stated that the estate had been seized for the Company’s use but that provision had been made for the maintenance of Mary Leach and her family from that estate until the Company’s decision should be known. After consideration, it was agreed that the final decision should be left to the Honourable Company. In the meantime, Mary Leach was to remain on the plantation and continue to receive maintenance from the estate until further direction was given. Interpretations The seizure of the estate following conviction shows that property could be forfeited as a consequence of serious crimes. This transferred assets from private ownership to Company control. The allowance of maintenance to Mary Leach and her family shows that dependants of those convicted could still receive support, indicating a distinction between punishment of the offender and provision for the household. The involvement of visiting captains in the consultation shows that external witnesses or advisors could be included in deliberations, particularly where they had not been part of earlier proceedings. The decision to defer to the Honourable Company shows that ultimate authority over major legal and property matters rested with a higher governing body beyond the island. The instruction that Mary Leach remain on the plantation shows that residence and livelihood could be regulated while awaiting a final decision. Speculations The decision to allow Mary Leach to remain on the plantation suggests that removing her immediately may have disrupted the management of the estate, indicating a practical concern to maintain continuity. The referral of the matter to the Honourable Company suggests that the case was considered significant or sensitive, indicating reluctance to make a final ruling without higher approval. The provision of maintenance from the seized estate suggests that the authorities aimed to balance enforcement of punishment with social stability, avoiding hardship that might affect the wider community. | |
125 | Mary Gurling Put in a Petition The Matter being Truley Debated the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ It is ordered That the said Gurlings Case be refered to the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ George Hodgkinson Complains of Michᵃ Morrin The said Morrin saith that his wife being the said Having Seriously Considered the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ It is ordered That Persons be Immediately Summond and | Mary Gurling submitted a petition stating that, upon her husband’s death without a will, all lands and houses had been assigned to his eldest son by a former wife. She asserted that most of these lands had been acquired during her marriage to her husband, by whom she had also borne a son. She therefore claimed that her own son ought to be recognised as co-heir with the elder son. The matter was examined, but no clear grounds were found either in support of or against her claim. It was therefore directed that the case be referred to the Honourable Company. In the meantime, Mary Gurling was to retain one of the houses belonging to the estate and was not to claim beyond what properly belonged to her. George Hodgkinson then brought a complaint against Michael Morrin, stating that Morrin withheld from him twenty acres of land that had been bequeathed to Elizabeth James, his wife, who was Morrin’s daughter-in-law. The bequest had been made by Jane Deganney, wife of Robert Deganney, with his approval. Michael Morrin replied that his wife, being the daughter of Jane Deganney, believed that the land rightfully belonged to her. After consideration of the Honourable Company’s instructions, issued under their common seal and dated 17 March 1681, which directed that disputes over land should be determined by a jury, especially in accordance with the broader instructions given to Sir Thomas Grantham, it was directed that jurors should be summoned immediately. Their names were to be recorded as set out thereafter. Interpretations The claim made by Mary Gurling shows that inheritance disputes could arise where property had been acquired during a later marriage. The question of whether such property should pass solely to the eldest son or be shared with children of a subsequent marriage was not automatically resolved. The decision to refer the matter to the Honourable Company shows that complex inheritance cases could exceed local authority, requiring judgement from higher governance. The interim arrangement allowing Mary Gurling to retain a house shows that provisional measures could be taken to secure livelihood while awaiting a final decision. The reference to intestacy shows that, in the absence of a will, property distribution depended on established rules or external judgement rather than the deceased’s expressed wishes. The direction that land disputes be decided by a jury reflects a formalised legal process, indicating that property rights were subject to adjudication through collective judgement rather than unilateral decision. The citation of instructions under the Company’s common seal shows that governance relied on written directives carrying formal authority, guiding local decision-making. Speculations The referral of Mary Gurling’s case suggests uncertainty over how property acquired during marriage should be treated, indicating that such situations may not have been clearly regulated in local practice. The dispute between Hodgkinson and Morrin suggests overlapping family claims to land, indicating that inheritance and marriage connections could create competing rights. The decision to convene a jury in the land dispute suggests an intention to legitimise the outcome through collective judgement, indicating sensitivity to fairness and acceptance within the community. | |
126 | John Colgrave foreman - - - - 1 Which Jurors were all Sworne The said George Hodgkinson produced a Copy of John Fuller being sworne saith that he was present Henry Coales who had for some years the said Jane Mattᵗ Sherratt being sworne saith the same Then the Jury withdrew and staied abᵗ ½ an houre that the said Twenty Acres of Land belonged to | A jury was appointed consisting of John Colgrave as foreman, together with Richard Griffin, James Rider, Thomas Goodwin, John Goodwin, Hugh Bodley, Richard Leach, Richard Harding, William Marsh, John Knire, William Bayle, and Robert Addis. All were sworn. George Hodgkinson then produced a copy of the will of Jane Deganney. This copy had been attested by John Vernon senior, who swore that it was a true copy of the will presented to him. John Fuller, being sworn, stated that he had been present when Jane Deganney made her will, which had been done with the consent and approval of her husband Robert Deganney, who was then present. He recalled that she granted twenty acres of land to her husband for his lifetime, though he remembered no further details, the event having occurred some time before. Henry Coales, who had kept Jane Deganney’s will in his custody for several years, was sworn and stated that the will provided that, after the death of Robert Deganney, the twenty acres of land and the dwelling house upon it were to pass to Elizabeth James, now the wife of George Hodgkinson. Matthew Sherratt, being sworn, confirmed the same account as Henry Coales, who was his father-in-law. The jury then withdrew for about half an hour. On their return, they gave their verdict that the twenty acres of land belonged to George Hodgkinson’s wife, on the grounds that Robert Deganney was absent from the island. It was further directed that Morrin should pay the damages and the costs of the suit. Interpretations The use of a sworn copy of a will shows that documentary evidence could be accepted in reproduced form, provided it was verified by oath. This allowed legal proceedings to continue even where the original document was not produced. The testimony that the will had been made with the husband’s consent shows that a married woman’s disposal of property could depend upon the approval of her husband, reflecting the legal framework governing property rights within marriage. The provision granting a life interest to the husband, followed by transfer to another party, shows that property could be structured in stages, with successive rights defined over time. The reliance on witnesses who had seen or held the will shows that personal knowledge and custody of documents were important forms of evidence in the absence of formal registration systems. The verdict in favour of Hodgkinson’s wife shows that testamentary instructions were upheld, even where competing familial claims existed, provided sufficient supporting evidence was presented. Speculations The emphasis on Robert Deganney’s absence suggests that his inability to assert his rights may have influenced the timing or acceptance of the claim, indicating that presence could affect the enforcement of property rights. The reliance on memory by witnesses suggests that the will may not have been easily accessible or formally recorded, indicating that documentary preservation was limited. The quick jury deliberation suggests that the evidence was considered clear or persuasive, indicating that the testimonies aligned sufficiently to resolve the dispute without extended debate. | |
127 | Mary Berry by her Attorney Richᵈ Harding The Govʳ acquainted the Gentlemen Vizᵗ Capt The said Mary Berry being to goe for England Cᵗ John Vernon having served the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ It is ordered That the said Mr Vernon shall be removed into the | Mary Berry, acting through her attorney Richard Harding, brought a complaint against Thomas Ferndale. She stated that she had lived with Ferndale for many years, and that upon their separation he had promised and granted her, among other things, ten acres of land and a house. She claimed that Ferndale now refused to deliver this land and house. The Governor explained the matter to Captain Robert Dorrell and Captain Dibley, as had been noted in the consultation of 9 April 1694. As Mary Berry was preparing to depart for England on one of the ships then in the road, it was considered appropriate that Ferndale should make her some allowance. He agreed to do so. It was further understood that, if this arrangement did not satisfy her, she might pursue her claim at the next general sessions. John Vernon, who had served the Honourable Company in the role of driveller, requested an increase in salary and advancement within the Company’s service. His circumstances were considered, and his request was judged reasonable. It was therefore directed that John Vernon should be transferred to the position of mason and should receive a salary of £15 0s 0d per year, being the same rate previously paid to John Tymes in that role. Interpretations The use of an attorney shows that individuals could act through representatives in presenting claims, indicating a recognised form of legal representation. The claim based on a promise made at separation shows that informal agreements could form the basis of property disputes, even where no formal documentation was produced. The decision to encourage an immediate allowance rather than a full hearing shows that the council could promote practical settlement, especially where one party intended to leave the island. The option to pursue the claim at a later session shows that formal legal processes remained available if informal resolution failed. The reference to the role of driveller shows that specific positions existed within the Company’s service, forming part of an organised labour structure. The transfer of Vernon to the role of mason with a defined salary shows that appointments and wages were standardised, with precedent used to determine pay. Speculations The willingness to settle the dispute before Mary Berry’s departure suggests that the council aimed to resolve matters quickly when parties were leaving the island, indicating concern to avoid unresolved claims crossing jurisdictions. The agreement by Ferndale to make an allowance suggests that he may have wished to avoid formal proceedings, indicating that informal settlement could be preferable to litigation. The promotion of Vernon suggests that retaining experienced personnel was valued, indicating that advancement could be used as an incentive to maintain service within the Company. | |
128 | Island St Helena Tuesday the 26ᵗʰ Day of June 1694 Prest Richᵈ Kellinge Governʳ Assistants in Councell Capt Robᵗ Dorrell Comandᵣ Mary Seale Complains of Two Dutch One of the said Dutch men was Committed to The other Dutchman being Examined Dulce appearing that they were both It is ordered That the said Dutch men be Committed to prison | A consultation was continued on 26 June 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Captain Robert Dorrell, commander of the ship Charles the Second, was present as an assistant in council. Mary Seale brought a complaint against two Dutch seamen belonging to the ship Charles the Second. She stated that they had come to her house and taken a piece of silk, which she had recently purchased for £1 0s 0d, together with three dollars in cash. One of the seamen had already been committed to prison following her earlier complaint to the Governor. The other, who had returned to the ship, was brought ashore to answer the charge. Upon examination, the imprisoned man confessed that, at the instigation of his companion, he had opened a chest from which the other man had taken the silk and two dollars. He also admitted that he had shared in the act. He further stated that, while in prison, his companion had urged him not to confess and had given him a piece of silk, which he had sold for two dollars. The second seaman initially denied the accusations but later admitted that he had received one dollar, though he denied taking any silk. It was concluded that both men had acted together and had taken the silk and money as described. It was therefore directed that both seamen should be committed to prison and remain there until further instruction. They were also required to restore to Mary Seale either the same piece of silk or its value, together with the cash she had claimed. Interpretations The detention of one seaman before the full hearing shows that individuals could be imprisoned on complaint pending further examination, indicating a precautionary approach to suspected offences. The involvement of a ship’s crew member in a local theft case shows that jurisdiction extended over visiting seamen while on the island. The confession obtained through examination shows that admission of guilt formed a central part of the evidentiary process. The requirement to restore either the stolen goods or their value shows that restitution to the injured party was an expected outcome alongside punishment. The mention of dollars alongside sterling shows that multiple currencies circulated within the island’s economy, reflecting its connection to international trade. Speculations The effort to bring the second seaman ashore suggests that cooperation between local authorities and ship commanders was necessary to enforce order, indicating reliance on mutual authority. The admission that one seaman attempted to influence the other’s testimony suggests concern about coordinated deception, indicating awareness of attempts to obstruct justice. The order for restitution alongside imprisonment suggests that recovery of property was prioritised, indicating that compensation for loss was considered essential in maintaining trust within the community. | |
129 | Katherine Taylor formerly the wife of Wᵐ The said Katherine Taylors case being seriou[...] It is ordered That the Determination and Allowance thereof John Sitch planter who likewise was now The said Sitches case being the same as It is also agreed & ordered That it be Likewise referred to yᵉ Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Richᵈ Kellinge | Katherine Taylor, formerly the wife of William Rutter, submitted a petition. She stated that during the time of the former Governor, her husband had been appointed ensign in the garrison, and that for part of this service he had received no pay. She further stated that, during the same period, her husband had carried out additional work as a writer for the Governor and Captain Beale. In return for this, he had been allowed provisions for a household of three, which he had received to a certain value. Part of this had later been charged to his account and paid by him. She therefore requested payment for the period in which he had served as ensign without pay, and reimbursement for the provisions he had paid for. Her case was considered, but it was determined that the Governor and Council could not grant her request. It was therefore directed that the matter be referred to the Honourable Company for decision. John Sitch, planter, who had also served as ensign during the time of Governor Field and had not been paid for the full term of his service, made a similar request for payment. As his case was judged to be the same as that of Katherine Taylor’s husband, it was likewise agreed that it should be referred to the Honourable Company for determination. Interpretations The reference to service as ensign without pay shows that military roles could be performed without immediate or complete remuneration, leading to later claims for compensation. The mention of additional work as a writer shows that administrative duties could be undertaken alongside military service, and that such work might be compensated in kind rather than in cash. The charging of provisions to an individual’s account shows that goods supplied could later be converted into debt, indicating a system where payment in kind could be retrospectively adjusted. The inability of the Governor and Council to resolve the claim shows that disputes over unpaid service and financial entitlement could require decision by the higher authority of the Honourable Company. The parallel handling of John Sitch’s claim shows that similar cases were grouped together and treated consistently within the administrative process. Speculations The referral of both cases suggests uncertainty or reluctance to authorise payments from local resources, indicating concern over financial authority and accountability. The combination of unpaid service and charged provisions suggests that record-keeping may have been incomplete or contested, indicating potential ambiguity in accounts. The repetition of similar claims suggests that delayed or disputed payment for service may have been a recurring issue within the garrison. | |
130 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 5ᵗʰ Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Whereas since [...] the Consultation held yᵉ It is ordered That Every officer and Souldier shall have Three It is likewise ordered That the severall Things recᵈ from the last ship Vizᵗ To Sutton Isaack for worke for yᵉ Gove 1 3 0 [...] 04 15 00 Some over 05 18 00 | A consultation was held on 5 July 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. It was noted that, since the consultation of 12 April 1694, three months’ salary had become due to the officers and soldiers of the garrison. It was directed that each officer and soldier should receive three months’ pay, to be entered in the Honourable Company’s books of account according to their respective rank, salary, and the stations in which they had served during that period. It was further directed that all items received from the last ship, together with goods taken from the stores for use at the fort, for the guns, and for other services, should be charged to the Company’s account. An additional sum of £5 7s 0d, representing various payments already made, was also to be included. Payment was ordered to Sutton Isaack for work carried out during the time of Governor Johnson, amounting to £1 3s 0d. Various items issued for gun use and related purposes were recorded. These included two pounds of small shot valued at £1 4s 0d, further shot valued at £0 3s 0d, and one hatchet valued at £0 3s 0d. Goods received from ship stores under Captain Mid[...] Windsor were valued at £2 8s 0d. Additional supplies included a quantity of Muscovy light valued at £0 8s 0d, three hand lines valued at £0 9s 0d, and half a water glass valued at £0 3s 0d. A further sum of £4 15s 0d was entered, together with an additional amount of £5 18s 0d carried over. Interpretations The entry of wages into the Company’s books rather than immediate payment shows that remuneration could be credited as account balances, indicating a system where payment might be deferred or settled later. The charging of goods from ships and stores to the Company’s account shows that incoming supplies were centrally recorded and allocated, reflecting organised inventory control. The inclusion of earlier payments already made shows that accounts were periodically reconciled, bringing together past and current expenditures. The payment to Sutton Isaack for work done under a previous governor shows that obligations could persist across administrations, indicating continuity in financial responsibility. The listing of military supplies such as shot, tools, and equipment shows that fort maintenance and defence required ongoing provisioning, with costs formally recorded. Speculations The reliance on account entries for wages suggests that cash flow may have been limited, indicating that the Company managed payments through credit rather than immediate disbursement. The recording of goods from ships alongside local store issues suggests that supply depended both on external deliveries and internal reserves, indicating a mixed provisioning system. The inclusion of delayed payment to Sutton Isaack suggests that outstanding claims were addressed when resources or attention allowed, indicating periodic clearing of arrears. | |
131 | Brought over 15 48 00 For the use of the Boate For 1 Small Boate for the To ship Indiaman Capᵗ Frindy Com̄ᵈ 07 10 00 For the Drs use To furnish To acct of ship Sampson Capᵗ [...] For Clothing some 1/2 [...] Buttons 00 02 00 00 06 00 For the use of the Fort & Garrison To acct of Tobacco for 55 Negroes To acct of Sugar for 18 men at 9 d 04 04 00 To acct of Cash for the perticulars 2 1/2 fathom quick[...] 0 4 8 05 03 06 Borne over 25 08 06 Borne over 29 09 00 | A sum of £15 48s 0d was brought forward. Provision was then made for the use of the boat. From a ship commanded by Captain John Darrell, a small boat with its materials was acquired at a cost of £5 0s 0d. From the ship Indiaman, commanded by Captain Frindy, one hundred yards of canvas were obtained to cover the old boat, though part of this was diverted to other uses at the fort, at a cost of £2 10s 0d. These items together amounted to £7 10s 0d. For the use of the doctor, supplies were obtained to furnish his chest with medicines. From the ship Sampson, commanded by Captain [...] Bromwell, a case of cordu[...] water consisting of twenty-seven pints was acquired at a cost of £6 15s 0d. For clothing slaves, a quantity of buttons was provided at £0 2s 0d, and cash was paid for a pair of breeches at £0 4s 0d, making £0 6s 0d in total. For the use of the fort and garrison, one barrel of [...] was valued at £0 6s 0d. Tobacco for fifty-five slaves, supplied under Captain Frindy’s account, was valued at £15 15s 0d. Sugar for eighteen men at 9d was valued at £4 4s 0d. Further cash payments were recorded for various items. These included two and a half fathoms of quick[...] at £0 4s 8d, payment for blue stone at £0 10s 0d, payment to Mr William Taylor amounting to £5 0s 0d, and the mending of flags. Soap weighing 112 pounds at 9d per pound was valued at £4 4s 0d. These items together amounted to £5 3s 6d. A further sum of £25 8s 6d was carried forward, followed by another balance brought forward of £29 9s 0d. Interpretations The purchase of a small boat and materials shows that maritime transport was essential to operations, requiring regular investment in vessels and maintenance. The diversion of canvas from its intended purpose shows that materials could be reassigned according to immediate need, indicating flexibility in resource use. The provision of medicines for the doctor shows that medical care was formally supplied and stocked, reflecting an organised approach to health within the settlement. The allocation of clothing items to slaves shows that their maintenance formed part of the Company’s managed expenses, indicating responsibility for their upkeep. The distribution of tobacco and sugar to defined groups shows that consumable goods were issued in controlled quantities, reflecting structured provisioning. The recording of varied payments for tools, materials, and maintenance shows that both routine and specialised expenses were integrated into the same accounting system. Speculations The acquisition and repair of boats suggest that sea access and movement were vital, indicating reliance on maritime connections for supply and communication. The reassignment of canvas suggests that shortages or urgent demands required immediate redistribution of resources, indicating constrained supply conditions. The detailed provisioning of the doctor’s chest suggests awareness of medical needs in an isolated environment, indicating preparation for illness or injury within the garrison. | |
132 | Brought over — — 20 09 00 Brought over — — 25 08 6 To acct of Island stock &cᵈ ab[?] left ab sᵈ to Gabo To the cᵗ of Plantation for the 6 [...] record land — — 8 : 9 : 6 39 04 6 Sume Totall amount to It is also ordered That the severall species of goods hereafter 12 Shott — — — — 00 03 00 00 16 01 Borne over — — 00 16 01 | A balance of £20 9s 0d and a further balance of £25 8s 6d were carried forward. An entry was made for the island stock before the arrival of the recent ships, amounting to £13 8s 9d. A further payment of £1 9s 6d was recorded. Charges were then entered to the plantation account for provisions supplied. These included items valued at £8 9s 6d, forty-four bushels of potatoes valued at £4 8s 0d, butter valued at £1 3s 4d, beef valued at £20 16s 0d, four goats valued at £1 4s 0d, pork valued at £1 6s 8d, seventy-two cabbages valued at £0 18s 0d, and additional items valued at £0 12s 0d and £0 4s 0d. These together amounted to £39 4s 6d. The total sum of the accounts was £99 17s 3d. It was further directed that various goods received from the Company’s stores and from the most recent ships, for the Company’s use, should be charged to their account of debt. This included goods issued for plantation use, together with quantities of grain, beef, and other items, and that the persons concerned should be credited accordingly in the Company’s books. Among the items recorded were twelve shot valued at £0 3s 0d, one hundred and fifty quarters of glass valued at £0 9s 9d, and additional goods valued at £0 3s 4d, amounting in total to £0 16s 1d, which was carried forward. Interpretations The carrying forward of multiple balances shows that accounts were cumulative, with earlier totals incorporated into later calculations rather than settled immediately. The distinction between island stock and goods received from ships shows that supplies were tracked according to their origin, indicating separate accounting streams for local and imported resources. The charging of plantation provisions to the Company’s account shows that agricultural output was centrally managed and recorded as part of a wider financial system. The allocation of goods to named accounts, with corresponding credits, shows that individuals and activities were integrated into a structured system of debt and credit within the Company’s administration. The inclusion of both provisions and materials within the same accounting process shows that all forms of supply, whether consumable or durable, were treated as part of a unified financial record. Speculations The detailed recording of plantation provisions suggests that food supply was closely monitored, indicating concern over sustaining the population and workforce. The separation of pre-arrival stock from newly arrived goods suggests that incoming shipments were significant events in the island’s economy, requiring distinct accounting treatment. The continued carrying forward of balances suggests that settlement of accounts may have been delayed or periodic, indicating reliance on bookkeeping rather than immediate payment. | |
133 | Brought over — — 80 16 3 On acct of ship Modena Capᵗ for Cooper worke — — 2 11 00 10 13 00 To acct of ship Sampson Capᵗ Two pᵈ of Iron hoops — — 06 00 00 Persons to have Credᵗ in the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ [...] Suffolke for [...] — — 4 5 0 52 17 10 Persons that are to have Credᵗ in yᵉ Rt To Joan Gurlinge for 5000 [...] — — 3 15 0 14 12 00 To acct in Brooke for 2d a crew & [...] 52 00 00 To Tho: Goodwin allowed for his trouble To Catherine Safley [...] woman 04 10 00 Sume Totall is — — 141 10 03 | A balance of £80 16s 3d was carried forward. Charges were then entered on the account of the ship Modena, commanded by Captain William Frinkey. These included cooper’s work valued at £2 11s 0d, three tons of cask valued at £4 10s 0d, cordage weighing 153 pounds valued at £1 2s 0d, and one hundred yards of canvas valued at £2 10s 0d, amounting in total to £10 13s 0d. Further charges were entered on the account of the ship Sampson, commanded by Captain John Bromwell. These included two pounds of iron hoops valued at £6 0s 0d, and cask materials for butter valued at £0 1s 16d. Credits were then assigned in the Honourable Company’s books for cattle supplied. [...] Suffolke was credited £4 5s 0d for one cow and one calf. Samuel Wrangham was credited £13 10s 0d for four head of cattle. Edward Beale was credited £4 0s 0d for two head. Thomas Goodwin was credited £14 5s 10d for five head. Richard Parten was credited £11 0s 0d for four head. Owen Newton was credited £3 0s 0d for one head. Mercy Draper was credited £2 17s 0d for one head. These entries together amounted to £52 17s 10d. Credits were also assigned for grain. Joan Gurling was credited £3 15s 0d for 5,000 [...]. Elizabeth Gurling was credited £3 15s 0d for 5,000 of the same. John Goodwin was credited £3 10s 0d for 5,000. Thomas Newton was credited £3 12s 0d for 4,000. These entries amounted to £14 12s 0d. A further entry of £52 0s 0d was recorded on account relating to land and plantation. Thomas Goodwin was allowed £2 0s 0d for his labour and expenses in travelling across the island to appraise cattle. Catherine Safley, described as a woman [...], was paid £2 10s 0d for ten weeks’ work at the stated weekly rate. These together amounted to £4 10s 0d. The total sum of all entries was £141 10s 3d. Interpretations The recording of ship-based expenses shows that visiting vessels formed a key source of materials, with their accounts integrated into the island’s financial system. The inclusion of specialised work such as cooperage and cordage shows that maintaining storage and transport infrastructure required skilled labour and materials. The allocation of credit for cattle and grain shows that local producers were compensated through entries in the Company’s accounts, indicating a system of exchange based on recorded credit rather than immediate payment. The use of standardised valuations for livestock and produce shows that commodities were assessed according to established rates, enabling consistent accounting. The payment to Thomas Goodwin for appraising cattle shows that valuation itself was recognised as skilled labour, requiring travel and effort. The payment to Catherine Safley for weekly work shows that labour could be remunerated at fixed rates over defined periods, indicating structured employment arrangements. Speculations The reliance on ship supplies suggests that local production alone was insufficient to meet all needs, indicating dependence on external trade. The systematic crediting of individuals for livestock and grain suggests an attempt to encourage production, indicating that the Company sought to maintain or expand local supply. The need to appraise cattle across the island suggests that livestock was dispersed rather than centrally managed, indicating a distributed system of ownership and production. | |
134 | Likewise it is ordered That Capᵗ Poirier have an order for yᵉ Fort acctᵗ for — — — 13 8 9 Capᵗ Poirier — — 32 — 17 6 1261 31 17 3 Borne over — — 31 11 3 | It was directed that Captain Poirier should receive an order covering clothing he had already issued to various persons, the cost of which was to be charged to their respective accounts of debt. A sum of £13 8s 9d was charged to the fort account. Captain Poirier was charged £17s 6d. John Vernon was charged £0 11s 3d. John Stevens was charged £0 10s 0d. Thomas Goodwin was charged £0 8s 9d. John Field was charged £0 12s 6d. Edward Brooker was charged £0 5s 0d. Israel Hailes was charged £0 2s 6d. Henry [...] was charged £0 1s 3d. Richard Allen was charged £0 2s 6d. Thomas Ashley was charged £0 1s 3d. Richard Dealing was charged £0 1s 3d. George Dwright was charged £0 1s 3d. George Hodgkinson was charged £0 1s 3d. Thomas [...] was charged £0 10s 0d. John Sheridge was charged £0 5s 0d. John Midge was charged £0 2s 6d. Michael Isaack was charged £0 2s 6d. John [...] was charged £0 3s 9d. Anthony Debure was charged £3 5s 0d. Francis Debuse was charged £3 10s 0d. Samuel Defountaine was charged £0 0s 3d. Daniel G[...]bailes was charged £0 15s 0d. John Lever was charged £0 2s 6d. Henry Mortin was charged £0 10s 0d. Mary [...] was charged £0 2s 6d. Mr Elen Beale was charged £3 5s 0d. John Browning was charged £0 2s 6d. Edward Dyer was charged £0 2s 6d. Rebecca Charlesworth was charged £0 5s 0d. Thomas Burnham was charged £0 5s 0d. John Leiper was charged £0 10s 0d. Samuel Wrangham was charged £0 1s 3d. A further sum of £31 11s 3d was carried forward. Interpretations The charging of clothing to individual accounts shows that issued goods were not treated as free supply but as recoverable costs, forming part of a structured credit system. The inclusion of both military personnel and civilians in the list shows that distribution extended across different groups within the settlement, indicating shared reliance on Company stores. The variation in sums charged suggests differences in quantity or quality of clothing issued, reflecting differentiated allocation rather than uniform provision. The recording of each individual charge shows a detailed system of accountability, ensuring that all issued goods were traced to specific recipients. Speculations The systematic charging for clothing suggests that the Company sought to limit unnecessary consumption, indicating an attempt to control expenditure through personal accountability. The wide distribution of clothing implies ongoing need for replacement garments, suggesting that wear and environmental conditions required regular resupply. The presence of higher charges for certain individuals may indicate rank, status, or greater need, suggesting that allocation was influenced by role within the settlement. | |
135 | Brought over — — 31 11 3 Also it is Further ordered That the said Capᵗ Poirier have an order 678 lb Black Beef — — 8 : 9 : 6 39 01 6 Likewise it is Further ordered That the said Capᵗ Poirier have also Twenty five Bushells of Potatoes dd to Mr [...] to Capᵗ Darrell [...] 10 [...] Barley to ships — 08 : 9 : 0 Borne over — — 46 : 00 : 8 Borne over — — 60 : 8 | A balance of £31 11s 3d was carried forward. It was directed that Captain Poirier should receive an order covering provisions he had issued over the previous three months for the use of the general table. These included 678 pounds of black beef valued at £8 9s 6d, butter valued at £1 3s 4d, forty-four bushels of potatoes valued at £4 8s 0d, rice valued at £20 16s 0d, four goats valued at £1 4s 0d, pork valued at £1 6s 8d, seventy-two cabbages valued at £0 18s 0d, four turkeys valued at £0 12s 0d, and dung-hill fowls valued at £0 4s 0d. These together amounted to £39 1s 6d. It was further directed that Captain Poirier should receive an order for quantities of provisions he had delivered to several ships, including Charles the Second under Captain Richard Darrell, Modena under Captain Frindy, Sampson under Captain Bromwell, and another ship commanded by Captain John Erlson. Among these deliveries were twenty-five bushels of potatoes supplied to Mr Foster and three bushels to Thomas Harper. Additional quantities supplied to Captain Darrell’s ship were valued at £16 11s 6d, bringing that portion to £29 12s 8d. Further supplies included ten [...] of barley delivered to ships, valued at £8 9s 0d, and three bushels delivered to the Modena, valued at £8 5s 0d, making £16 8s 0d for that portion. A further balance of £46 0s 8d was carried forward, followed by another balance of £60 8s 0d. Interpretations The allocation of provisions to the general table shows that food for communal or official use was centrally managed and accounted for over fixed periods. The supply of provisions to visiting ships shows that the island acted as a provisioning point, supporting maritime traffic through recorded transactions. The recording of deliveries to named ships and individuals shows that distribution was carefully tracked, linking goods to recipients within both local and maritime contexts. The inclusion of varied foodstuffs shows that provisioning drew on a range of local resources, reflecting the integration of agricultural output into supply systems. The carrying forward of multiple balances shows that accounts were continuously accumulated, indicating an ongoing process of financial recording rather than immediate settlement. Speculations The detailed accounting for the general table suggests that communal consumption was significant, indicating the presence of an organised administrative or social structure requiring shared provisions. The provisioning of multiple ships suggests that the island played a strategic role in regional trade or navigation, indicating dependence on visiting vessels for exchange. The repetition of carried balances suggests that financial reconciliation occurred periodically, indicating that the system relied on extended accounting cycles rather than frequent closure of accounts. | |
136 | [...] Brought over — — — 80 : 11 : 9 Brought over — 40 : 00 : 8 74ℓ Beife Do to shipp Sampson 36 ℓ of Beife Do to ship To Mary Jenner for 26 Bushels Sume Totall is — 132 07 11 [...] | Balances of £80 11s 9d and £40 0s 8d were carried forward. Further provisions were recorded as delivered to ships. To the ship Sampson, commanded by Captain Bromwell, 74 pounds of beef were supplied, valued at £5 18s 6d, together with four bullocks delivered alive, valued at £11 4s 0d, making £17 2s 6d in total for that entry. Additional supplies were delivered to another ship commanded by Captain [...]. These included 36 pounds of beef valued at £2 19s 2d and one bullock delivered alive valued at £2 15s 0d, making £5 14s 0d for that portion. The running total reached £68 17s 2d. Payments were then recorded for provisions supplied locally. Mary Jenner was credited £2 12s 0d for 26 bushels of potatoes, and Thomas Harper was credited £0 7s 0d for three and a half bushels, together amounting to £2 19s 0d. The total sum of all entries was £132 7s 11d. Interpretations The delivery of both processed beef and live cattle shows that ships were supplied with provisions suitable for immediate use as well as for longer-term sustenance. The valuation of livestock alongside prepared food shows that different forms of supply were integrated into the same accounting system. The recording of provisions delivered to named ships shows that maritime supply formed a regular and structured part of the island’s economic activity. The credit given to individuals for supplying produce shows that local inhabitants contributed to provisioning and were compensated through the Company’s accounts. The use of precise quantities and valuations shows that transactions were carefully measured, indicating a controlled system of supply and accounting. Speculations The supply of live cattle suggests that ships may have required fresh provisions for extended voyages, indicating preparation for long journeys. The involvement of local suppliers such as Mary Jenner and Thomas Harper suggests that the Company relied on private production to meet demand, indicating a mixed economy of central control and individual contribution. The continued accumulation of balances suggests that provisioning for ships was frequent and substantial, indicating that the island functioned as a significant resupply point. | |
137 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held on Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ After the Court was opened according to the Henʳʸ Coales foreman — — — one Elizᵃ Suffolk Complains against Mary The said Gurling Denys the said Suffolks Here the Jury was sworne, | A court of justice was held on 9 July 1694 at the Sessions House near Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kellinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. The court was opened in the usual manner, and the jurors were called and sworn. They were Henry Coales as foreman, Sergeant Ceil, Edward Edmunds, Sergeant Dixon, William Bagley, Thomas Goodwin, John Long, John Lupkin, Hugh Bodley, James Rider, Samuel Taylor, and John Wrangham. Elizabeth Suffolk brought a complaint against Mary Gurling. She stated that she had sold ten acres of land to Gurling together with the provisions growing on it. Under the agreement, Suffolk was to retain the right to dig yams from the land for her own use until the following June. She claimed that she had been prevented from doing so because Gurling had allowed the fences to fall into disrepair, although she had been responsible for maintaining them under the terms of the agreement. Mary Gurling denied the complaint. Interpretations The sale of land with provisions shows that cultivated produce formed part of the value transferred in land transactions, indicating that land and its output were treated together as assets. The retention of rights to harvest yams after the sale shows that agreements could include reserved usage rights, allowing the seller continued access for a defined period. The obligation to maintain fences shows that responsibility for infrastructure could be specified within contracts, indicating that land use depended on upkeep of boundaries and protection. The complaint that failure to maintain fences prevented access shows that neglect of agreed duties could affect the exercise of retained rights, linking physical maintenance to legal entitlement. The use of a jury shows that disputes over land and agreements were resolved through formal legal processes involving collective judgement. Speculations The inclusion of a right to continue harvesting yams suggests that Suffolk depended on the land for subsistence, indicating that such provisions were necessary for short-term survival after sale. The emphasis on fence maintenance suggests that boundaries were essential for protecting crops, indicating that neglect could lead to loss or damage affecting both parties. The dispute suggests that agreements over land could create ongoing obligations, indicating that conflicts might arise when one party failed to fulfil continuing duties. | |
138 | John Boyce being sworne saith that Mary Edward Suffolk being sworne saith after many Mary Allison being sworne saith that Then the Jury withdrew and brought in their That the said Mary Gurling is to send the said Mary Berry Complains against Thomᵃ The said Ferdale Denys The action | John Boyce, being sworn, stated that Mary Gurling had agreed to secure the provisions growing in the ground if Elizabeth Suffolk would accept payment in part silver and part copper for the land. He added that Suffolk was to allow time for this to be done. He further stated that Suffolk later informed Gurling that cattle had entered and consumed a large quantity of the provisions. Edward Suffolk, being sworn, stated that after discussion Elizabeth Suffolk had agreed to accept half silver and half copper for the land on the condition that Gurling would secure the ground as soon as she was able. He added that two days after the agreement Gurling had sent workers to repair the fence. He also confirmed that Suffolk was to take provisions from the land for her necessary use until June. Mary Allison, being sworn, stated that Mary Gurling had asked Suffolk to allow a short delay before securing the ground until she could send workers to mend the fence, and that Suffolk had agreed to this. The jury withdrew and returned with their verdict. It was determined that Mary Gurling should supply Elizabeth Suffolk with yams, either from the ground or from elsewhere, until the agreed term in June. Mary Berry then brought a complaint against Thomas Ferndale. She stated that he had given her various goods, both real and personal, including ten acres of land with a house upon it, yams, and twenty goats, but that he now refused to deliver them. Thomas Ferndale denied the claim. Interpretations The agreement to accept payment partly in silver and partly in copper shows that multiple forms of currency circulated and could be combined in transactions, reflecting a flexible monetary system. The obligation to secure the ground shows that responsibility for protecting crops formed a key condition in land agreements, linking payment terms to practical management of the land. The jury’s decision to require delivery of yams rather than enforcement of the original condition shows that compensation in kind could be used to resolve disputes where performance had failed. The distinction between real and personal goods in Mary Berry’s claim shows that property was categorised, with land and buildings treated differently from movable goods and livestock. The denial of the claim by Ferndale indicates that such transfers, when not formally documented or completed, could give rise to disputes requiring judicial determination. Speculations The decision to substitute delivery of yams suggests that restoring the original condition of the land was no longer feasible, indicating that the court aimed for a practical remedy. The reliance on mixed currency in the original agreement suggests that availability of coin may have been uneven, indicating adaptation to limited monetary supply. The inclusion of both land and livestock in Mary Berry’s claim suggests that her livelihood depended on multiple forms of property, indicating that disputes of this kind could have significant personal consequences. | |
139 | Thomᵃ Allis being sworne saith that the said John Nicholls being sworne saith that there Richᵈ Harding being sworne saith that The said Thomᵃ Allis saith the same as yᵉ said Robᵗ Addy being sworne saith that yᵉ night Then the Jury withdrew and brought in their verdict that the said Mary Berry have the said Land House [...] | Thomas Allis, being sworn, stated that Thomas Ferndale had given Mary Berry a house and ten acres of land. When asked whether this referred to the old house, Ferndale had replied that it was the house in which he then lived. John Nicholls, being sworn, stated that there had been a dispute between Berry and Ferndale as to whether she should have the house at the fort or the one in the country. Berry insisted on the house in the country, and Ferndale agreed that she should have it. That same night he gave her the property and placed her in possession of the house, telling her to take possession. Nicholls further stated that he heard Ferndale ask Berry for permission to leave some of his goods in the house, which she allowed. Richard Harding, being sworn, stated that Ferndale had delivered to Mary Berry ten acres of land and a house, together with various other goods. An inventory of these items had been drawn up, and Ferndale had shown this inventory to Harding and Thomas Allis as his formal act for the use and benefit of Berry. Thomas Allis confirmed the same account as Richard Harding. Robert Addy, being sworn, stated that on the night before, when the transfer was said to have taken place, he believed that Ferndale was not in a sound state of mind. The jury withdrew and returned with their verdict. It was determined that Mary Berry should have the land, house, yams, and goats from Ferndale, and that she might take possession from him whenever she chose. Interpretations The delivery of possession, accompanied by words instructing Berry to take the house, shows that physical occupation combined with verbal declaration could establish a transfer of property. The preparation of an inventory and its presentation to witnesses shows that written records were used to formalise transfers, even where no formal deed is mentioned. The distinction between different houses indicates that specific property had to be clearly identified in agreements, showing the importance of precise designation. The request by Ferndale to leave goods in the house shows that control of property could be separated from ownership of movable goods, indicating practical arrangements following transfer. The testimony regarding Ferndale’s state of mind introduces the issue of capacity, showing that the validity of agreements could be questioned if a party was not considered fully aware. The jury’s decision to uphold the transfer shows that the combination of possession, witnesses, and inventory was sufficient to establish the validity of the gift despite doubts raised about Ferndale’s condition. Speculations The emphasis on witnesses and inventory suggests that the parties anticipated possible dispute, indicating that steps were taken to secure proof of the transaction. The mention of Ferndale’s condition suggests that his behaviour at the time may have been known to others, indicating that concerns over his judgement were relevant but not decisive. The decision allowing Berry to take possession at her discretion suggests that she may not have been in immediate control of the property, indicating flexibility in enforcing the transfer. | |
140 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Whereas by Thoᵐᵃ Payne Gunʳ master It is ordered That Robᵗ Addis quarter Gunner doe succeed and occupie Charles Steward aged about 18 yeares Thomas In Consideration That the Garrison is some what It is ordered That the said Harper Stewards & Duftons Doctʳ Sternes having bought severall medicines | A consultation was held on 10 July 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. It was noted that the departure of Thomas Payne, gunner, in the last four ships, including Charley, had left a vacancy within the gun crew. It was directed that Robert Addis, quarter gunner, should succeed to Payne’s position as gunner’s mate. Thomas Gagan was appointed to take Addis’s former place as quarter gunner. Their respective pay was to begin from 8 July 1694. Charles Steward, aged about 18 years, and Thomas Harper and Jonathan Dufton, both about 17 years of age, submitted a petition requesting to be admitted into the service and pay of the Honourable Company as soldiers. As the garrison had been reduced by the departure of personnel in the recent ships, their request was granted. Their pay was to commence from 8 July 1694. Doctor Sternes, having purchased various medicines from the last four ships and additional items on the island at his own expense for the use of the Honourable Company, then made a request. Interpretations The advancement of Robert Addis and Thomas Gagan shows that vacancies were filled through internal promotion, indicating a structured hierarchy within the gun crew. The specification of pay commencing from a fixed date shows that service and remuneration were formally recorded from defined points in time. The admission of young men into the garrison shows that recruitment could draw on relatively young individuals, reflecting the need to maintain numbers. The justification for recruitment based on recent departures shows that manpower levels were actively managed in response to changing conditions. The reference to Doctor Sternes purchasing medicines at his own expense shows that individuals could temporarily supply essential goods, indicating flexibility in provisioning arrangements. Speculations The immediate promotion following Payne’s departure suggests that maintaining operational readiness of the gun crew was a priority, indicating the importance of artillery in defence. The acceptance of young recruits suggests that manpower shortages required rapid reinforcement, indicating pressure on the garrison’s strength. The need for Doctor Sternes to procure medicines personally suggests that official supply may have been insufficient or delayed, indicating reliance on individual initiative to meet urgent needs. | |
141 | That he might receive satisfaction for what he had laid It was thought but Reasonable that yᵉ said Drᵗ It is ordered That the the said Drᵗ Stevens have Creditt in his George Hodgkinson Complains of Tho Morris The said Tho Morris saith that he did deny to deliver After much Debate between the said Hodgkinson and yᵉ said It was ordered That the said Morris Deliver to the said [...] | Doctor Stevens requested repayment for medicines and other items he had purchased at his own expense for the use of the Honourable Company, amounting to £2 2s 0d. This request was considered reasonable. It was therefore directed that Doctor Stevens should receive credit in his account with the Honourable Company for the sum of £2 2s 0d. George Hodgkinson then brought a complaint against Thomas Morris. He stated that at a recent council he had recovered twenty acres of land from Morris by verdict of a jury. He further stated that a house had formerly stood on that land, but that Morris had demolished it and removed the boards, doors, and other materials. Hodgkinson requested that these materials be returned to him, but Morris had refused. Thomas Morris replied that he had declined to deliver the materials until he received an order from the Governor and Council. After discussion between the parties, it was directed that Thomas Morris should deliver to George Hodgkinson whatever boards remained from the house, which Morris agreed to do. Interpretations The credit given to Doctor Stevens shows that individuals who advanced goods for Company use could be reimbursed through account entries, indicating a system that recognised personal expenditure for public purposes. The prior recovery of land by jury shows that property rights established through legal judgement were enforceable in subsequent disputes. The complaint regarding removal of building materials shows that structures on land were treated as part of the property, and that their dismantling could be contested. The requirement for an official order before delivery shows that individuals sought formal authority before transferring disputed goods, indicating reliance on administrative direction. The limitation of the order to boards remaining shows that only identifiable and existing materials could be recovered, indicating practical limits on enforcement. Speculations The reimbursement of Doctor Stevens suggests that medical supplies were essential and could not always await formal provisioning, indicating reliance on immediate action in urgent situations. The removal of materials by Morris suggests that he may have acted before the final resolution of ownership, indicating possible attempts to retain value from disputed property. The agreement by Morris to comply once ordered suggests that authority of the council was generally accepted, indicating that disputes could be resolved without further conflict once formal direction was given. | |
142 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Governᵒʳ James Rixon and Wᵐ Hays Churchwardens And accordingly ordered That the said Rixon and Hays be Discharged from Also it is ordered That Edwᵈ Fraine & John Goodwin two of them You doe sweare in a True and upright Conscience to John Evereles & John Luise overseers That the overseers for this present yeare have | A consultation was held on 26 July 1694 at Fort James on the island of St Helena. Richard Kelinge, Governor, presided, together with Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. James Rixon and William Hays, who had served as churchwardens for the previous year in accordance with a proclamation, submitted their accounts. These were examined and settled. They were then discharged from their office. Edward Fraine and John Goodwin, having been nominated by a majority of votes, were appointed as churchwardens for the year 1694. An oath was administered requiring them to perform the duties of the office faithfully and to the best of their ability until lawfully discharged. John Evereles and John Luise, who had served as overseers of the highways for the previous year, also submitted their accounts. It was recorded that they had received £6 6s 6d. It was further noted that John Bonman, Robert Addis, Blake, Richard Gurling, John Bonning, and his servants had not performed their required labour on the highways during that year. It was directed that the overseers for the present year should include these named individuals in their warrants and require them to work for two days during the current year. Evereles and Luise were then discharged from their offices. Interpretations The submission and examination of accounts shows that local offices were subject to formal financial oversight, indicating accountability for funds received and spent. The appointment of churchwardens by majority vote shows that certain offices involved a degree of local participation, indicating a structured but partly communal selection process. The administration of an oath shows that officeholders were bound by formal obligations, reinforcing expectations of duty and integrity. The role of overseers of highways shows that maintenance of infrastructure was organised through appointed officials, indicating a system of local responsibility for public works. The requirement for individuals to perform labour on highways shows that public duties could be enforced as obligations, indicating a form of compulsory service tied to community maintenance. The issuing of warrants to compel work shows that enforcement relied on formal written authority, indicating structured administration of labour duties. Speculations The identification of individuals who had not worked suggests that compliance with public labour duties was uneven, indicating the need for enforcement measures. The requirement to make up missed work in the following year suggests that obligations were cumulative, indicating that duties were tracked over time rather than waived. The discharge of officials after account review suggests that officeholding was limited in duration and regularly rotated, indicating an administrative system designed to prevent long-term control of local offices. | |
143 | Likewise It is ordered That Richᵈ Harding and James Draper Two You doe sweare in a True and upright Conscience Whereas having recᵈ amongst other printed It is ordered That their Majᵗies Proclamation for the suppressing | Richard Harding and James Draper, having been nominated by a majority of votes, were appointed as overseers of the highways for the year 1694. An oath was administered requiring them to perform the duties of the office faithfully and to the best of their ability until lawfully discharged. It was then noted that among various printed papers received from one of the four ships recently arrived was a proclamation issued by their Majesties, dated 20 January 1694. Its purpose was the suppression of vice and debauchery. It was considered necessary that this proclamation should be publicly declared on the island, together with an accompanying statement emphasising the need for its full enforcement. It was therefore directed that the proclamation should be read publicly, along with the declaration, on Sunday 29 July 1694 in the church in the country. Notice was to be given in advance so that inhabitants might attend and hear it read. Afterward, the proclamation was to be displayed in the church for continual public viewing. Interpretations The appointment of overseers of highways by majority vote shows that responsibility for public works continued to be allocated through a structured selection process involving local participation. The administration of an oath reinforces that such offices carried formal obligations, binding individuals to perform their duties under recognised authority. The receipt of a royal proclamation shows that directives from the Crown were transmitted to the island through maritime communication, indicating the integration of the colony into wider imperial governance. The requirement to read the proclamation publicly in church shows that religious spaces were used as centres for official communication, ensuring that directives reached the population. The instruction to affix the proclamation for continual viewing shows that enforcement relied on ongoing visibility, reinforcing authority through repeated exposure. Speculations The emphasis on suppressing vice and debauchery suggests concern over behaviour within the settlement, indicating that authorities perceived a need to regulate conduct more strictly. The choice of a Sabbath gathering for the reading suggests an intention to reach the largest audience, indicating that attendance at church was expected or enforced. The requirement for prior notice suggests that compliance with attendance was important, indicating an effort to ensure that the proclamation was widely known and acknowledged. | |
144 | By the King & Queen A Proclamation Against Vicious Debauched & profane persons William R As we cannot but be Deeply sensible | A royal proclamation issued by King William and Queen Mary declared their concern at the continued presence of vice and irreligion within their kingdoms, despite recent deliverance from Catholic rule and the preservation of their government. They acknowledged what they described as divine favour in securing their rule, protecting their persons, and uniting Protestant powers against a common enemy. At the same time, they expressed regret that impiety and immoral conduct still persisted, and that laws intended to suppress such behaviour had often been neglected in their enforcement. They stated that continued enjoyment of these blessings depended upon addressing such misconduct. Acting on this duty and following the advice of bishops and the Privy Council, they issued a proclamation declaring their intention to discourage all forms of vice and immorality across all ranks of society. They directed judges, magistrates, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and all civil and ecclesiastical officers to enforce existing laws against blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, drunkenness, sexual misconduct, and the violation of the Sabbath, as well as other forms of disorderly behaviour. Interpretations The proclamation frames moral regulation as a condition of divine favour, linking political stability to religious conduct and reinforcing the legitimacy of authority through religious justification. The reference to neglected enforcement of existing laws shows that the issue was not absence of legislation but failure in execution, highlighting a gap between legal framework and practice. The directive to officials across both civil and ecclesiastical roles shows an integrated system of governance in which religious and secular authorities jointly enforced moral discipline. The inclusion of offences such as drunkenness and Sabbath-breaking shows that everyday behaviour was subject to legal oversight, indicating a broad scope of regulation. The emphasis on all ranks of society shows that the proclamation was intended to apply universally, reinforcing the idea of equal accountability under the law. Speculations The stress on recent political and religious upheaval suggests that the proclamation aimed to consolidate authority after instability, indicating concern over maintaining order. The insistence on enforcing existing laws suggests that prior tolerance or inaction had weakened discipline, prompting renewed effort to assert control. The broad list of offences suggests that social behaviour on a wide scale was seen as problematic, indicating perceived moral disorder requiring correction. | |
145 | Disolute, Immorall or Disorderly practices as they Given at our Court at Whitehall the one & Twentieth God Save King William & Queen Mary Island St Helena A Declaration of the Govʳ and Councell of the To all officers both Superior and Inferior whether | The proclamation further required that all judges, magistrates, and officials should enforce the laws against immoral and disorderly conduct, under penalty of royal displeasure. Judges of assize and justices of the peace were specifically instructed to give strict directions at all sessions for the prosecution and punishment of offenders, as well as for those who neglected their duty in enforcing the laws. The proclamation was issued at Whitehall on 21 January 1692, in the third year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary. A declaration was then issued on the island of St Helena by the Governor and Council to ensure the effective enforcement of this proclamation. It was addressed to all officers, both military and civil, and to all inhabitants of the island. It was stated that copies of the proclamation had been received by recent ships. The declaration repeated that divine providence had delivered the kingdoms from Catholic rule and arbitrary oppression, yet the people had responded with ingratitude. Instead of showing reverence, they had engaged in swearing, irreverence, and blasphemy against God. Interpretations The instruction to punish not only offenders but also negligent officials shows that enforcement itself was subject to discipline, reinforcing accountability within the administrative system. The reference to assizes and sessions shows that regular judicial gatherings were key mechanisms for enforcing moral law, indicating reliance on established legal procedures. The issuing of a local declaration shows that imperial directives were adapted and reinforced at the colonial level, ensuring their application in distant territories. The address to all inhabitants as well as officials shows that responsibility for moral conduct was framed as universal, extending beyond formal authority to the whole community. The repetition of religious language shows that moral regulation was grounded in religious expectations, linking obedience to both divine and royal authority. Speculations The emphasis on punishing negligent officials suggests that previous failures in enforcement had been identified as a significant problem, indicating concern about administrative weakness. The strong language of ingratitude suggests that authorities perceived behaviour on the island as particularly troubling, indicating a need to reinforce discipline. The issuance of a local declaration alongside the royal proclamation suggests that additional emphasis was considered necessary, indicating that simple transmission of orders was insufficient to secure compliance. | |
146 | [...]ame of our Lord God instead of walking uprightly before In Order to put their said Majᵗies Proclamation in | The declaration continued by stating that, instead of living in accordance with divine law, the inhabitants had behaved in an irregular and sinful manner. They were described as engaging in widespread misconduct, including sexual immorality, drunkenness, and the profanation of the Sabbath. It was asserted that these offences brought guilt upon the dominions and prevented divine blessing. The rulers were presented as having taken these matters into serious consideration, and as being resolved to eradicate such behaviour. The proclamation, now made public on the island, required that existing laws against these offences should be strictly enforced, including those against blasphemy, swearing, cursing, drunkenness, and misuse of the name of God. The Governor and Council declared that, in order to give effect to this command, all officers, both military and civil, together with all inhabitants, were required not only to reform their own conduct but also to ensure that the laws were actively enforced according to their respective roles. They expressed a hope that such measures would suppress vice and encourage virtue, thereby restoring divine favour. They further declared their intention to enforce these laws to the fullest extent of their authority. To prevent any claim of ignorance, they stated that an abstract of the laws relating to these offences had been prepared for public awareness. Interpretations The declaration links moral behaviour directly to divine favour, showing that governance was framed as dependent upon religious conformity as well as legal compliance. The emphasis on both personal reform and enforcement by officials shows that responsibility for moral order was distributed across both authority figures and the wider population. The reference to an abstract of laws shows that legal provisions were summarised for accessibility, indicating an effort to ensure that rules were widely understood. The repeated focus on offences such as drunkenness and Sabbath-breaking shows that everyday conduct was subject to scrutiny, indicating a broad scope of regulation. The insistence on preventing ignorance shows that awareness of the law was treated as a prerequisite for enforcement, strengthening the legitimacy of punishment. Speculations The strong language describing widespread misconduct suggests that authorities perceived behaviour on the island as particularly disorderly, indicating concern over social stability. The combination of religious exhortation and legal instruction suggests that moral reform was seen as both a spiritual and administrative necessity, indicating a dual approach to control. The preparation of an abstract of laws suggests that earlier enforcement may have been hindered by lack of clarity, indicating an attempt to remove obstacles to compliance. | |
147 | [...] is to be discountenanced, and suppressed as they have bin from By the Governᵒʳ and Court of Comittees of the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ That the [...] day be religiously observed by abstinence You are to take Care that all profane Swearing Part of the Orders and Instructions brought by In the first place therefore that all our Concerns | The declaration concluded by referring to earlier instructions and orders issued by the Honourable Company, which had been sent to the island from time to time and were to be upheld alongside the present proclamation. An order made by the Governor and Court of Committees of the Honourable Company of English Merchants trading to the East Indies, dated 14 December 1673 and transmitted by the ships European under Captain Potter and John and Alexander under Captain Beard, was cited. This order required strict observance of the Sabbath, with abstinence from all bodily labour and secular employment, as well as from games and recreations. It also required the Governor and Council to appoint public places of worship where inhabitants were to gather every Sunday for religious duties. The Governor and Council were expected to attend in person, to support both the minister and the congregation. The same order required that profane swearing and misuse of the name of God should be avoided, along with drunkenness, sexual misconduct, and other forms of immorality. Offenders in such matters were to be punished according to the laws of England. Further instructions, brought by the ship Johanna under Captain Hopeton Bendale and dated 20 February 1688, were also cited. These repeated the requirement that the Sabbath should be strictly observed across the island, with all inhabitants abstaining from labour, secular activity, and unlawful pastimes. They also directed that suitable public places for worship should be appointed by the Governor and Council. Interpretations The citation of earlier Company orders shows that the declaration relied on established directives, reinforcing continuity in governance rather than introducing entirely new rules. The requirement for Sabbath observance shows that religious practice was formally regulated, indicating that time itself was structured by law and authority. The instruction for the Governor and Council to attend worship shows that leadership was expected to model behaviour, reinforcing authority through example. The reference to punishment under the laws of England shows that metropolitan legal standards were applied in the colony, indicating legal integration with the wider English system. The repetition of instructions across different dates shows that moral regulation was a persistent concern, indicating ongoing efforts to enforce discipline. Speculations The repeated emphasis on Sabbath observance suggests that compliance may have been inconsistent, indicating difficulty in enforcing religious discipline. The requirement for official presence at worship suggests that attendance alone was insufficient, indicating a need to reinforce participation through authority. The reliance on earlier orders suggests that new proclamations were intended to revive or strengthen enforcement of existing expectations, indicating that prior measures had not fully succeeded. | |
148 | Place, or places for the Worship of Almighty God whereunto We recommend unto you the Encouragemᵗ of the practice Part of Laws and Constitutions, Constituted & We doe direct order and appoint that the Lords day | The declaration continued by repeating earlier Company instructions that places of worship were to be appointed where all inhabitants should assemble each Sunday to take part in religious duties. The Governor and Council were required to attend in person, both to support the minister and to encourage the people in their observance. It was directed that profane swearing and misuse of the name of God should be restrained, together with drunkenness, sexual misconduct, and unlawful gaming. Any person committing such offences was to be punished according to the laws of England, at the judgement of the Governor and Council. The instructions further emphasised the promotion of religion, justice, and orderly behaviour. It was stated that all persons should deal fairly with one another, that complaints should receive proper hearing, and that justice should be administered so that good conduct was encouraged and wrongdoing punished, thereby preserving peace and stability. Reference was then made to laws and constitutions established by the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies at a Court of Committee held on 10 March 1681 under their common seal. These required strict observance of the Sabbath through abstention from labour, secular activity, gaming, and other pastimes. They also required the Governor and Council to appoint one or more public places for worship, where inhabitants were to attend prayers, readings, sermons, and, when appropriate, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The Governor and Council were again instructed to attend these services in person, thereby encouraging participation. Interpretations The repeated instruction to appoint places of worship shows that religious observance was not left to private choice but was organised and enforced through official structures. The requirement for attendance at specific religious practices shows that communal worship formed a central part of regulated life, indicating that religion was institutionalised within governance. The authority given to the Governor and Council to judge and punish offences shows that moral regulation was administered locally, even while based on English law. The inclusion of justice alongside religion shows that moral conduct and legal order were treated as interconnected, indicating a unified framework for governance. The reference to formal Company laws under seal shows that these rules had official legal standing, reinforcing their authority. Speculations The repeated emphasis on punishment suggests that voluntary compliance was insufficient, indicating reliance on coercion to enforce behaviour. The detailed listing of religious duties suggests concern that practices were being neglected, indicating attempts to standardise observance. The linking of justice and moral behaviour suggests that disorder in one area was believed to affect the other, indicating a perception that social stability depended on both. | |
149 | the Minister or Ministers in the Discharge of his or That in the Publique the Minister or such That all Swearing and Taking the Name of | The declaration continued by directing that the minister, or any person performing that role in his absence, should conduct religious duties with reverence, order, and decorum. If no minister were present on the island, the inhabitants were still required to assemble each Sunday. In such cases, the Governor and Council were to arrange for readings from the Holy Scriptures and approved sermons, together with prayers and other appropriate forms of worship. It was required that prayers in public worship should include petitions for the King, for the peace and prosperity of his kingdoms, and for the welfare of the English East India Company. It was also directed that, during these assemblies, core elements of Christian doctrine should be read to the congregation, including the Apostles’ Creed or, at times, the Athanasian Creed, as well as the Ten Commandments from the twentieth chapter of Exodus and their summary from the Gospel of Matthew. It was further ordered that anyone who publicly violated the Sabbath by travelling, working, gaming, or engaging in other unlawful pastimes should, for a first offence, be formally reprimanded. For subsequent offences, a fine could be imposed at the discretion of the Governor, within a set limit. It was also required that swearing and misuse of the name of God should be avoided. Any person who, after being publicly admonished, committed such an offence again was to be fined at the discretion of the Governor and Council, up to a specified amount. Interpretations The provision for worship in the absence of a minister shows that religious observance was considered essential regardless of available clergy, indicating that authority extended to organising substitute forms of worship. The requirement to include prayers for the monarch and the Company shows that political loyalty and corporate allegiance were embedded within religious practice. The reading of creeds and commandments shows that doctrine was systematically reinforced through repeated public recitation, indicating a structured approach to religious instruction. The graded system of punishment, beginning with admonition and followed by fines, shows a progressive approach to enforcement, allowing for correction before penalty. The discretion given to the Governor and Council in imposing fines shows that local authority had flexibility in applying punishment within defined limits. Speculations The provision for lay-led worship suggests that absence of clergy was a recurring issue, indicating that religious life had to be maintained without consistent institutional support. The inclusion of specific texts in public worship suggests concern over uniformity of belief, indicating efforts to standardise religious understanding. The reliance on admonition before punishment suggests an attempt to reform behaviour without immediate severity, indicating a preference for gradual correction over strict initial enforcement. | |
150 | That all Intemperance and Drinking be abstained That all fornication, uncleanness & adultery be In Case any person shall quarrell with another not In Case of wilfull murder the party Convicted by a Jury In Case any shall strike an officer being about | The declaration further required that excessive drinking should be avoided, as harmful to both body and soul. Any person found drunk was, for a first offence, to be admonished by the Governor or a member of the Council. If the offence was repeated after such warning and proved, the offender was to be fined at the discretion of the Governor and Council, up to £0 5s 0d. It was also stated that persons of higher status should be fined more heavily than those of lower rank, as they were expected to set an example. Sexual offences, including fornication, uncleanness, and adultery, were prohibited. Where such offences were established either by confession or by the verdict of a jury, the Governor and Council were to impose punishment in a manner suited to the circumstances and the people, provided it was consistent with the laws of England. If any person quarrelled with another who was not under their authority, or struck or wounded them, the offender was required to compensate the injured party as determined by a jury. In addition, a fine was to be imposed for breach of the peace, payable to the Company, not exceeding £1 0s 0d. In cases of wilful murder, a person convicted by a jury was to suffer death. The manner of execution was to be determined by the Governor and Council in accordance with the laws of England. If any person struck an officer while he was carrying out his duties, and was convicted by a jury, the offender was to be fined at the discretion of the Governor, payable to the Company, up to £5 0s 0d, or to be publicly punished. Interpretations The graduated penalties for drunkenness show that behaviour was managed through escalating sanctions, combining warning with financial punishment. The differentiation in fines based on social rank shows that expectations of conduct were tied to status, indicating a hierarchical approach to discipline. The reliance on jury conviction for serious offences shows that formal legal procedures underpinned enforcement, even in a colonial setting. The requirement to compensate injured parties alongside fines shows that justice combined personal restitution with penalties benefiting the Company. The authority given to the Governor and Council to determine punishments shows that local administration exercised broad discretion within the framework of English law. The provision for public punishment alongside fines shows that enforcement included visible forms of discipline, reinforcing deterrence. Speculations The emphasis on drunkenness suggests that alcohol-related disorder was a recurring concern, indicating challenges in maintaining discipline. The flexibility in punishing sexual offences suggests that authorities adapted penalties to local conditions, indicating a pragmatic approach to enforcement. The combination of restitution and fines suggests an attempt to balance private grievance with public order, indicating that both individual and institutional interests were addressed. The provision for public punishment suggests that deterrence relied on visibility, indicating that maintaining order depended partly on example. | |
151 | Publicquely whipt or Imprisoned unless the Govʳ with the Second & Third Paragraphs of the orders & Instruc- Now upon perusall of yʳ Consultation Books But in Case of the Taking away of Life, Limb or These Copys are Truly Taken from the Given at Fort St James this 26ᵗʰ Day of July God Save King William & Queen Mary [...] | The declaration concluded by providing that any person who struck an officer in the execution of his duty might be publicly whipped or imprisoned, unless the Governor, with the consent of the majority of the Council, chose to grant a pardon. In addition, the offender was required to pay treble damages to the injured officer, the amount to be determined by a jury. Reference was then made to the second and third paragraphs of orders and instructions brought by Sir Thomas Grantham, dated 1 August 1683. These stated that, upon review of the island’s consultation records and consideration of the relatively minor nature of many cases and the limited experience of the inhabitants, strict adherence to a formal legal system would be burdensome rather than beneficial. It was therefore permitted that cases should continue to be decided using the existing local methods, with which the inhabitants were already familiar and satisfied. However, in cases involving loss of life, limb, or land, it was directed that proceedings should follow formal jury process. The document concluded by affirming that these copies had been faithfully taken from the original, and was issued at Fort St James on 26 July 1694, in the sixth year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary. Interpretations The provision for whipping or imprisonment alongside fines shows that corporal and custodial punishments formed part of the enforcement system, indicating a range of disciplinary measures. The requirement to pay treble damages shows that penalties could be multiplied beyond actual loss, serving both compensatory and punitive functions. The allowance for pardon by the Governor and Council shows that executive discretion could override prescribed penalties, indicating flexibility within the system. The acknowledgment that formal legal procedures might be burdensome shows an adaptation of governance to local conditions, indicating pragmatic administration. The distinction between minor cases and serious offences shows a tiered legal approach, reserving full jury procedure for matters of greatest consequence. The affirmation that copies were faithfully taken shows the importance placed on accurate transmission of official orders, reinforcing their authority. Speculations The use of treble damages suggests an intention to deter offences against officials by imposing severe financial consequences, indicating concern for maintaining authority. The relaxation of formal procedures for minor cases suggests that resources or expertise may have been limited, indicating practical constraints in administering justice. The retention of jury trials for serious matters suggests a desire to preserve legitimacy in decisions affecting fundamental rights, indicating awareness of the importance of due process. | |
152 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Whereas since the unhappy disaster of the Death of It is Ordered It is Likewise ordered 1 peece of white flitting — — 00 02 2 Borne over — — — 50 16 02 | A consultation was held on 27 September 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. Following the recent death of Governor Johnson, many of the Company’s goods, effects, and debts were found to be in arrears or transferred into the accounts of other persons. These individuals either held bills of exchange or were still owed money on their accounts. There were no available means to settle these debts, largely because of the recent departure of the last four ships and despite substantial remittances that had been received from England. It was ordered that every person’s account was examined and settled. Any outstanding balance owed to them was paid using goods from the Honourable Company’s store, according to their needs. It was also ordered that various items received from the last four ships for the use of the fort and other services were charged to the fort’s account. In addition, a sum of £5 6s 0d in cash, spent on several specified items, was also charged to the same account. Payment was made to John Downing, a carpenter, and Robert Everles, a mason, for their submitted bills. For the use of the surgeon, the following items were listed: one piece of white flitting valued at £0 2s 2d, one surgeon’s chest of medicines valued at £50 8s 0d, and one chafing dish valued at £0 6s 0d. The total brought forward amounted to £50 16s 2d. Interpretations The use of the Company’s store to settle debts showed that payment in kind replaced cash settlement, indicating a shortage of liquid funds on the island. This system allowed obligations to be met while preserving scarce currency. The reference to accounts being transferred and supported by bills of exchange reflected a credit-based financial system linking St Helena to wider commercial networks. These instruments allowed debts to circulate between individuals rather than being immediately settled in cash. Charging goods and expenses to the fort account indicated that military and administrative infrastructure was maintained through centralised accounting. Costs associated with defence and public service were absorbed collectively rather than assigned to individuals. The detailed listing of supplies for the surgeon demonstrated the organised provisioning of medical resources under Company oversight. A chafing dish was a shallow metal vessel used to hold hot coals, enabling substances to be gently heated. Its inclusion shows that medical treatment required controlled heating of materials, indicating a practical and equipped surgical practice rather than improvised care. Speculations The decision to settle debts using goods rather than money was probably a direct response to the immediate lack of cash caused by the departure of ships, which may have removed available currency or interrupted expected financial flows. The consolidation of various charges into the fort account suggests an effort to stabilise financial management after Governor Johnson’s death, allowing essential services such as defence and medical care to continue without disruption. | |
153 | Brought over — — — 50 16 02 [...] the [...] use Vizᵗ 30 Ells of [...] at 8 s p Ell — 13 10 00 1 Drum — — — [...] Advance on the same — — 0 8 0 25 Spunge Nails — — — 02 05 0 [...] [...] use Genᵗ Table Boards 2 Bossetts Brown Thread — — 00 02 2 Borne over — — 09 05 00 Borne over — — 160 12 7 | The sum of £50 16s 2d was brought forward. Further items were listed for [...] use. Thirty ells of [...] were valued at £13 10s 0d at a rate of 8 shillings per ell. Another thirty ells of [...] and [...] were valued at £9 15s 0d at 6 shillings per ell. Two [...] were valued at £0 4s 3d. One drum was listed at [...]. One [...] was valued at £0 8s 8d. One set [...] was valued at £0 5s 8d. One hand [...] was valued at £0 2s 3d. One [...] was valued at £0 1s 6d. An advance on the same amounted to £0 8s 0d. Twenty-five sponge nails were valued at £2 5s 0d. Fifty [...] and sponge [...] were valued at £0 11s 3d. One wooden and one pine [...] barrel were valued at £0 7s 3d. Eight lanterns with twenty-four spare horn panels were valued at £0 12s 8d. One Muscovy glass lantern of the same type was valued at £1 7s 7d. Twenty-eight wooden [...] were valued at £2 11s 7d. Three hundred copper brads were valued at £0 2s 8d. Thirty cartridge cases were valued at £6 15s 0d. Three pieces of calico and bunting for making [...] were valued at £7 5s 10d. One thousand feet of [...] paving stones were valued at £32 8s 0d. Two [...] were valued at £4 10s 0d. One iron brake was valued at £9 0s 0d. Thirty cedar trees were valued at £6 15s 0d. Thirty ash handspikes were valued at £3 12s 0d. One shot mould for slugs was valued at £0 1s 7d. Two fire hand screws were valued at £5 11s 8d. One bale of black thread was valued at £0 1s 1d. Further items were listed for general use, including table boards and other purposes within the fort. Two bossets of brown thread were valued at £0 2s 2d. Seventeen [...] of broad coloured tape were valued at £0 1s 1d. Twenty-five bream lines at 18 pence each were valued at [...]. Twenty-four mackerel at 9 pence were valued at £0 18s 0d. Six dolphin of the same at 9 pence were valued at £0 18s 0d. Twenty-six baiting lines at 4 pence each were valued at £0 9s 9d. Two Hamburgh lines were valued at £0 4s 0d. Eighty-seven dozen fish hooks sold amounted to £5 0s 6d. A subtotal of £9 5s 0d was carried forward, followed by a further total of £160 12s 7d carried forward. Interpretations The repeated use of “brought over” indicated a running accounting method in which subtotals were carried forward across sections of the ledger. This reflects structured bookkeeping practices used to track cumulative expenditure and supplies. The use of the ell as a unit of measurement showed that cloth and similar materials were accounted for using standardised textile measures. This suggests the organised procurement of fabric for clothing, repair, or possibly military uses such as flags or uniforms. The presence of items such as cartridge cases, shot moulds, handspikes, and an iron brake indicated that the fort maintained artillery and required regular supplies for its operation and maintenance. These materials formed part of the island’s defensive infrastructure. The listing of lanterns with horn panels and a Muscovy glass lantern demonstrated the provision of portable lighting. Horn panes were used as a durable substitute for glass, while Muscovy glass, a form of mica, provided a clearer but more costly alternative, indicating variation in equipment quality. The inclusion of fishing lines, fish, and hooks, some of which were sold, showed that subsistence and provisioning were partly managed through controlled supply and distribution. This suggests an organised system in which food resources were both consumed and traded under Company oversight. Speculations The wide range of materials, from construction supplies to fishing equipment and artillery tools, suggests that the fort operated as a self-sufficient administrative and military centre, where diverse logistical needs were centrally managed rather than obtained through private trade. The detailed accounting of relatively small items alongside large expenditures indicates an effort to maintain tight financial control, probably in response to earlier shortages and the need to account carefully for all resources on the island. | |
154 | Brought over — — — 160 12 7 Brought over — — — 09 05 00 8 Ho[...][...] Knives — — — 00 09 04 1 Tinn Dripping Pann — — 0 6 0 2 quarts of great Cans — — 0 1 4 8 wooden trays — — 0 6 0 1 Large Brass Kettle — — 3 9 0 Borne over — — 38 03 5 Borne over — — 160 12 7 | The sums of £160 12s 7d and £9 5s 0d were brought forward. Further goods were listed. Eight [...] knives were valued at £0 9s 4d. Two [...] were valued at £0 8s 0d. One pair of scissors was valued at £0 0s 4d. Two reams of fine Dutch demy paper were valued at £4 10s 0d. Two and a half reams of brown paper were valued at £1 16s 0d. Two [...] were valued at £0 7s 0d. Six ink glasses were valued at £0 2s 6d. Six penknives were valued at £4 16s 6d. One dozen sea ink bottles were valued at £0 6s 4d. Sixteen dozen wax ink at 2 shillings per dozen were valued at £0 16s 0d. Four books bound in vellum were valued at £2 10s 6d. Household and kitchen items followed. One tin dripping pan was valued at £0 6s 0d. Two [...] dishes were valued at £0 8s 0d. One roasting [...] was valued at £0 14s 0d, with two smaller of the same at £0 4s 0d. Two large funnels were valued at £0 5s 0d, and three smaller at £0 2s 3d. Three saucepans were valued at £0 4s 7d. Two [...] were valued at £1 7s 6d. Three tin [...] were valued at £0 3s 9d. Two quarts of great cans were valued at £0 1s 4d. One quart roasting vessel was valued at £0 0s 5d. [...] of [...] were valued at £0 4s 9d. Eight wooden trays were valued at £0 6s 0d. Six [...] were valued at £0 2s 4d. Two [...] bellows were valued at £0 3s 0d. Four brushes were valued at £0 1s 4d. Two pails were valued at £0 8s 0d. Two ladles were valued at £0 0s 6d. A large brass kettle was valued at £3 9s 0d. One [...] and [...] were valued at £0 14s 4d. One [...] lamps were valued at £0 4s 6d. Two pairs of candlesticks were valued at £1 10s 0d. Two pairs of snuffers were valued at £0 12s 3d. One basting ladle was valued at £0 2s 6d. A subtotal of £38 3s 5d was carried forward, alongside the continuing total of £160 12s 7d. Interpretations The continued use of “brought over” showed a systematic ledger process in which running totals were carefully maintained across entries, indicating structured financial control over supplies. The large quantity of writing materials, including paper, ink, ink bottles, and vellum-bound books, demonstrated the administrative demands of the settlement. Record-keeping, correspondence, and documentation were essential functions within the fort. The presence of both fine Dutch demy paper and cheaper brown paper suggested differentiated use, with higher-quality materials reserved for formal records or official correspondence, and lower-quality paper used for routine purposes. The wide range of kitchen and domestic utensils, including roasting equipment, funnels, kettles, and ladles, indicated organised provisioning for food preparation within the fort. This points to a centrally managed domestic system, probably serving officers, staff, and possibly communal needs. The inclusion of lighting equipment such as lamps, candlesticks, and snuffers showed the necessity of controlled lighting within the fort, supporting both domestic activity and administrative work after dark. The presence of bellows, brushes, and pails reflected maintenance and workshop activity, suggesting that routine repair, cleaning, and possibly small-scale manufacturing were carried out on site. Speculations The significant volume of writing supplies suggests that the administration was expanding or placing increased emphasis on documentation, perhaps in response to financial strain or the need for tighter oversight after earlier disruptions. The detailed accounting of domestic utensils alongside administrative and military supplies indicates that the fort functioned as a self-contained institution, where governance, daily living, and logistical support were closely integrated under Company control. | |
155 | Brought over — — — 160 12 7 Brought over — — — 38 03 5 1 Pewter Chamber pott — — — 0 : 18 : 0 10 lb of 2d nailes at 3 s p lb — 0 : 02 : 6 4 lb of 40d — — — 0 : 03 : 0 4 lb of 4d nailes at 4 s p lb — 0 : 01 : 4 3 pr Dooretailes — — — 0 : 01 : 6 9 frying panns some of them — — 1 : 11 : 10 5 Pipe Locks & 1 Staple — — 2 : 13 : 4 2 Spades & 2 shovells — — 0 : 16 : 0 Brought over — — 59 0 0½ Borne over — — — 219 12 7½ | The sums of £160 12s 7d and £38 3s 5d were brought forward. Additional goods were listed. One pewter chamber pot was valued at £0 18s 0d. Six pewter spoons were valued at £0 18s 0d. Nails of various sizes were supplied: ten pounds of 2d nails at 3 shillings per pound valued at £0 2s 6d, six pounds of 4d nails at £0 2s 0d, eight pounds of 6d nails at £0 4s 8d, two pounds of 10d nails at £0 2s 6d, two pounds of 20d nails at 7 shillings per pound valued at £0 5s 10d, four pounds of 40d nails at £0 3s 0d, and four pounds of 4d nails at 4 shillings per pound valued at £0 1s 4d. One and a half gross of gant hinges were valued at £0 4s 10d. Three pairs of dovetail joints were valued at £0 1s 6d. One pair of side hinges was valued at £0 0s 5d. A carpenter’s adze was valued at £0 3s 0d. Two brick trowels were valued at £0 3s 0d. One hammer was valued at £0 1s 6d. One pit saw axe was valued at £0 3s 0d. Two chafing dishes were valued at £0 18s 0d. Two gimlets were valued at £0 0s 11d. One half-round smooth file was valued at £0 2s 9d. One ragstone was valued at £0 0s 9d. One hand file was valued at £0 1s 3d. Nine frying pans, some intended for use in the forts, were valued together at £1 11s 10d, with an additional £2 19s 3½d recorded for their provision for the forts. Two iron bolts were valued at £1 9s 2d, and two more for the forts at the same amount. One broad axe was valued at £0 5s 0d. Five pipe locks with one staple were valued at £2 13s 4d. Fifteen stock locks with sixteen staples were valued at £1 12s 4d. Four plate locks with staples were valued at £0 17s 4d. One double-spring lock with staple was valued at £0 2s 4d, and one single lock with staple at £0 1s 4d. Two spades and two shovels were valued at £0 16s 0d. Twenty-four yards of flannel were valued at £2 8s 0d. Two balls of black thread were valued at £0 2s 2d. A subtotal of £59 0s 0½d was carried forward, bringing the total to £219 12s 7½d. Interpretations The wide range of nails, hinges, locks, and carpentry tools indicated sustained building and maintenance activity within the fort. Materials were carefully itemised by size and type, showing a structured approach to construction and repair. The different types of locks, including pipe, stock, and spring locks, demonstrated concern with securing buildings, stores, and possibly arms. This reflects an emphasis on controlling access to property and maintaining order within the settlement. The presence of tools such as adzes, trowels, axes, and files showed that skilled labour, including carpentry and masonry, was supported by Company-provided equipment, reinforcing central control over infrastructure development. The repeated allocation of items specifically “for our forts” indicated that defensive installations were supplied separately within the accounts, highlighting their importance as a distinct category of expenditure. The inclusion of domestic goods such as chamber pots, spoons, frying pans, and flannel suggested that provisioning extended beyond military needs to cover everyday living requirements within the fort community. The chafing dishes, as vessels used to hold hot coals for heating food or substances, further demonstrated that controlled heat sources were necessary for both domestic use and practical tasks, possibly including medical or workshop activities. Speculations The detailed categorisation of locks and fastenings suggests a deliberate effort to strengthen security, perhaps in response to concerns about theft, disorder, or the safeguarding of Company property. The large quantities of construction materials and tools indicate ongoing expansion or repair of fortifications and buildings, probably reflecting the need to maintain defensive readiness and accommodate the settlement’s operational demands. | |
156 | Brought over — — — 219 12 7½ Brought over — — — Shipping Goods as Followeth for use of Fort &cᵗ Cattle & 10 ps of Guarrasa at 30 s p ps — 15 00 00 To acct of Cash paid To Dr Steevens for medecins — 02 02 0 To John Downing Carpenter Robᵗ Exeter for makeing Do for work done at Store — 01 00 0 Borne — — To acct of Plantation for Provisions — 41 19 4 Sume Totall amount to the sume of [...] It is also ordered That the severall perticulars on Vessells of this 4 ps of Guarrasa at 26 s p ps — 7 4 0 Borne over — — 15 19 6 | The sum of £219 12s 7½d was brought forward. Further entries were recorded under shipping goods intended for the use of the fort, for cattle, and for clothing the Right Honourable Company’s slaves. Ten pieces of guarrasa at 30 shillings per piece were valued at £15 0s 0d. Six pieces of double [...] at 13 shillings per piece were valued at £4 1s 0d. Thirty-three pounds of sugar at 9 pence were valued at £12 12s 0d. Eleven pounds of rice at 4 pence were valued at £2 2s 0d. Forty-five gallons of arrack at 9 shillings per gallon were valued at £20 5s 0d. Cash payments were then listed. Payment was made to Dr Steevens for medicines at £2 2s 0d. Payment was made to Mr Sherrin, attorney, at £0 5s 0d. [...] [...] were recorded. Payment was made to Mary Berry for yams and pork at £2 0s 0d. Payment was made to John Worrall for making a new [...] flag at £5 6s 0d. Payment was made to John Downing, carpenter, for work at the store rooms at £5 6s 0d. Payment was made to Robert Exeter for making a church door [...] at £4 5s 0d, and a further £1 0s 0d for additional work done at the store. A further charge was made to the plantation account for provisions, amounting to £41 19s 4d. Payment was made to Monty Draper and others for one cow beef at £2 0s 0d. The total sum amounted to [...]. It was also ordered that various items taken from the Company’s store and used for the plantation were to be entered as debts against that plantation account. These included four pieces of guarrasa at 26 shillings per piece valued at £7 4s 0d, twenty pounds of sugar valued at £0 15s 0d, thirty-eight pounds of rice valued at £0 12s 0d, twelve gallons of arrack at 9 shillings per gallon valued at £5 8s 6d, and two gallons at 1 shilling valued at £1 16s 0d. A subtotal of £15 19s 6d was carried forward. Interpretations The allocation of goods specifically for clothing the Company’s slaves showed that labourers under Company control were provisioned directly through central supply. This reflects an organised system in which basic necessities were issued rather than independently obtained. The charging of plantation supplies as debt demonstrated that the plantation operated within an internal accounting framework. Resources issued from the Company store were not treated as free provision but as liabilities to be recorded and balanced. The use of arrack, a distilled spirit, as a regularly issued commodity indicated its role in daily provisioning, possibly as part of rations or controlled distribution within the settlement. Payments to craftsmen such as carpenters and masons, alongside charges for storehouses and church construction, showed that infrastructure, both practical and religious, was maintained through paid skilled labour under Company oversight. The inclusion of an attorney among those paid suggests the presence of formal legal or administrative processes requiring professional assistance, reinforcing the structured nature of governance on the island. Speculations The decision to record plantation supplies as debt rather than direct provision suggests an intention to enforce accountability and control over resources, ensuring that plantation operations remained financially visible within the Company’s system. The combination of provisions for slaves, payments for infrastructure, and allocation of goods for cattle indicates a coordinated effort to sustain both labour and production, probably reflecting the need to stabilise the island’s economy after earlier financial disruption. | |
157 | Brought over — — — 15 19 6 5 Grose of Pewter Buttons — — 01 00 00 Goods of the Amity’s Cargo Vizᵗ [...] of Browne Thread — — 00 08 0 1 Dozen of penknife Knives — — 0 5 0 2 Ink Glasses — — 0 0 10 1 Dripping Pann Iron — — 0 6 0 4 wooden Trays — — 0 8 0 1 Doz of Sage & other Hearbs — — 00 01 00 2 Large Brass Kettles — — 06 16 00 2 Pewter Chamber Potts — — 0 10 0 Borne over — — 21 06 11 Borne over — — 17 01 0 | The sum of £15 19s 6d was brought forward. Additional items were listed. Five gross of pewter buttons were valued at £1 0s 0d. [...] of window lead was valued at £0 1s 6d. Goods from the cargo of the Amity were then recorded. [...] of brown thread was valued at £0 8s 0d. Five [...] of large beans were valued at £0 6s 8d. Three [...] of kettling seals were valued at £0 6s 0d. Several sorts of seeds were valued at £2 6s 5d. One dozen penknife knives was valued at £0 5s 0d. Two coffee mills were valued at £0 7s 0d. Two ink glasses were valued at £0 0s 10d. One ream of home paper was valued at £0 4s 0d. One ream of [...] paper was valued at £0 13s 6d. Further domestic and kitchen items followed. One iron dripping pan was valued at £0 6s 0d. Four tin funnels were valued at £0 2s 0d. One lamp was valued at £0 1s 3d. One lantern was valued at £0 3s 9d. Two pairs of tin candlesticks were valued at £0 2s 10d. Two saucepans were valued at £0 2s 5d. Four wooden trays were valued at £0 8s 0d. Six skimming dishes were valued at £0 1s 6d. Five hair sieves were valued at £0 7s 2d. Three pairs of bellows were valued at £0 9s 0d. Four milk bowls were valued at £0 5s 0d. Twelve pails were valued at £2 8s 0d. Six ladles were valued at £0 1s 6d. One dozen sage and other herbs were valued at £0 1s 0d. Two large brass kettles were valued at £6 16s 0d. One kettle of 2 lb with an iron frame was valued at £1 0s 8d, and another at £0 8s 0d. One lamp was valued at £0 4s 6d. One pair of tin candlesticks was valued at £1 9s 6d. One large skimmer was valued at £0 6s 6d. One ladle was valued at £0 2s 6d. Two pewter chamber pots were valued at £0 10s 0d. Two sets of pewter spoons were valued at £0 6s 0d. Subtotals of £21 6s 11d and £17 1s 0d were carried forward. Interpretations The reference to goods from the cargo of the Amity showed that incoming shipments were systematically broken down and distributed through the Company’s accounting system, with each item assigned a value and purpose. The presence of seeds, beans, and herbs indicated an organised effort to support agriculture and food production on the island, suggesting that cultivation was an important component of sustaining the settlement. The inclusion of coffee mills pointed to the preparation of imported goods for daily use, showing that processed consumption of commodities formed part of life within the fort. The repeated listing of domestic utensils, including kettles, sieves, pails, and ladles, demonstrated that the Company centrally supplied equipment for cooking, storage, and food preparation, reinforcing institutional control over daily living conditions. The use of pewter items such as buttons, spoons, and chamber pots indicated access to durable manufactured goods, reflecting established supply lines between the island and external markets. Speculations The careful recording of agricultural items alongside domestic tools suggests a coordinated effort to expand local self-sufficiency, probably in response to the irregular arrival of ships and the need to reduce dependence on external supply. The detailed breakdown of cargo from the Amity indicates an intention to maintain strict oversight of imported goods, ensuring that all materials were accounted for and allocated according to the settlement’s immediate needs. | |
158 | Brought over — — — 17 01 0 Brought over — — — 21 03 1 1 Barrel of Iron at 6 s — — 00 18 0 35 Broad Hoes at 2 s each — — 3 10 0 18 pr Do Hinges — — — 0 14 0 1 Stock Lock & 2 Staples — — 0 2 9 3 Carpenters Hammers — — 0 4 4 2 Chafing Dishes — — — 0 16 0 1 Iron Pots & Hooks — — 1 9 8½ It is likewise ordered That the severall persons whose names hereafter John Aleman Glazier — — 00 15 00 Borne over — — 63 17 1 | The sums of £17 1s 0d and £21 3s 1d were brought forward. Further materials were listed. One barrel of iron at 6 shillings was valued at £0 18s 0d. Seventeen parcels of nails at 7 shillings per pound were valued at £8 9s 11d. One pound of 10d nails was valued at £0 0s 10d, and two pounds of 4d nails at £0 0s 8d. Thirty-five broad hoes at 2 shillings each were valued at £3 10s 0d. Thirty narrow hoes at 1 shilling 8 pence each were valued at £2 5s 0d. Eighteen pairs of hinges were valued at £0 14s 0d. Two broad chisels were valued at £0 3s 0d, and two riding chisels at £0 2s 0d. One stock lock with two staples was valued at £0 2s 9d. Four plate locks with staples were valued at £0 17s 4d. Two double-spring locks with staples were valued at £0 4s 8d. Two single locks with staples were valued at £0 2s 8d. Three carpenters’ hammers were valued at £0 4s 4d. Six ragstones were valued at £0 4s 6d. One rubstone was valued at £0 1s 0d. Six trowels were valued at £0 9s 0d. Two chafing dishes were valued at £0 16s 0d. Twelve gilt axes were valued at £0 10s 0d, and two broad axes at £0 10s 0d. Two frying pans were valued at £0 5s 8d. One iron pot with hooks was valued at £1 9s 8½d. Sixty shovels at 2 shillings each were valued at £6 0s 0d. Six spades were valued at £1 10s 0d. It was also ordered that several persons were to be credited in their accounts with the Right Honourable Company for sums due to them for work carried out for the use of the plantation. These amounts were to be entered as debts against the plantation account. John Aleman, glazier, was credited with £0 15s 0d. John Liles, for dripping work, was credited with £1 1s 0d. John Goodwin, for work performed, was credited with £1 2s 6d. A subtotal of £63 17s 1d was carried forward. Interpretations The large quantities of iron, nails, hoes, and digging tools indicated extensive agricultural and construction activity. The supply of both broad and narrow hoes suggests differentiated tasks in cultivation, pointing to organised farming operations. The repeated listing of locks and hinges showed continued emphasis on securing buildings and storage, reinforcing control over property and resources within the settlement. The presence of specialised trades, such as a glazier and workers engaged in specific tasks like “dripping” work, demonstrated that skilled labour was recognised and compensated through formal accounting entries rather than informal exchange. The recording of payments as credits against plantation accounts showed that labour costs were integrated into a structured financial system. Work performed was not settled immediately in cash but entered as debt, tying labour directly to the plantation’s economic framework. The inclusion of chafing dishes alongside tools and domestic items again reflected the need for controlled heating in both household and practical settings, reinforcing their role as standard equipment within the settlement. Speculations The scale of tools for cultivation and construction suggests an ongoing effort to expand or intensify plantation production, probably to improve self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on irregular external supplies. The use of account credits rather than immediate payment for labour indicates a controlled economic environment in which workers were financially tied to the Company system, perhaps to ensure continued service and regulate access to resources. | |
159 | Brought over — — — 63 08 ½ It is likewise ordered Cha: Shallon for yams — — 8 : 14 : 0 Sume Totall amounts to the sume of 158 14 02 It is also ordered For 754 Blacks Labour in bringing downe Borne over — — 30 : 12 : 0 | The sum of £63 8s ½d was brought forward. It was also ordered that several persons were to be credited in their accounts with the Right Honourable Company for sums due to them for supplying yams and cattle for the use of the plantations. These sums were to be charged as debts against the plantation accounts. Cha Shallon was credited with £8 14s 0d for yams. Richard Harding was credited with £2 17s 0d for the same. Thomas Allison was credited with £7 15s 0d for two such supplies. The executors of John Cannady were credited with £115 0s 0d for seventy-six head of cattle. John Long was credited with £5 5s 0d for two cattle. John Bowman was credited with £4 0s 0d for the same. John Goodwin was credited with £10 17s 0d for four cattle. Mercy Draper was credited with £2 17s 0d for one. Mr Beale was credited with £1 9s 2d for seventeen head of beef. The total of these sums amounted to £158 14s 2d, bringing the running total to £222 2s ½d. It was further ordered that Captain Stephen Poirier was to receive an order for provisions that he had issued from the Honourable Company’s plantation over the previous three months for the use of the fort and its cattle. These included provisions for 754 slaves engaged in transporting supplies, valued at £9 8s 6d. Twenty-eight bushels of potatoes were valued at £2 6s 0d. Thirty-five pounds of butter were valued at £1 7s 6d. Twenty-nine pounds of beef were valued at £23 4s 0d. Six domestic fowls were valued at £0 6s 0d. A subtotal of £30 12s 0d was carried forward. Interpretations The recording of credits for yams and cattle as debts against plantation accounts showed that agricultural production and livestock supply were tightly integrated into the Company’s accounting system. Suppliers were compensated through account entries rather than immediate payment, maintaining financial control. The large payment to the executors of John Cannady for seventy-six head of cattle indicated the scale of livestock management and the importance of cattle as a key economic resource within the settlement. The reference to executors demonstrated that obligations continued beyond an individual’s death, with estates remaining accountable within the Company’s financial structure. The provision issued for 754 slaves engaged in transporting supplies revealed the organised use of labour for logistical purposes. This shows that movement of goods across the island required coordinated labour on a significant scale. The issuing of provisions by the Deputy Governor from plantation stores illustrated the overlap between administrative authority and resource management, with senior officials directly controlling distribution. Speculations The large number of slaves assigned to transporting provisions suggests that supply routes within the island were labour-intensive, probably due to difficult terrain, requiring coordinated effort to move goods between plantation and fort. The practice of crediting suppliers while charging plantation accounts indicates a deliberate system designed to keep all production and distribution within a controlled economic loop, ensuring that resources, labour, and obligations remained under Company oversight. | |
160 | Brought over — — — 36 : 12 : 0 3 Turkeys — — — — 00 : 9 : 0 It is likewise ordered That the said Capᵗ Poirier have an ordʳ for More over It is ordered That the said Capᵗ Poirier have also an [...] | The sum of £36 12s 0d was brought forward. Additional provisions were listed. Three turkeys were valued at £0 9s 0d. Four goats were valued at £1 0s 0d. Ninety-two cabbages were valued at £1 9s 0d. Seventy-six pounds of pork were valued at £1 5s 4d. One thousand five hundred yams, at about 20 shillings per thousand, were valued at £1 10s 0d. It was also ordered that Captain Stephen Poirier was to receive an order for thirty-nine casks of clamack issued from the Right Honourable Company’s stores at the rate of 5 shillings per cask, amounting to £12 5s 0d. It was further ordered that Captain Poirier was to receive an additional order for thirty-four and sixty-six pounds of beef which he had delivered to the ship Amity, commanded by Captain James Minby, at the rate of 16 shillings per pound, amounting to £78 14s 11d. [...] Interpretations The issuing of an order to Captain Poirier functioned as formal authorisation for reimbursement or accounting recognition, showing that goods distributed or supplied were later validated through written financial instruments rather than immediate settlement. The inclusion of livestock, vegetables, and staple foods demonstrated that provisioning for the fort relied heavily on locally produced supplies, integrated into the Company’s accounting system. The reference to clamack, issued in casks, indicated a stored consumable, probably a preserved or bulk supply item, managed through the Company’s stores and distributed in measured quantities. The delivery of beef to the Amity showed that the island acted as a provisioning point for passing ships, linking local production to wider maritime networks under Company control. Speculations The formal recording of provisions issued and later authorised suggests a system designed to maintain accountability over distributed goods, ensuring that officers such as Captain Poirier could be reimbursed while preventing unrecorded use of Company resources. The supply of provisions to the Amity indicates that supporting Company shipping was an expected function of the island, probably requiring careful coordination between plantation output and maritime demand to avoid shortages. | |
161 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Whereas on Monday last being the first day of Thereupon it is agreed & ordered That the said Edwᵈ Everan, and Jasᵇ Powell doe [...] | A consultation was held on 3 October 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. It was noted that on Monday, 1 October 1694, during sessions then held, James Powell and Edward Everan [...] had been tried by a jury of twelve men for burglary and were found not guilty. However, it had been agreed at that time that they should not go unpunished for having climbed onto the roof of the Governor’s house. The Governor and Council reconsidered the matter, including the intention behind their actions, their age, and their promises of good behaviour and reform. It was therefore agreed that Edward Everan and James Powell were to ride the wooden horse for one hour on each of the next three guard days. During each punishment, two dozen stripes were to be administered at each heel. They were to remain in custody until the punishment had been fully carried out, after which they were to be released upon good behaviour. [...] Interpretations The decision to punish despite a verdict of not guilty showed that formal acquittal by a jury did not prevent the Governor and Council from imposing disciplinary measures. This reflects a distinction between legal judgment and administrative authority. The use of the wooden horse as punishment indicated a form of corporal discipline designed to inflict discomfort and humiliation rather than severe injury, often used in military or controlled environments to enforce order. The requirement that punishment be carried out over successive guard days suggests integration with military routine, reinforcing discipline within a structured system tied to the fort’s operations. The reference to custody until punishment was completed demonstrated that detention functioned as a means of ensuring compliance with imposed penalties. Speculations The decision to impose a reduced but still public punishment, taking into account age and promises of reform, suggests that the authorities aimed to correct behaviour without resorting to harsher penalties that might have been disproportionate to the offence. The focus on the act of climbing onto the Governor’s house implies concern over breaches of authority or security, indicating that even minor acts perceived as challenges to order were addressed to prevent escalation. | |
162 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Present Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Whereas there lay in the Rt Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ It is agreed That he have one hundred Hides of Tanned Leather [...] | A consultation was held on 11 October 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. It was noted that a quantity of tanned leather lay in the Right Honourable Company’s storehouse and was in danger of being spoiled by rats and other damage. The commanders of the Company’s ships were reluctant to take the leather on board, as the warm season increased the risk of deterioration. At the same time, recent cargo brought by the ship Amity, commanded by Captain James Minby, had included shoemaker’s thread and other necessary supplies. To prevent the leather from being wasted, it was considered advisable to have it converted into shoes. The store labourer was approached and agreed either to manufacture shoes for the Company or to take the leather and repay its value in finished goods. It was agreed that he was to receive one hundred hides of tanned leather from the Company’s stores at the rate of £11 10s 0d per score. He was also to receive all raw hides belonging to the Company over the following year from the date of the agreement, at the rate of £0 8s 0d per score. In return, he was required to supply the Company with shoes and pumps, valued at £0 5s 0d per dozen shoes and £0 2s 6d per dozen pumps. Formal articles of agreement were to be drawn up to confirm these terms. [...] Interpretations The arrangement converted perishable stock into finished goods, showing how the Company managed inventory risk by transforming vulnerable materials into more durable and usable products. The pricing structure, expressed per score of hides and per dozen shoes or pumps, demonstrated a standardised system of valuation that allowed goods to be exchanged without direct cash payment. The agreement required payment in manufactured items rather than money, reflecting a barter-based system within the Company’s internal economy, where labour and materials were balanced through account rather than currency. The involvement of a store labourer in a semi-contractual arrangement indicated that skilled production could be organised through local labour under Company supervision, rather than relying entirely on imported goods. The instruction to draw up formal articles of agreement showed that such arrangements were legally structured, ensuring that obligations were recorded and enforceable. Speculations The decision to process the leather locally was probably driven by both environmental risk and supply opportunity, using newly arrived shoemaking materials to enable production that would otherwise not have been possible. The use of a fixed exchange rate between hides and finished footwear suggests an effort to stabilise supply and pricing, ensuring that the Company secured necessary goods while controlling the terms of production. | |
163 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the 18 Present Richᵈ Kelinge Governʳ Elizᵃ Suffolk produced a Deed of Gift from her In order thereunto John Vernon & John Worrall It is ordered That the sd Deed of Gift be recorded Whereas all the Swords in yᵉ Armory which is yᵉ Rt Honᵇˡᵉ It is agreed with Serjᵗ Field That he repaire the said swords and make scabbards [...] | A consultation was held on 18 October 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. Elizabeth Suffolk presented a deed of gift from her son-in-law John Gates, granting her ten acres of land and a house in Chappell Valley. She requested that the deed be formally proved. John Vernon and John Worrall gave sworn evidence that John Gates had delivered the deed to Elizabeth Suffolk as his act and deed. It was ordered that the deed of gift was to be recorded. It was also noted that all the swords in the armoury belonging to the Right Honourable Company, including those from the ship Benjamin commanded by Captain Lorne Browne, required repair. They needed cleaning and new scabbards. An agreement was made with Sergeant Field that he was to repair the swords and provide scabbards. In return, he was to receive credit in his account with the Company in the sum of £2 10s 0d. [...] Interpretations The proving and recording of the deed of gift demonstrated that land transfers were formalised through legal procedures requiring sworn testimony. This ensured that property rights were recognised and documented within the Company’s administrative system. The involvement of witnesses who swore to the delivery of the deed showed that validation depended on personal testimony rather than written documentation alone, reflecting the evidentiary practices in use. The granting of credit rather than immediate payment for the repair of swords indicated that labour was commonly compensated through account entries within the Company’s financial structure. The maintenance of swords and provision of scabbards showed that military equipment was centrally managed and periodically refurbished, ensuring readiness and preserving valuable assets. Speculations The formal recording of the deed suggests an effort to stabilise property ownership and prevent disputes, particularly in a small settlement where land and housing were significant assets. The decision to repair existing swords rather than replace them indicates a practical response to limited supply, making use of available labour to maintain military capability without relying on new imports. | |
164 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the Present Richᵈ Kelinge Governʳ Whereas many Times (yea to frequent) It is ordered That for the future the Clerks fees at any private Mr Tho: Goodwin Attorney to Prudance It is ordered That the sd letter of Attorney Thus proved be recorded in To all Christian People to whom this present writing [...] | A consultation was held on 25 October 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. Frequent complaints had been made by aggrieved persons to the Council outside the formal sessions, during private councils held between sessions. The fees charged for these complaints and their hearings had been the same as those required at general sessions, and were considered too high for those bringing complaints. It was therefore ordered that, in future, the clerk’s fee for any complaint heard at a private council was to be set at £0 3s 0d, and the bailiff’s fee at £0 1s 6d. Thomas Goodwin, acting as attorney to Prudence Sherwin, produced a letter of attorney granted by her and requested that it be formally proved and recorded. Edward Brookes, her son-in-law, and James Duffe gave sworn evidence that the letter of attorney had been delivered to Goodwin by Prudence Sherwin as her act and deed. It was ordered that the letter of attorney, having been duly proved, was to be recorded in full. It began by addressing all Christian people and was issued by Prudence, wife and attorney of Thomas Sherwin, formerly of St Helena, planter. She stated that her husband had gone to England several years earlier and had sent multiple letters instructing her to sell his property on the island and then return to him in [...] Interpretations The reduction of clerks’ and bailiffs’ fees for private council hearings showed an adjustment to make justice more accessible. This change distinguished between formal court sessions and informal proceedings, lowering financial barriers for those seeking redress. The use of a letter of attorney demonstrated a formal legal mechanism by which one person could authorise another to act on their behalf, particularly in managing property and financial affairs in their absence. The requirement for sworn testimony to prove the letter of attorney showed that authentication depended on witness verification, ensuring that such delegated authority was recognised as valid within the Company’s legal system. The recording of the document in full indicated the importance of preserving legal instruments within official records, providing a permanent reference for future disputes or transactions. Speculations The adjustment of fees suggests that the authorities were responding to dissatisfaction or reduced use of the complaint system, aiming to encourage individuals to bring grievances forward without being deterred by cost. The need for a letter of attorney in this case indicates the practical challenges of long-distance absence, where property management required trusted intermediaries and formal recognition to prevent disputes or misuse. | |
165 | England, which I have accomplished in some Measure and being Sealed & Dd Prudence Sherwin | The letter continued. Prudence Sherwin stated that she had partly carried out her husband’s instructions and now intended to depart on the ship Charles of London, lying at anchor at Fort James on St Helena. Several sums of money remained owed to her from various persons, together with other goods belonging to her husband’s estate that had not yet been disposed of. She declared that, for various reasons, she appointed Thomas Goodwin of the island as her lawful attorney, deputy, and assignee. He was authorised, on behalf of her husband, to demand, recover, and receive all sums listed in an attached schedule, whether by agreement or other lawful means. He was also empowered to sell remaining goods from the estate and to issue valid receipts and discharges. Full authority was granted to him to act in all matters concerning the estate, including pursuing recovery of debts through customary legal processes on the island, both within and outside imprisonment if required. She confirmed that all lawful actions taken by him in this role would be accepted and upheld. He was further instructed to pay all sums owed by her to various persons listed in another part of the schedule, with these payments to be entered as debts against her account. After ten days from the date of sale, he was directed to maintain the plantation in its current condition, preserving both its extent and the growth of provisions. Any surplus or increase produced during this time was to be retained by him for his own use as compensation for his labour, until the estate was fully disposed of or further instructions were received from her or her husband. The document was dated 2 July 1694 and was signed and sealed in the presence of James Duffe, John Goodwin, Thomas Buxter, and Andrew Brooke, with Prudence Sherwin affixing her name. Interpretations The letter of attorney created a comprehensive legal transfer of authority, allowing Thomas Goodwin to manage, sell, and recover all aspects of the Sherwin estate. This demonstrates how absent property owners maintained control through delegated legal agents. The inclusion of powers to pursue debts through imprisonment and other customary means shows that legal enforcement on the island allowed creditors to compel payment through coercive measures, reflecting the integration of civil debt recovery with penal authority. The instruction to charge both incoming and outgoing payments to an account of debt illustrates a structured accounting system in which all financial activity was formally recorded, maintaining oversight of obligations and balances. The clause allowing Goodwin to retain surplus produce from the plantation as compensation indicates a hybrid arrangement combining agency and personal incentive. Labour was rewarded not by fixed wages but by controlled access to output, aligning the agent’s interest with the continued productivity of the estate. The requirement to maintain the plantation’s condition during the interim period shows that agricultural output was treated as a managed asset, with its continuity safeguarded even during ownership transition. Speculations The broad authority granted to Goodwin suggests that Prudence Sherwin anticipated difficulty in supervising the estate from a distance, and therefore ensured that one trusted individual held sufficient power to act decisively without delay. The provision allowing him to retain surplus production implies an effort to secure diligent management in the absence of direct oversight, using profit-sharing as an incentive to prevent neglect or decline of the plantation. | |
166 | Whereas it has bin our endeavʳ of Late by buying of Boxton Ordered Richᵈ Kellinge | Efforts had recently been made to enlarge the grazing range for the Right Honourable Company’s cattle near the main settlement on St Helena. This had been done by purchasing Boxton’s land and by exchanging ten acres with Mr Griffith, so that the cattle might be kept closer under supervision and thereby be less exposed to loss. It was observed that John Stevens, surgeon, had become possessed of ten acres of land through his marriage to the widow Gurling. Three acres of this land lay within the Company’s ground intended to be enclosed, and this created difficulty for fencing and interfered with the planned cattle range. Dr Stevens was therefore approached about exchanging the land, and he agreed, provided that he received ten acres of cabbage tree ground in return. Thomas Goodwin was then consulted regarding ten acres formerly in the possession of Prudence Sherwin, but he declared that he had already sold this land to his brother, John Goodwin, whose farm adjoined it. John Goodwin was then called and agreed to an exchange, on condition that he received ten acres formerly belonging to Boxton, which had been leased by Thomas Goodwin and was then occupied by a man named French. It was therefore concluded and ordered that John Goodwin was to have the ten acres formerly Boxton’s, subject to Thomas Goodwin’s lease, and without disturbing or dispossessing his brother, who had obtained it without his consent. In exchange, John Goodwin was to give up the ten acres formerly held by Prudence Sherwin, which had originally belonged to Elizabeth Suffolk. It was further concluded that Dr Stevens was to receive, in exchange, the land obtained from John Goodwin. This land had come into his possession through his marriage to the widow Gurling, who had purchased it from Elizabeth Suffolk. Formal writings were to be prepared to confirm these arrangements. The order was issued under the authority of Richard Kelinge. Interpretations The coordinated exchange of multiple parcels of land showed that the Company actively reorganised property boundaries to serve broader administrative and economic goals, particularly the management of cattle and enclosure. The reference to fencing and controlled range indicated an organised approach to livestock management, where land use was structured to maximise oversight and reduce loss. The involvement of several individuals, including those who held land through purchase, lease, or marriage, demonstrated the layered nature of property rights, requiring negotiation and formal agreement to resolve competing claims. The requirement to formalise the arrangement through written instruments showed that land transactions were recorded and legally secured, reinforcing the Company’s authority over land tenure and transfer. Speculations The consolidation of grazing land near the settlement suggests a response to previous losses or difficulties in managing cattle at a distance, prompting a deliberate reorganisation to improve control and efficiency. The willingness to negotiate exchanges rather than enforce direct seizure indicates that maintaining cooperation among landholders was considered important, probably to avoid disputes that could disrupt agricultural production or settlement stability. | |
167 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Governʳ Mr Tho Goodwin made Complaint of Ordered That the sd Mr Goodwin have Creditt in his accᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge | A consultation was held on 8 November 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. Thomas Goodwin made a complaint that some of the Right Honourable Company’s slaves had killed one of his heifers and taken the meat for themselves. This was supported by evidence from John Gates, who had found the meat of the heifer at one of the Company’s out plantations. A slave there admitted that the animal had belonged to Goodwin, but claimed that it had died before they interfered with it. As they failed to prove that the animal had been dead before they took it, and had not informed Captain Poirier’s son or any other white person before removing it, the matter was considered. It was ordered that Thomas Goodwin was to receive credit in his account with the Company for £2 0s 0d in compensation for the loss of the heifer, this being the first case of that kind. It was further ordered that the slaves involved were to be punished immediately by severe whipping at the flagstaff. The order was issued under the authority of Richard Kelinge. Interpretations The granting of compensation through account credit showed that losses caused by Company slaves were absorbed within the Company’s financial system, rather than requiring direct restitution from the individuals responsible. The requirement that the slaves should have reported the animal’s condition to a white authority before taking it demonstrated a strict hierarchy of control, where actions involving property had to be authorised regardless of circumstance. The punishment at the flagstaff indicated a public and symbolic form of discipline, reinforcing authority and deterrence within the settlement. The reference to this being the first case of its kind suggests that precedent was being established, with both compensation and punishment forming part of a developing framework for handling such incidents. Speculations The decision to compensate Goodwin while also punishing the slaves suggests an effort to maintain confidence among settlers in the protection of their property, ensuring that losses would be recognised and addressed. The severity and public nature of the punishment indicates a concern that such behaviour, if left unchecked, could spread, and therefore required a visible response to reinforce discipline and prevent repetition. | |
168 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Elizᵃ Suffolk made her application to Govʳ & Now considering the scituation of the sd Land | A consultation was held on 29 November 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. Elizabeth Suffolk applied to the Governor and Council requesting permission to exchange ten acres of land forming part of her late husband’s estate. One portion lay in a low situation, while another ten acres lay at Longwood, then in the possession of the Lords Proprietors. This land had previously been mortgaged to Mr Mack Seabury, who, upon departing for Bombay in the ship Benjamin, had leased it to the Lords Proprietors together with the Right Honourable Company in exchange for ten acres elsewhere. Robert Eccleston had since acquired Suffolk’s interest in this land. The land at Longwood lay close to the Company’s plantation at Hutts Valley, where vineyards had first been established and required protection. Its position made it desirable for incorporation into Company control. Negotiations were therefore undertaken, and it was agreed that an exchange would proceed on condition that Elizabeth Suffolk relinquished all her rights, title, and claim to the Longwood land in favour of the Company. It was further required that Robert Eccleston surrender the written instrument he had received from Suffolk at the time of the mortgage. In return, he was to receive a parcel of land selected by him, subject to a yearly rent, under a mortgage arrangement lasting four years. The parcel he chose lay between the lands of Mr Beale, William Dufton, and Samuel Taylor. It was agreed that if this parcel did not amount to the full ten acres, he was nevertheless to accept it as complete satisfaction for his claim. Interpretations The exchange arrangement showed how the Company consolidated strategically valuable land, particularly areas adjoining key agricultural sites such as vineyards, by negotiating transfers rather than relying on direct seizure. The requirement for Suffolk to relinquish all claims demonstrated the need to extinguish competing rights before incorporating land into Company control, ensuring clear and undisputed ownership. The involvement of prior mortgages and leases illustrated the layered and complex nature of land tenure on the island, where ownership, use, and financial interest could be held by different parties simultaneously. The surrender of written instruments as part of the agreement reflected the importance of documentary evidence in validating and extinguishing claims within the legal system. The imposition of a yearly rent and a fixed mortgage term showed that land transfers could be structured as conditional arrangements rather than outright grants, maintaining ongoing obligations to the Company. Speculations The willingness to accept a parcel smaller than ten acres suggests that securing control of the Longwood land was of greater importance to the Company than maintaining strict equivalence in the exchange, indicating its strategic value. The focus on land near vineyards implies concern with protecting agricultural investments, suggesting that the Company prioritised areas critical to production and long-term economic stability. | |
169 | It is ordered That the sd Lands be Measured and if there Richᵈ Kellinge | It was ordered that the land was to be measured. If it exceeded ten acres, only ten acres were to be set out to Robert Eccleston. If it fell short, the deficiency was to be accepted by him without adjustment, and he was to take the land as it stood. It was further required that a formal writing of relinquishment be prepared, properly transferring all right and title in the land to the Right Honourable Lords Proprietors for the use of the Right Honourable Company. This document was to be signed, sealed, and delivered, together with the counterpart of the original deed of mortgage. It was also ordered that Robert Eccleston was to receive a formal grant for the parcel of land that had been selected for him. The order was issued under the authority of Richard Kelinge. Interpretations The requirement to measure the land before confirming the grant showed an effort to formalise and standardise land allocation, ensuring that recorded holdings corresponded to physical reality. The acceptance of any shortfall by Robert Eccleston indicated that precision in acreage was secondary to completing the transfer, reflecting a pragmatic approach to resolving overlapping claims. The preparation and exchange of formal written instruments, including a deed of relinquishment and the counterpart of a mortgage, demonstrated the central role of documentation in establishing and extinguishing legal rights to land. The grant issued to Eccleston confirmed that compensation for surrendered claims was structured through controlled redistribution of land, rather than monetary payment, maintaining land as a primary unit of value within the settlement. Speculations The insistence on completing formal documentation alongside measurement suggests an intention to prevent future disputes by ensuring that both the physical boundaries and legal title were clearly defined at the point of transfer. The requirement that Eccleston accept whatever acreage was measured implies that the Company prioritised securing undisputed control of the original land over maintaining exact equivalence in compensation, reinforcing its strategic objectives in land management. | |
170 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the Presᵗ Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Whereas since the Consultation held the 27ᵗʰ day It is ordered That the Govʳ cause his under Store keeper to pay and It is likewise ordered That the severall goods hereafter mentioned recᵈ out 25 Gall arrack at 12ᵈ p Gall — — 15 : 00 : 00 30 : 15 : 01½ Borne over — — 30 : 15 : 01½ | A consultation was held on 18 December 1694 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Poirier. It was noted that three months’ pay and salary were now due to the officers, soldiers, and servants employed in the service of the Right Honourable English East India Company since the consultation held on 27 September 1694. It was ordered that the Governor was to instruct the under storekeeper to pay all officers, soldiers, and servants their respective wages from the Company’s stores and cash. Each account was to be balanced to that date, and receipts were to be taken from every individual upon payment. It was also ordered that various goods issued from the Company’s stores for the use of the fort, the garrison boats, and other services were to be charged to the fort account. In addition, a sum of £5 0s 0d in cash paid for certain items was to be included in the same account. The items listed were as follows. Twenty-five gallons of arrack at 12 pence per gallon were valued at £15 0s 0d. Twenty-one cases of allomack at 9 pence per gallon were valued at £9 9s 0d. Seventy-five pounds of rice were valued at £1 8s 1½d. Thomas Goodwin was paid £4 12s 0d for twenty-seven pounds of pork. Two cases of knives were valued at £0 6s 0d. The total of these charges amounted to £30 15s 1½d, which was carried forward. Interpretations The instruction to pay wages from both stores and cash showed that remuneration could be made partly in goods rather than entirely in money, reflecting limited availability of coin and the use of Company resources to meet obligations. The requirement to balance accounts and obtain receipts demonstrated a formal system of financial accountability, ensuring that payments were recorded and acknowledged to prevent dispute. Charging issued goods to the fort account indicated that military and operational expenses were centrally recorded, allowing the Company to track the cost of maintaining the garrison and its activities. The inclusion of provisions such as arrack, rice, and pork suggests that part of the garrison’s support involved ration distribution, integrating subsistence with financial accounting. Speculations The regular settlement of three months’ pay suggests an effort to maintain discipline and morale among soldiers and servants, probably recognising that delayed payment could lead to dissatisfaction or disorder. The combination of goods and cash in both wages and expenses indicates a flexible system designed to operate despite irregular supply of money, ensuring that essential services continued without interruption. | |
171 | Brought over — — 38 18 Cash paid for Vizᵗ 5 lb Butter — — — — 00 04 2 Plantation accᵗ for Vizᵗ 5 lb Black Cattle — — — 01 01 8 For the Garrison Vizᵗ 1 Ancor & 1½ Firkins — — 00 04 00 To Cloath the Negroes Vizᵗ 1½ lb of Refings — — — 01 13 00 For Work att the Fort Vizᵗ 1 Cl 10ʸ Nayles — — — 00 00 10 Borne over — — — 92 18 | The sum of £38 18s 0d was brought forward. Cash payments were then listed. Five pounds of butter were valued at £0 4s 2d. Eighteen pounds of bacon were valued at £0 18s 0d. One hundredweight of fine rice was valued at £1 17s 4d. Thirty-eight units of soap were valued at £1 8s 6d. Sugar was valued at £1 12s 0d. Charges to the plantation account followed. Five pounds of black cattle were valued at £1 1s 8d. Ten and a half bushels of potatoes were valued at £1 1s 0d. Three pounds of butter were valued at £1 8s 0d. Six domestic fowls were valued at £0 6s 0d. Four turkeys were valued at £0 12s 0d. Five goats were valued at £1 13s 0d. Eight and a half cabbages were valued at £1 1s 0d. Three and a half gallons of arrack were valued at £8 3s 0d. Four hundred pounds of yams were valued at £4 0s 0d. Eighteen gallons of [...] milk were valued at £0 9s 0d. One cow’s milk and other items were valued at £1 0s 0d. Two hundred and eighty-seven pounds of beef were valued at £25 0s 0d. Items for the garrison were also recorded. One anchor and one and a half firkins were valued at £0 4s 0d. One small line for robins was valued at £0 0s 9d. One [...] was valued at £0 0s 9d. Goods issued for clothing the Company’s slaves were listed. One and a half pounds of [...] were valued at £1 13s 0d. Two pounds of brown thread were valued at £0 3s 3d. One gross of white buttons was valued at £0 5s 0d. John Slinkings was paid £0 15s 0d for making five suits for slaves. For work at the fort, one clout of 10d nails was valued at £0 0s 10d, one clout of 20d nails at £0 0s 7d, and one and a half weight of nails at £0 0s 8d. Carpenter’s work was valued at £1 5s 0d. A subtotal of £92 18s 0d was carried forward. Interpretations The combination of cash payments and charges to the plantation account showed that different categories of expenditure were carefully separated, allowing the Company to track operational costs against productive resources. The wide range of food items issued to the plantation account demonstrated that agricultural labour and livestock were sustained through centrally managed provisioning, reinforcing dependency on Company supplies. The inclusion of clothing materials and payment for making garments for slaves showed that labourers were equipped through an organised system, with clothing treated as a managed provision rather than a private responsibility. The listing of goods for the garrison alongside plantation provisions indicated that military and economic functions were closely linked, with supplies distributed according to institutional need. The continued use of small-value entries, including minor tools and materials, reflected detailed accounting practices that ensured all resources, however small, were recorded and controlled. Speculations The detailed allocation of provisions to both plantation and garrison suggests a balancing of resources between production and defence, probably to maintain both food supply and security without overstraining limited stores. The structured provision of clothing for slaves indicates an attempt to maintain labour efficiency and control, ensuring that workers remained equipped and dependent on Company distribution systems. | |
172 | Brought over — — — — — — — 92 18 11 For the use of the Fort Gardens All Prosperous Days vict For the Smiths use vizt [...] Iron for heading the } 01 01 11½ For mending Swords vizt
Sume Totall amounts to the sume of It is also ordered 1 Dripping pan — — — — — 00 04 00 Borne over — — — — — — 02 08 10 | The sum of £92 18s 11d was brought forward. Further items were listed for the use of the fort gardens. Two [...] hoes were valued at £0 2s 0d. Two trowels were valued at £0 3s 0d. John Foster was credited with £1 10s 0d for walling land and carrying out small [...] work, including whitening. Items noted under “all prosperous days victuals” included seventeen pairs of barrels valued at £0 0s 9d and twenty trunks [...] valued at £0 0s 8d. For the smith’s use, three gimlets were valued at £0 1s 0d. [...] eight nails were valued at £0 2s 4d. One [...] was valued at £0 0s 7d. Two [...] were valued at £0 1s 8d. Iron for heading new main pieces was valued at £1 1s 11½d. For the repair of swords, one [...] was valued at £0 7s 9d. Two balls of black bread were valued at £0 2s 2d. Materials for making scabbards were valued at £2 10s 0d. Three hundred furs were exchanged with Captain Minty for £1 16s 0d. Moving freight [...] was valued at £0 13s 6d. Credit was also entered to Thomas [...] for work performed. The total sum amounted to £100 6s [...], and then £101 6s [...]. It was further ordered that several goods issued from the stores for the use of the plantation were to be charged to the plantation account as debt. These included one dripping pan valued at £0 4s 0d, one brass skimmer valued at £0 4s 6d, ten knives valued at £0 5s 4d, and one [...] grate valued at £1 14s 6d. A subtotal of £2 8s 10d was carried forward. Interpretations The allocation of tools for the fort gardens showed that food cultivation within the fort itself was actively maintained, indicating a layered system of provisioning that combined plantation output with local cultivation. The listing of items for the smith’s use and for repairing swords demonstrated the continued importance of on-site maintenance of tools and weapons, reducing dependence on external supply. The inclusion of iron for “heading new main pieces” suggests work on significant equipment, probably artillery or structural components, reflecting ongoing investment in defence infrastructure. The exchange of furs with a ship’s captain indicated that goods could be traded directly with passing vessels, showing the integration of the island into wider trading networks beyond strict Company supply channels. The charging of goods issued to the plantation as debt reinforced the system in which all distributed resources were recorded as obligations, maintaining financial oversight across different sectors of activity. Speculations The combination of garden tools, plantation supplies, and traded goods suggests a deliberate strategy to diversify sources of sustenance and materials, probably to reduce vulnerability to irregular shipping. The continued investment in repair and maintenance of weapons and equipment indicates an awareness of limited replacement supply, leading to a system focused on prolonging the life of existing resources. | |
173 | Brought over — — — — — — 02 08 10 2 [...] nailes — — — — — 00 05 10 26 fishing line — — — — — 01 01 06 2 kegs of Brandy — — — — — — — 01 07 00 F[...] small shot — — — — — — — 00 03 0 To accᵗ of Cash vizᵗ It is further ordered That the following persons whose names [...] Sutton Seack for — — — 01 06 0 Barre over — — — — — — — 75 19 10 | The sum of £2 8s 0d was brought forward. Further items were listed. Ten [...] nails were valued at £0 5s 10d. Four [...] were valued at £0 3s 4d. Thirty pounds of rope were valued at £0 2s 11d. Two thousand [...] nails at 9d were valued at £0 6s 8d. Two thousand [...] nails at 9d were valued at £0 5s 0d. Twenty-six fishing lines were valued at £1 1s 6d. Four dozen fish hooks were valued at £0 8s 0d. Two balls of pack thread were valued at £0 2s 2d. Two double-spring locks with two staples were valued at £0 4s 8d. Six plates, bolts, and six staples were valued at £0 15s 0d. One pair of garnets was valued at £0 2s [...]. Two window leads were valued at £0 0s 9d. Two kegs of brandy were valued at £1 7s 0d. One pair of shoe buckles was valued at £1 10s 0d. Two pairs of shoes for George and Sam were valued at £0 11s 0d. [...] small shot was valued at £0 3s 0d. Cash entries followed. One dollar was valued at £0 6s 0d. One pound of soap was valued at £0 12s 0d. It was further ordered that several persons were to be entered in the Honourable Company’s account books for work performed and for supplies of yams and cattle delivered to the plantation. These amounts were to be charged as debts against their accounts. [...] Sutton Seack was credited with £1 6s 0d. John Bagley, carpenter, was credited with £0 4s 0d. John Coates, cooper, was credited with £0 9s 0d. James Rider was credited with £3 4s 6d for yams. A subtotal of £75 19s 10d was carried forward. Interpretations The continued listing of nails, rope, locks, and fittings showed ongoing maintenance and construction activity, with materials supplied in bulk and carefully recorded for accountability. The presence of fishing equipment alongside building materials indicated that both subsistence activities and infrastructure were supported through the same central supply system. The inclusion of personal items such as shoes and buckles suggests that individual needs were sometimes met through Company provisioning, reinforcing dependence on central stores. The valuation of a dollar within the accounts demonstrated that foreign coin circulated alongside sterling and was incorporated into the Company’s accounting system at a fixed rate. The recording of labour and supplies as credits later charged as debts reflected a controlled economic structure in which individuals’ contributions and receipts were tracked within a unified accounting framework. Speculations The mixture of personal goods, tools, and food-related equipment suggests that the Company’s stores functioned as the primary source of both essential and supplementary items, probably due to the island’s isolation and limited private trade. The consistent use of account credits and debts indicates an intentional system designed to bind workers and suppliers into an ongoing financial relationship with the Company, ensuring continued participation in its economic structure. | |
174 | Brought over — — — 15 19 George Atkinson for 2 head Cattle — 06 11 01 Sumes totall amounts to ye sume of — 70 19 Likewise It ordered That Capt. Poirier have an accᵗ for ye provisions etc 56 lb Black Wool — — — 07 01 03 Barre over — — — 51 15 4 | The sum of £15 19s 0d was brought forward. Further credits were recorded for cattle supplied. George Atkinson was credited with £6 11s 1d for two head of cattle. James Draper was credited with £12 15s 0d for one. Richard Grisham was credited with £3 6s 0d for one. Sutton Seack was credited with £3 8s 0d for one. Thomas Swallow was credited with £2 4s 8d for one. Richard Gurling was credited with £2 6s 0d for one. Mercy Draper was credited with £2 8s 4d for one. George Elkins was credited with £2 18s 0d for one. James Rider was credited with £3 6s 1d for one. Owen Berrian was credited with £2 18s 0d for one. James Owens was credited with £6 13s 0d for two. John Everles was credited with £2 12s 8d for one. Thomas Goodwin was credited with £3 7s 0d for one, including an additional £1 7s 0d. A further £3 7s 0d was credited to him for three casks at £2 0s 0d. The total of these sums amounted to £70 19s 0d. It was also ordered that Captain Stephen Poirier was to have an account for provisions issued from the Right Honourable Company’s plantation over the previous three months for the use of the fort and the island. These included fifty-six pounds of black wool valued at £7 1s 3d. Ten and a half bushels of potatoes were valued at £1 1s 0d. Thirty-five pounds of butter were valued at £1 8s 4d. Six domestic fowls were valued at £0 6s 0d. Four turkeys were valued at £0 12s 0d. Five and a half goats were valued at £1 13s 0d. Eighty-four cabbages were valued at £1 1s 0d. Four thousand yams were valued at £4 0s 0d. Eighteen measures of goat’s milk were valued at £0 9s 0d. One cow’s milk and related items were valued at £1 0s 0d. Two thousand eight hundred and seventy-five pounds of beef were valued at £25 0s 0d. Thirty-two and three-quarter gallons of arrack were valued at £8 3s 9d. A subtotal of £51 15s 4d was carried forward. Interpretations The detailed listing of cattle supplied by multiple individuals showed that livestock provision was decentralised among settlers but formally integrated into the Company’s accounting system through credited payments. The variation in values for individual animals suggests differences in size, condition, or agreed price, indicating that valuation was not entirely standardised but negotiated or assessed case by case. The inclusion of wool alongside food provisions indicates that plantation output supported both subsistence and material needs, such as clothing or textile production. The issuing of provisions to Captain Poirier for the use of both the fort and the wider island demonstrates the central role of Company plantations in sustaining all aspects of the settlement, from military to civilian. The consistent recording of these provisions as part of an account shows that distribution was carefully monitored and balanced within the Company’s financial framework. Speculations The wide participation of individuals supplying cattle suggests that livestock ownership was relatively distributed, and that the Company relied on local producers to maintain supply rather than holding all stock directly. The scale of provisions issued for fort and island use implies ongoing logistical demand, probably reflecting both the needs of the garrison and the labour force, requiring coordinated supply over extended periods. | |
175 | Brought over — — — 51 15 4 Also it is ordered That the said Capᵗ Poirier have also an Sume Totall amounts to the Sume of — 84 02 10 [...] | The sum of £51 15s 4d was brought forward. It was further ordered that Captain Stephen Poirier was to receive an additional order for one hundred and twenty-nine and a half gallons of arrack issued from the Right Honourable Company’s store at the rate of 5 shillings per gallon, amounting to £32 [...] 6d. The total sum amounted to £84 2s 10d. [...] Interpretations The issuing of a formal order for arrack already distributed showed that consumption of stored goods was retrospectively authorised and entered into the accounts, ensuring that all withdrawals were formally recorded. The use of a fixed rate per gallon demonstrated a standardised valuation system for commodities, allowing consistent accounting across different transactions. The inclusion of large quantities of arrack indicated that it formed a regular and significant part of provisioning, suggesting its role within rationing or controlled distribution systems. Speculations The scale of arrack issued suggests it may have been used not only for consumption but also as a form of controlled ration or incentive, helping to maintain labour discipline and morale within the settlement. The need to formalise such large withdrawals after issue indicates a system where practical distribution sometimes preceded documentation, requiring later reconciliation to maintain accurate financial records. | |
176 | Island St Helena At a Court of Justice Held on Presᵗ Richard Kelinge Governᵣ After the Court was opened according to ye Edward Bagly Senᵣ foreman — — 1 Geo: Addison Marshall Complains of | A court of justice was held on 7 and 8 January 1695 at the Sessions House at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Bowier, Deputy Governor. After the court was opened in the customary manner, those summoned appeared. A jury of twelve men was appointed, with Edward Bagly senior serving as foreman. The jurors were Thomas Goodwin, Edward Damunds, John Feild, John Lufkin, Edward Grayne, John Oliff, Robert Addis, John Goodwin, James Rider, Griffin Villy, and William Helling. George Addison, serving as marshal, brought a complaint against Andrew Bowker, a smith. He alleged that Bowker had declared him to be a rogue and had threatened to act against him. He further claimed that Bowker had accused him of being associated with the rebels who had murdered the late Governor Johnson. Interpretations The formal empanelling of a jury of twelve men showed adherence to English legal practice, ensuring that accusations were judged collectively by peers rather than solely by executive authority. The role of the marshal in bringing the complaint indicates that certain officials were responsible for initiating or presenting cases, reflecting an organised legal structure within the settlement. The accusation of being connected with those responsible for Governor Johnson’s death shows that political loyalty and past disturbances remained sensitive issues, with such claims carrying serious implications for reputation and security. The use of spoken defamation as grounds for complaint demonstrates that verbal accusations could be treated as actionable offences, particularly when they involved allegations of disloyalty or criminal association. Speculations The seriousness of the accusation suggests that tensions following the death of Governor Johnson persisted, and that claims of association with rebels were potentially used as tools in personal or local disputes. The decision to bring the matter before a formal court indicates an effort to manage such conflicts through established legal channels, possibly to prevent escalation into disorder or retaliation. | |
177 | Andᵣᵉ: Bowker Confesseth yt he did say Here the Jury was sworne Tho: Gargon being sworne saith that some time | Andrew Bowker admitted that he had called Atkinson a rogue and had said he would prove it. He stated that he believed he would be able to do so. He did not deny the further accusation that Atkinson had been involved with Jackson and others in a conspiracy, and requested that Thomas Gargon be sworn as a witness. The jury was then sworn. Thomas Gargon, upon oath, stated that some time before the arrival of the ship Francis and Mary, after the first alarm when Captain Price and others had been carried off, a man known as Jacky Frogg, one of those associated with Jackson, had informed him of an intended design involving Jackson, Gargon, and others of the garrison. Frogg had said that they were to combine in a conspiracy, though he did not name all those involved. He further spoke of a plan to seize a ship if it arrived and to escape with it. Frogg expressed hostility towards Atkinson and proposed that Atkinson should be taken along and made their paymaster as a means of troubling him. Gargon stated that Frogg had pressed him to join their number, but he had not agreed and instead said he would consider the matter until the ship arrived. Reflecting on the danger that Atkinson might face if such a plan were carried out, Gargon privately informed Atkinson of what he had heard and urged him to keep it secret. On the day the alarm was raised and Captain Price brought in the ship, Gargon reported the matter to Governor Johnson. The Governor treated it lightly but instructed Gargon to associate with the conspirators to learn more of their intentions. Gargon attempted to do so and, on Easter Eve, asked Frogg whether they intended to proceed. Frogg replied that they were to meet the following day at Jackson’s house in the countryside to decide whether to go forward. Frogg asked Gargon to attend, but he declined and instead arranged to meet him later that evening to learn the outcome. On that evening [...] Interpretations The acceptance of sworn testimony from Gargon showed the reliance on witness evidence to establish the truth of serious accusations, particularly where written proof was absent. The reference to a planned seizure of a ship indicated that control of maritime movement was a critical security concern, with any attempt to escape or rebel by sea treated as a grave threat to the settlement. The involvement of members of the garrison in the alleged conspiracy demonstrated the vulnerability of the island’s defence structure, where those tasked with security could also pose internal risks. The instruction given by Governor Johnson for Gargon to associate with the conspirators suggests the use of informal intelligence-gathering methods, relying on individuals to infiltrate or observe suspected plots. The emphasis on secrecy, both in Gargon’s warning to Atkinson and in the conspirators’ planning, showed that information control was central to both the alleged plot and its detection. Speculations The Governor’s initial dismissal of the report, followed by encouragement to gather further information, suggests that he may have doubted the immediacy of the threat but still considered it serious enough to warrant discreet investigation. The portrayal of Atkinson as a potential target within the conspiracy, rather than a participant, implies that accusations against him may have been shaped by personal hostility, which Bowker later used to support his claims. | |
178 | Evening of Easterday he met Frogg att ye Morris’s House who George Atkinson Replys yt he discovered nothing to Further saith that he was so farr from being Confederates Bowker alledges that it was through [...] | Later on Easter Day in the evening, Thomas Gargon met Jacky Frogg at Morris’s house. Frogg told him that the design had been abandoned. He said that George Atkinson had quarrelled at Jackson’s house and had threatened to hang him, which led them to believe that their plan had been discovered. As a result, they had entirely given it up. Gargon added that although he had attempted afterwards to learn more, he could discover nothing further. He stated that he no longer trusted Atkinson and regarded him as deceitful. He also expressed the belief that, had it not been for Atkinson, Governor Johnson might not have been killed, since earlier disclosure might have exposed the full extent of the conspiracy and perhaps prevented it. George Atkinson replied that he had revealed nothing to the conspirators beyond what their own consciences already suggested. He stated that while dining at Jackson’s house, Frogg had insulted him so severely that they had fought. They then challenged each other to fight again the following day. He said that his only statement to Frogg had been that Frogg would be hanged before achieving his aim. Atkinson further declared that he had not been involved in any conspiracy. On the day the ships arrived, he had asked Thomas Gargon whether he had informed the Governor of what he knew, telling him that if he had not done so, he himself would report it. Gargon assured him that he had already informed Governor Johnson, and as proof stated that the Governor had just sent him a cane by his son Caleb. Andrew Bowker then alleged that it was through [...] Interpretations The detailed recounting of conversations and quarrels showed that witness testimony relied heavily on personal memory and verbal exchange, forming the primary evidence in disputes of this kind. The accusation that prior knowledge might have prevented Governor Johnson’s death reflected the serious consequences attached to withholding or delaying information about threats, indicating an expectation of active reporting within the settlement. The emphasis on whether Atkinson had disclosed information to the Governor highlighted the importance of loyalty and communication with authority, especially in matters concerning security. The role of interpersonal conflict, such as the fight between Atkinson and Frogg, demonstrated how personal disputes could become entangled with wider accusations of conspiracy and disloyalty. Speculations The suggestion that Atkinson’s actions may have contributed to the failure to prevent the conspiracy indicates an attempt to assign responsibility after the fact, possibly reflecting tensions or rivalries within the community. The escalation from a personal quarrel to accusations of involvement in rebellion suggests that existing grievances may have been used to support broader claims, turning private conflict into a matter of public and legal concern. | |
179 | Gargon words that he Called the said George The said George Hoskinson further The said Booker Denys that he owes Whereupon the said George Hoskinson Then the Jury withdrew and after | Andrew Bowker maintained that he had called George Hoskinson a rogue and stated that he believed he had sufficient grounds for doing so. George Hoskinson also complained that Bowker owed him the sum of £0 14s 9d, which he refused to pay. Bowker denied that he owed anything. Hoskinson then gave sworn evidence that Bowker did owe him £0 14s 9d for arrack and coals. The jury withdrew to consider the matter and, after some time, returned their verdict. Bowker was ordered to pay damages of £2 0s 0d, in addition to the debt of £0 14s 9d, making a total of £2 14s 9d, together with the costs of suit [...] Interpretations The admission by Bowker that he had made the defamatory statement, combined with the jury’s award of damages, showed that verbal accusations could give rise to financial penalties when judged unjustified or harmful. The separation of damages from the underlying debt demonstrated that the court treated defamation and financial obligation as distinct issues, each requiring resolution within the same proceeding. The reliance on sworn testimony to establish the existence of a debt indicated that personal oath remained a central form of proof in financial disputes. The award of costs of suit showed that the losing party bore the expense of the legal process, reinforcing the financial consequences of unsuccessful defence. Speculations The combination of a personal dispute over debt with accusations of disloyalty suggests that financial disagreements may have contributed to the escalation of hostility between the parties. The imposition of both damages and repayment indicates that the court sought to resolve the conflict comprehensively, discouraging further dispute by addressing both reputation and material grievance in a single judgment. | |
180 | In the Councell held the 2ᵈ day of Aprill 1688 Thomas Accordingly the said Ellison made applica- Richᵈ Parrum denyes the action alleadging yt | In a council held on 2 April 1688, Thomas Ellison, acting under a letter of attorney received from C[...] of London, a tailor who styled himself administrator to the estate of a deceased person, had begun a suit against Richard Parrum of St Helena, planter. Parrum was said to be indebted to the deceased in the sum of £47 0s 0d, as shown by two bonds under his hand and seal, one for £25 0s 0d and the other for £22 0s 0d. However, Ellison had been unable to produce a copy of the letters of administration and the case had therefore been suspended until fuller authority could be demonstrated. Ellison had written to C[...] requesting a copy of the letters of administration. In reply, C[...] wrote to Margaret [...], wife of Thomas Ellison, by the ship Amity, commanded by Captain James [...], which arrived on 29 July 1694. In that letter it was stated that no effects had been left in England to administer, the bonds being already in her custody. She was therefore urged to use her utmost efforts to recover the money owed by Parrum for the benefit of the poor orphans of John [...], who were under the care of C[...] in England. Margaret Ellison then applied for proceedings to be resumed so that the debt might be established and administration undertaken for the benefit of the orphans. This was granted, and she appointed John Vernon as her attorney to pursue the suit on their behalf against Parrum. Accordingly, Parrum was arrested at the suit of Vernon on behalf of the orphans for the sum of £47 0s 0d. Richard Parrum denied the claim, asserting that he had already paid most of the debt to Roe before leaving the island, amounting to £37 0s 0d. [...] Interpretations The requirement to produce letters of administration showed that legal authority to act on behalf of a deceased person’s estate depended on formal documentation, without which a claim could not proceed. The use of bonds under seal as evidence demonstrated the reliance on written financial instruments to establish debt, providing legally recognised proof of obligation. The continuation of the case on behalf of orphans indicated that the court recognised claims pursued for dependants, ensuring that debts owed to an estate could be recovered for their benefit. The appointment of an attorney to act in the case showed that individuals could delegate legal representation, allowing proceedings to continue even when the principal parties were absent. The arrest of Parrum upon initiation of the suit reflected a system in which debt recovery could involve coercive legal measures, including detention, to secure repayment or compel response. Speculations The delay in producing proper documentation suggests the difficulties of managing legal affairs across long distances, particularly between St Helena and England, where communication depended on infrequent ships. The renewed effort to recover the debt on behalf of the orphans implies a concern to secure funds for their maintenance, indicating that such cases could involve both financial and moral pressure to ensure recovery. | |
181 | Accordingly produced a Bill of Goods which the said Samuᵉ Taylor being sworne saith yt he heard Katherine the wife of the said Samuᵉ Taylor The aforesᵈ Mr Vernon desired on Behalfe The Court demanded of the said Parrum the | Richard Parrum produced a bill of goods showing what John Rowe had received from him. In one item, Rowe had charged £10 0s 0d for goods which, according to their agreement, had been exchanged without value or price. Samuel Taylor, upon oath, stated that he had heard Mr [...] say that he had written a bond between John Rowe and Richard Parrum shortly before Rowe departed from St Helena. He also stated that at the time of Rowe’s departure, he had heard that Parrum had received thirty or four head of cattle from Rowe, for which Parrum had given a bond, executed either on board ship or on the day Rowe embarked to leave the island. Katherine, wife of Samuel Taylor, also gave sworn evidence. She stated that Rowe had sent for her former husband to write a bond between himself and Parrum. After returning home, her husband told her that Rowe had sold his land, houses, plantation, and provisions to Parrum, and that Parrum had given a bond for payment to be made in England by Parrum’s brother. She stated that she did not know the contents of the bond itself. John Vernon, acting on behalf of the orphans, requested that the court require Parrum to produce the deeds given to him by Rowe for the land and associated property. The court then demanded that Parrum produce these deeds. He was at first unwilling to do so, but after being pressed, he [...] Interpretations The production of a bill of goods as evidence showed that written accounts could be used to challenge or clarify the terms of financial agreements, especially where disputes arose over valuation. The references to bonds executed at the point of departure demonstrated how obligations were formalised at moments of transition, particularly when one party was leaving the island and required assurance of payment elsewhere. The testimony that payment was to be made in England by a third party showed the use of extended credit arrangements across geographical distance, linking local transactions to metropolitan settlement. The court’s demand for deeds indicated that documentary proof of land transfer was essential in determining ownership and validating associated financial obligations. The initial reluctance to produce deeds suggests that possession of documents could influence the outcome of a case, making control over written evidence a significant factor in legal disputes. Speculations The discrepancy between the agreed exchange and the charged value in the bill of goods suggests a possible attempt to inflate the debt, indicating that financial records could be manipulated or contested after the fact. The reliance on testimony about agreements made at the time of departure implies that formal documentation may have been incomplete or ambiguous, leading to disputes that required reconstruction through witness accounts. | |
182 | Then the Deeds delivered them to the Court wherein appears Richᵈ Griffen who came from England Tho: Allison being sworne saith yt he has | Richard Parrum then produced the deeds and delivered them to the court. From these it appeared that he had agreed to give John Rowe ten acres of land and £25 0s 0d for the property in question. This sum had been ordered to be paid in England by Parrum’s brother. According to the attorney acting for the Ellisons, this payment had never been made, and he stated that proof would shortly be given. Richard Griffen was then called and sworn. He stated that he had come from England seven years earlier, at the same time the bonds had been sent. While in England, he had visited a relative of John Rowe, who showed him a young woman said to be Rowe’s daughter. This relative then asked Griffen to accompany him to visit Parrum’s brother in order to request payment of money that Parrum had directed him to pay. They went together to Parrum’s brother, who kept a music house. Upon their arrival, he began to play music, but Rowe’s relative told him that they had not come for that purpose, but to demand money owed by his brother in St Helena to the orphans of John Rowe. Parrum’s brother withdrew to another room and, after some time, returned. Griffen and the relative then departed. On their way home, the relative stated that Parrum’s brother would not pay any money on what he described as a trivial claim. Thomas Allison was then sworn and stated that he had seen and held the bonds sent from England by C[...]. He further stated that these bonds had been stolen from him, together with other papers and a sum of money. [...] Interpretations The production of deeds in court demonstrated the central role of written property agreements in determining both land ownership and associated financial obligations. The requirement that payment be made in England by a third party showed the reliance on extended credit arrangements across long distances, linking transactions on St Helena to financial settlement in England. The refusal of Parrum’s brother to pay illustrates the limits of enforcement when obligations depended on individuals outside the island’s jurisdiction, weakening the practical effect of such agreements. The testimony regarding stolen bonds highlights the vulnerability of legal claims when documentary evidence was lost, as possession of original documents was critical to proving debt. The use of witness testimony to reconstruct events in England shows how courts relied on indirect evidence when direct enforcement or documentation was unavailable. Speculations The refusal to pay by Parrum’s brother suggests that obligations made on the island were not always respected in England, possibly due to disputes over legitimacy or lack of enforceable authority across jurisdictions. The reported theft of the bonds may have significantly weakened the claim, and its mention in court suggests an attempt to explain the absence of key evidence while preserving the credibility of the debt. | |
183 | And that the Contents of one of the Bonds was 25 The Jury asked the said Allison if he saw any The said Allison replyed yt he was certaine yt Henry Coles being sworne saith yt he never Then the Jury withdrew and stayed abᵗ 1/2 John Nichols Complains of Tho: Fr[...][... ] | Thomas Allison stated that one of the bonds was for £25 0s 0d and the other for £22 0s 0d. He further declared that, when his wife had brought a suit some seven years earlier on the day of the sessions, Richard Parrum had come to his house and asked to see the bonds. They were shown to him, and he then said that the sum of £25 0s 0d had been paid and that he would settle the remaining £22 0s 0d without going into court. Allison refused this offer and insisted that the whole matter should proceed to trial. The jury asked Allison whether he had seen any endorsement written on the back of the bonds. He replied that he was certain there had been none, as he had kept them for a considerable time and had examined them on several occasions. Henry Coles, upon oath, stated that he had not seen the bonds given by Parrum to John Rowe, but had heard that Parrum had given a bond before Rowe left St Helena for the purchase of his land and property, to be paid in England. He also stated that, on the very day Rowe departed, another bond had been given, although he did not know the amounts involved. The jury withdrew for about half an hour and, upon their return, delivered their verdict. They found that Parrum was indebted to the orphans in the full sum of £47 0s 0d, which he was ordered to pay together with the costs of court. A further case was then introduced, in which John Nichols brought a complaint against Thomas Fr[...] in an action of debt amounting to £1 3s 4d. Interpretations The absence of any endorsement on the bonds indicated that no partial payment had been formally recorded, strengthening the claim that the full debt remained due despite Parrum’s assertion that part had been settled. The refusal by Allison to accept partial payment outside court demonstrated the importance placed on formal adjudication, ensuring that the full claim was legally recognised rather than privately compromised. The reliance on witness testimony to confirm the existence and terms of the bonds showed how courts compensated for missing or disputed documents by reconstructing agreements through sworn evidence. The jury’s decision to award the full amount of £47 0s 0d reflected a preference for documentary obligation over unverified claims of payment, reinforcing the authority of written bonds within the legal system. The addition of court costs to the judgment indicated that unsuccessful defendants bore not only the debt but also the expense of legal proceedings. Speculations The insistence on pursuing the full amount rather than accepting partial settlement suggests a concern that informal agreements could undermine enforceability, leading parties to prefer formal judgment as a secure basis for recovery. The jury’s decision to uphold the entire debt may reflect doubt about Parrum’s claim of prior payment, particularly in the absence of written endorsement, suggesting that unrecorded transactions were treated with suspicion. | |
184 | The said Fr[...]dale acknowledges the debt and promises The Govᵣ and Councell having heard yt Katherine Sutton Isaacks Planter Complaines of Tho: Tho: Allison saith that what he have spo- Viz That many years since he had bin on board of | Thomas Fr[...]dale acknowledged the debt and promised to pay John Nichols the sum of £12 0s 0d by the first ship arriving at the island, with the remaining £22 0s 0d to be paid three months later. The Governor and Council, having heard that Katherine [...] frequently visited the house of the said Fr[...]dale, and that both had previously been warned against meeting at night, again publicly forbade them from visiting one another at night under any pretext. Their conduct was judged to be of ill repute and scandalous to the Christian religion. Sutton Isaacks, planter, then brought a complaint against Thomas Allison, planter, in an action of defamation. He alleged that Allison had recently claimed that, some years earlier, he had attempted to debauch Isaacks’s wife. Thomas Allison responded that he would, with permission, explain what he had said. He stated that many years earlier he had been aboard a ship lying in the road and had purchased £2 0s 0d worth of tamarinds. After coming ashore, he went to the house of Smargery Piercks to drink punch. During this time, Sutton Isaacks and his wife came in to buy some of the tamarinds from him. He was initially unwilling to sell them, but after repeated persuasion by Isaacks’s wife, who took him by the hand, he went with them to their house. As he was leaving, having been somewhat affected by drink from his time aboard ship, he asked Isaacks whether he would trust his wife alone with him, for he was [...] Interpretations The acceptance of a staged payment schedule for debt showed that the court could permit deferred settlement, adapting enforcement to practical circumstances such as the arrival of ships. The prohibition on night-time visits between Katherine [...] and Fr[...]dale demonstrated the Council’s role in regulating moral conduct, extending authority beyond legal disputes into the supervision of social behaviour. The classification of such behaviour as scandalous to the Christian religion indicates that moral and religious standards were formally enforced as part of governance. The action for defamation shows that accusations concerning sexual misconduct were treated seriously, as they affected both personal reputation and social standing within the community. The inclusion of detailed personal conduct in testimony reflects how courts examined behaviour in context, allowing narrative accounts to shape judgments about character and credibility. Speculations The repeated warning against night-time meetings suggests that earlier instructions had been ignored, prompting the Council to reinforce its authority with a more explicit and public prohibition. The escalation of a past personal interaction into a formal defamation case indicates that reputational disputes could arise from ambiguous or socially sensitive encounters, especially when influenced by alcohol and differing interpretations of behaviour. | |
185 | [...]solved to trye her as much as in him lay to which Richard Harding being sworne saith yt not | Thomas Allison continued his account. He stated that he had resolved to test Isaacks’s wife as far as he was able. Sutton Isaacks replied that if he could obtain her consent, he would also have his. They then went to Allison’s house, where he attempted to persuade her to engage in improper conduct, but she refused. He stated that while he was urging her, she warned that if he did not leave her alone she would cry out. Seeing that he could achieve nothing, he opened the door and allowed her to leave after giving her the tamarinds. He added that he later told Isaacks that his wife was an honest woman, as he had tested her as far as he could but had been unable to induce any improper behaviour. He maintained that he had not spoken anything defamatory and now sought satisfaction. Richard Harding, upon oath, stated that not long before, he had been at Allison’s house with others who wished to make a bowl of punch and asked Allison for tamarinds. Allison then said that he would explain the full circumstances relating to them. He recounted that some years earlier he had bought tamarinds aboard a ship and, after coming ashore, Sutton Isaacks’s wife had sought to purchase some. She had come with her husband to request them. As Allison was about to give her the tamarinds, he asked Isaacks whether he would trust his wife alone with him. Isaacks replied that he would, and added that if Allison could obtain her consent, he would also give his. They then went to Allison’s house in Chappell Valley, where Allison began to entice her to lie with him and offered her [...] Interpretations The detailed recounting of the incident shows that courts relied heavily on narrative testimony, allowing witnesses to repeat earlier statements in full to assess consistency and intent. The defence rested on the claim that the conduct had been framed as a “test” rather than an act of misconduct, illustrating how intention and interpretation could shape whether speech was judged defamatory. The emphasis on the woman’s refusal and her warning to cry out highlights the importance placed on consent and reputation, with her resistance forming a central element in defending her character. The repetition of the story in a social setting, as described by Harding, indicates that statements made informally could later be treated as public assertions, giving rise to legal action for defamation. Speculations The framing of the incident as a deliberate test suggests an attempt by Allison to justify behaviour that might otherwise be viewed as improper, using the outcome to defend against accusations of defamation. The spread of the story through social gatherings, such as drinking at a house, indicates how private incidents could become widely known, increasing the likelihood of dispute and formal complaint. | |
186 | [...] much but hearing or seeing some body speaking in John Memon being sworne saith yt Then the Jury withdrew & stayed some Time & That the said Allison be Guilty in Manner and forme Elizabeth Suffolk Complains of Thoʳ The said Thoʳ Harper owneing the Debt and saith John Worrell and John Hemer being sworne | Further testimony was given. It was stated that Allison had continued his attempts, but stopped when he heard or saw someone speaking from Mr Foster’s house. He added that, had this interruption not occurred, he believed he might have obtained her consent. John Memon, upon oath, stated that many years earlier he had been at Mr Foster’s house speaking with Mr Stewart, now deceased. They heard a disturbance from Allison’s room and looked in. He said that he saw Allison attempting to force Isaacks’s wife to lie with him, but she refused and warned that she would cry out if he did not leave her alone. She reproached him, saying that he had a wife of his own. He responded with abusive language and urged her again, but she refused and both departed. The jury withdrew for some time and, upon returning, gave their verdict. They found Thomas Allison guilty in the manner charged and ordered that he clear Sutton Isaacks of the matter concerning the tamarinds. Elizabeth Suffolk then brought a complaint against Thomas Harper in an action of debt amounting to £4 7s 8d. Thomas Harper acknowledged the debt and stated that he had agreed to pay it at Christmas. He further said that, when the case was entered before the jury, he went to Elizabeth Suffolk’s house and tendered the sum, but she refused to accept it. John Worrell and John Hemer were sworn and stated that they had both been present as witnesses when the agreement was made. They confirmed that Harper had promised to pay Suffolk between the time of the agreement and Christmas, in the amount of £4 7s [...]. Interpretations The jury’s finding of guilt shows that repeated witness testimony, particularly where it corroborated attempts at coercion, was sufficient to establish defamation and misconduct. The requirement that Allison clear Isaacks of the allegation indicates that the court sought not only to punish the offender but also to restore the injured party’s reputation. The acknowledgment of debt by Harper demonstrates that disputes could proceed even where liability was admitted, particularly when disagreement arose over the timing or acceptance of payment. The refusal by Suffolk to accept tendered payment highlights that fulfilment of a debt required compliance with agreed terms, including timing, and that late or disputed payment could still be contested in court. The use of sworn witnesses to confirm the terms of an agreement shows the continued reliance on personal testimony to establish contractual obligations in the absence of formal written contracts. Speculations The emphasis on restoring Isaacks’s reputation suggests that public perception within the community was a significant concern, and that legal rulings were used to repair social standing as well as resolve disputes. The dispute over payment timing implies that creditors may have used court proceedings to enforce stricter compliance or to secure additional leverage, even where the debtor had attempted to settle the amount. | |
187 | [...] The Jury Do their verdict That yᵉ said Harper Tho: Harper Complains of yᵉ said Eliz Suffolk The said Eliz Suffolk denies yᵉ action John Clare and his wife being sworne saith Jefᶠ Dixon & Charles Steward being sworne Mary the wife of Tho: Dixon being sworne | The jury returned their verdict that Thomas Harper was to bear the costs of the suit and pay to Elizabeth Suffolk the sum of £4 7s 8d. Thomas Harper then brought a complaint against Elizabeth Suffolk in an action of defamation. He alleged that she had reported that his wife had behaved in a scandalous manner, stating that she had been delivered of a bastard child on board a ship and shortly afterwards had lain with a quartermaster. Elizabeth Suffolk denied the accusation. John Clare and his wife, upon oath, stated that they had heard Harper and Suffolk quarrelling. During the dispute, Harper’s wife had called Suffolk a foul beast, to which Suffolk replied that she was not so foul a beast as her, having been brought to bed of a bastard on board a ship and shortly afterwards lying with a quartermaster. Jeff Dixon and Charles Steward, upon oath, confirmed the same account. Mary, wife of Thomas Dixon, also gave sworn evidence. She stated that after the quarrel, Mrs Osborne came to her house and repeated the same words. Shortly afterwards, Elizabeth Suffolk came there, and this witness challenged her as to why she had spoken so abusively to Mrs Harper. Suffolk replied that she had not said those words exactly, but maintained that she had said that Mrs Harper had not allowed a quartermaster to lie with her two hours after being delivered of a bastard on board the ship. Interpretations The sequence of mutual accusations shows that defamation cases could arise directly from verbal quarrels, with insults exchanged in the heat of dispute forming the basis of legal action. The reliance on multiple witnesses repeating the same words demonstrates the importance of corroboration in establishing what had been said, particularly where no written record existed. The distinction made by Suffolk in her defence indicates that subtle differences in wording could be significant, as parties attempted to limit or reinterpret statements to avoid liability. The court’s willingness to hear a counter-complaint immediately after a debt case shows that multiple disputes between the same parties could be addressed in succession within a single session. Speculations The escalation from a financial dispute into mutual accusations of moral misconduct suggests that underlying tensions between the parties extended beyond the immediate issue of debt, reflecting broader personal conflict. The detailed repetition of the alleged words indicates that reputation within the community was highly sensitive, and that even slight variations in phrasing could be contested in an effort to protect or damage social standing. | |
188 | The Jury withdrew and after they had stayed some That the said Suffolk be Cast in Suite & Margt Harper spinster Complains of Elizᵗʰ The Elizᵗʰ Suffolk and Mary Gate Denys the sd Ann Orchard being sworne saith yt Sarah Curling being sworne saith ye same Wᵐ Marsh being sworne saith yt he heard Elizᵗʰ | The jury withdrew and, after some time, returned their verdict. They found that Elizabeth Suffolk was to be cast in the suit, to pay the costs, and to pay £0 12s 0d in damages to Thomas Harper. Margaret Harper, spinster, then brought a complaint against Elizabeth Suffolk and Mary Gate. She alleged that they had reported that she had miscarried and that she had been six months pregnant and had concealed or disposed of the child. Elizabeth Suffolk and Mary Gate denied the accusation. Ann Orchard, upon oath, stated that Mary Gate had asked her whether she had heard of Allison in the valley who had miscarried. When she asked which Allison was meant, Gate replied that Margaret Harper had miscarried of a bastard. When Orchard asked how she knew, Gate said she had heard it from Bayly. Orchard further stated that, when passing Suffolk’s house, she overheard Suffolk speaking while Margaret Harper or her daughter entered. Suffolk then called Orchard aside and asked her not to repeat what she had heard from her daughter, saying that as they had been companions she should not bring her into trouble. Sarah Curling, upon oath, confirmed the same account as Orchard. William Marsh, upon oath, stated that he had heard Elizabeth Suffolk ask someone, whose identity he could not recall, whether they had heard of an Allison who had miscarried. The reply had been that no such person was known in the valley, to which [...] Interpretations The finding against Suffolk in the previous case showed that the court imposed modest financial penalties for defamatory speech, combining compensation with liability for legal costs. The new complaint illustrates that allegations concerning pregnancy, miscarriage, and illegitimacy were treated as serious matters of reputation, particularly for unmarried women, and could form the basis of formal legal action. The testimony shows how rumours circulated within the community, often repeated from one person to another, with courts relying on tracing these chains of communication to determine responsibility. The request by Suffolk that Orchard remain silent indicates awareness of the potential legal consequences of such statements, demonstrating how individuals attempted to manage the spread of damaging information. The repeated confirmation of testimony by multiple witnesses highlights the importance of corroboration in establishing the content and circulation of alleged defamatory statements. Speculations The recurrence of defamation cases involving similar themes suggests a community in which reputation was closely scrutinised, and where personal disputes could quickly develop into public accusations requiring legal resolution. The attempt to suppress further discussion implies that once rumours began to circulate, they were difficult to contain, prompting individuals to intervene informally before matters escalated to formal complaint. | |
189 | Elizᵗʰ Suffolk made Answer yt it was a young Maide yt had Tho: Harper the said Margᵗ Harpers father Margery Birch being sworne saith yt she The Jury after they stayed some time out That the said Suffolks and her Daughter It is ordered by the Court Therefore It is ordered | Elizabeth Suffolk replied that she had been referring to a young woman who had miscarried, describing her as someone who had gone on board a ship with money in her apron to buy tamarinds. Thomas Harper, father of Margaret Harper, and Mary Easthope, her sister, stated that Margaret Harper had indeed gone aboard ship when the last four vessels were at the island and had purchased tamarinds for her father. Margery Birch, upon oath, stated that she had once been in company with Elizabeth Suffolk, who asked whether she had heard of a miscarriage, mentioning that there was a young woman living in a garrison house who had been two months pregnant. Suffolk added that it was a bad thing for a young woman to be with child, but worse to dispose of it after being so far advanced. The jury withdrew and, after some time, returned a written verdict. They found that Elizabeth Suffolk and her daughter Mary Gates were to be cast in the suit and were to pay £5 0s 0d in damages to Margaret Harper, together with court costs, and were to receive such further punishment as the court considered appropriate. It was then ordered by the court that Elizabeth Suffolk and Mary Gates were to receive fifteen lashes each on their naked bodies immediately in open court. However, in consideration of their extreme poverty and youth, the fine of £2 10s 0d due to the Lords Proprietors for such offences was to be remitted, as they had no means to pay. As the punishment was about to be carried out, Elizabeth Suffolk declared that she was with child. It was therefore ordered that [...] Interpretations The distinction made by Suffolk in her defence shows how individuals attempted to redirect or generalise statements to avoid direct accusation, though the court still treated the remarks as damaging when linked to a specific person. The confirmation that Margaret Harper had gone aboard ship for legitimate purposes demonstrates how ordinary actions could be reinterpreted within rumours, forming the basis of reputational harm. The jury’s written verdict and the imposition of both financial damages and corporal punishment show that defamation was treated as both a civil and moral offence, with penalties addressing compensation and public discipline. The remission of the fine due to poverty indicates that the court could adjust penalties according to a defendant’s ability to pay, balancing enforcement with practical considerations. The order for public whipping underscores the role of punishment as a visible deterrent, reinforcing social norms and authority within the community. Speculations The severity of the punishment, combining whipping with damages, suggests that the court sought to suppress the spread of damaging rumours, particularly those affecting the reputation of unmarried women. The plea of pregnancy at the moment of punishment indicates an attempt to delay or mitigate corporal punishment, reflecting awareness of legal or customary protections afforded to pregnant women. | |
190 | That her Punishment be respited untill she But That yᵉ sd Mary Gate Receives Robᵗ Exeter Complains of Wᵐ The said Marsh Denys the action Thoᵐ Allis being sworne saith yt he being The wife of Thoᵐ Allys being sworne saith yt she Margery Birch sworne saith yt on yᵉ 5ᵗʰ day | It was ordered that Elizabeth Suffolk’s punishment was to be delayed until she had been delivered of her child, or until it had been determined whether she was indeed with child. Mary Gate, however, was to receive her punishment as previously ordered, which was carried out accordingly. Robert Exeter then brought a complaint against William Marsh in an action of assault and battery. Marsh denied the accusation. Thomas Allis, upon oath, stated that he had been at the house of Sutton Isaacks, where many people had been invited. Margery Birch asked him to intervene, as a fight had broken out involving Robert Exeter. He immediately went to separate them. The wife of Thomas Allis, also sworn, stated that she had been present at Isaacks’s house but had not witnessed the quarrel between Marsh and Exeter. She had heard afterwards that Exeter had been badly treated by Marsh, though she disputed aspects of what was said and suggested that Exeter had already spent what he had and was then met with further abuse. Margery Birch, upon oath, stated that on 5 June last, when Robert Exeter arrived at Isaacks’s house after she had already been invited there, he remarked that there was much company gathered to make merry, with several slaves dancing. Upon these words, William Marsh struck Exeter on the face. Birch then asked Thomas Allis to come and separate them, which he did. When she returned, she saw Exeter on the ground with Marsh over him. She further stated that while Allis was attempting to calm the situation, Marsh reached over him and struck Exeter again on the face. Interpretations The postponement of punishment due to a claim of pregnancy shows that the court recognised certain conditions that could delay corporal punishment, reflecting established legal or customary protections. The immediate execution of punishment on Mary Gate demonstrates that penalties were enforced without delay where no mitigating circumstance applied, reinforcing the authority of the court. The reliance on multiple witnesses in the assault case illustrates the importance of eyewitness testimony in establishing the sequence of events in physical altercations. The setting of the incident at a social gathering, involving both invited guests and slaves, indicates that disputes often arose in communal environments where different social groups interacted. The intervention by bystanders, such as Thomas Allis, shows that individuals were expected to assist in restoring order, and their actions could become part of the evidentiary record. Speculations The escalation from a casual remark to physical violence suggests that tensions at such gatherings could quickly intensify, possibly influenced by alcohol or underlying disputes. The persistence of the assault even after intervention implies that authority among participants was informal and limited, requiring later recourse to the court to resolve the matter. | |
191 | James Draper being Sworne Saith yt he was Then the Jury withdrew and Stayed Some That Wᵐ Marsh is Cast in Suite & It is ordered by yᵉ Court Wᵐ Marsh Complains of Robᵗ Exeter in The said Exeter Denys yᵉ Accusation Mary Foster being Sworne saith yt some Time | James Draper, upon oath, stated that on 5 November he had been distilling arrack for Thomas Allis. On that day, Allis came down from Sutton Isaacks’s house and asked whether he had any arrack, to which Draper replied that he had none. Allis then asked why Draper had not attended at Isaacks’s house, to which Draper answered that he had been unwell. Allis told him that there had been a violent quarrel there between Robert Exeter, William Marsh, and Richard Parrum, and that, had he not intervened, he believed they would have killed Exeter. The jury withdrew and, after some time, returned their verdict. They found that William Marsh was to be cast in the suit, to pay the costs, and to pay damages of four dollars to Robert Exeter. It was further ordered by the court that Marsh was to be fined one dollar to the use of the Honourable Company for breach of the peace. William Marsh then brought a complaint against Robert Exeter in an action of slander. He alleged that Exeter had reported that a slave belonging to Richard Parrum had lain with his daughter, and that Exeter had also claimed that Marsh had attempted to ravish his daughter some eighteen months earlier. Robert Exeter denied the accusation. Mary Foster, upon oath, stated that some time earlier she had lodged at Exeter’s house with his permission. One night, Mary, the daughter of William Marsh, slept with her. During the night, a slave belonging to Richard Parrum came and asked for Robert Exeter to come to work. Interpretations The verdict against Marsh shows that physical violence was penalised through both compensation to the injured party and a fine to the Company, reflecting a dual concern for private harm and public order. The use of dollars alongside sterling indicates that multiple currencies circulated within the settlement and were accepted in legal judgments. The continuation of disputes between the same individuals demonstrates how conflicts could extend across multiple cases, with parties bringing successive claims of assault and slander. The allegation involving a slave highlights how accusations concerning sexual conduct could involve enslaved individuals, reflecting their presence within both domestic and social spaces. The reliance on witness testimony to recount events occurring at night and within private houses shows the court’s dependence on personal accounts to establish facts in the absence of formal records. Speculations The escalation from an assault case to a slander claim suggests that legal action was used strategically by opposing parties, possibly as a means of retaliation or to defend personal reputation. The involvement of a slave in the allegation may have intensified the seriousness of the claim, as such accusations could carry strong social and moral implications within the community. | |
192 | The next Day All his master house, who was not at Elizabeth the wife of Sutton Isaack Sworne The Jury withdrew & when they returned they That Robᵗ Exeter be Cast in sute and pay Charge It is ordered by yᵉ Bench | Mary Foster continued her testimony. She stated that on the following day she went to her master’s house, where he was not present. While the slave remained there, he took some cheese from his pocket, and she asked him for some. He gave it to her, and she shared part of it with Mary Marsh. She further stated that on another occasion, when she and Mary Marsh were in bed together, Robert Exeter entered the room and attempted to come into bed with them. She said that he would have behaved very improperly towards Mary Marsh had she not prevented him, and that he put his hand into the bed towards her. Elizabeth, wife of Sutton Isaack, upon oath, stated that she had heard Exeter say that the slave of Richard Parrum had lain with Mary Marsh. She further stated that, while walking with Exeter and speaking about this matter, he told her that he himself had lain with Mary Marsh, indicating the place by a group of banana trees. The jury withdrew and, upon their return, delivered their verdict. They found that Robert Exeter was to be cast in the suit, to pay the costs, and to pay damages of five dollars to William Marsh, together with such further punishment as the bench considered appropriate. It was then ordered by the bench that Exeter was to be fined two dollars to the use of the Honourable Company and to receive eleven lashes on his naked body immediately. Interpretations The testimony concerning Exeter’s alleged behaviour shows that accusations of sexual misconduct were supported through detailed witness accounts, often describing specific actions and circumstances. The combination of damages, fines, and corporal punishment demonstrates that slander involving serious moral accusations attracted both compensatory and punitive responses from the court. The inclusion of statements attributed directly to Exeter indicates that self-incriminating remarks, as reported by witnesses, could be used to establish liability in defamation cases. The reference to a slave in the accusation highlights how allegations involving enslaved individuals could intensify the perceived severity of misconduct, particularly when connected to issues of honour and family reputation. Speculations The severity of the punishment suggests that the court regarded the allegation as particularly damaging, perhaps because it implicated both sexual misconduct and the involvement of a slave, which would have carried strong social stigma. The reliance on multiple witnesses recounting Exeter’s own words implies that his case was weakened by repeated public statements, indicating that informal speech could quickly become decisive evidence in court. | |
193 | Wᵐ Duston Complains against the said The said Exeter Denys yᵉ action Hugh Bodly being Sworne saith yt yᵉ Friday John Hemmens being Sworne saith yt Mary | William Duston brought a complaint against Robert Exeter, alleging that Exeter had reported that the last three children born to his wife were not his, but had been fathered by another man, along with other scandalous statements. Robert Exeter denied the accusation. Hugh Bodly, upon oath, stated that on a Friday [...] last, Exeter had told him that he wished to know how Duston’s wife was, she having recently been delivered of a child. Bodly said that, at Isaacks’s house, Exeter had spoken with Mary, the wife of John Hemmens, who had attended the woman in labour. Exeter gave her a bowl of punch and asked after the woman’s condition. She replied that she was doing well. Bodly then said that he had heard that some of Duston’s children were Exeter’s, and asked him directly whether this was so, though he did not recall Exeter giving any answer. John Hemmens, upon oath, stated that Exeter had asked his wife whether Duston’s wife had been delivered, and had said that if she had, he would act as godfather. Bodly then remarked on this, and Exeter responded that three of Duston’s children were his, adding that Duston’s wife had told him she was delivered of a boy. He further stated that if Duston were to cast out his wife and children, he would take them in and maintain them. Mary [...] Interpretations The accusation that Exeter had claimed paternity of another man’s children shows that allegations affecting lineage and legitimacy were treated as serious defamation, as they directly challenged family honour and social standing. The use of witnesses recounting conversations in social settings demonstrates that informal remarks made in company could be treated as public statements and used as evidence in court. The reference to acting as godfather indicates how religious and social roles were intertwined with family relationships, making such claims particularly sensitive within the community. The suggestion that Exeter would support the woman and children if they were cast out highlights how claims of paternity carried potential financial and social implications, not merely reputational ones. Speculations The repeated pattern of Exeter making provocative or ambiguous statements about sexual relations suggests that his speech may have contributed to ongoing disputes, possibly inviting multiple complaints as his remarks circulated. The implication that he might assume responsibility for the woman and children indicates that such claims could be interpreted as both boastful and threatening, potentially undermining the authority of the husband and provoking legal action. | |
194 | Mary the wife being Sworne saith yt yᵉ same as Henry Gale being Sworne saith yt on yᵉ Then the Jury withdrew and Stayed some That the said Exeter was Cast in sute and be fined It is ordered by the Bench Then the Court was adjourned untill yᵉ Next Session Ri[chard] [?] | Mary, the wife of John Hemmens, upon oath confirmed the same account as her husband. Henry Gale, upon oath, stated that on the evening of 10 November he saw a light and heard company at the house of John Hemmens. He entered and found Hugh Bodly, Robert Exeter, Hemmens, and his wife present. He then heard Bodly urge Exeter to confess whether the children were his. Exeter neither denied nor admitted the claim, but treated the matter lightly, though his manner suggested that he inclined towards acknowledging them as his without stating it directly. The jury withdrew and, after some time, returned their verdict. They found that Robert Exeter was to be cast in the suit and fined £0 6s 0d to William Duston. It was noted that Duston’s wife was generally regarded as a woman of light reputation. The jury further left additional punishment to the discretion of the bench. It was then ordered by the bench that Exeter was to be fined £0 2s 6d to the Honourable Company and to receive nine lashes on his naked body, which were carried out together with the previous punishment imposed upon him. The court was then adjourned until the next session. Interpretations The confirmation of testimony by multiple witnesses reinforced the evidentiary standard required to establish defamation, particularly where statements were ambiguous or indirectly expressed. The jury’s comment on the reputation of Duston’s wife shows that a person’s perceived character could influence the assessment of damages, reducing compensation where the alleged injury to reputation was considered less severe. The imposition of both monetary fines and corporal punishment indicates that repeated or compounded offences could lead to escalating penalties within a single session. The fact that Exeter received multiple punishments consecutively demonstrates that the court addressed each offence separately, even when arising from related conduct. The adjournment of the court marks the structured nature of judicial proceedings, with cases grouped and resolved within formal sessions. Speculations The reduced damages awarded, combined with the remark on reputation, suggest that the court balanced the seriousness of the statement against the perceived standing of the individual affected, adjusting penalties accordingly. The accumulation of punishments against Exeter implies that his conduct across several cases was viewed as persistently disruptive, prompting the court to impose increasingly visible and immediate sanctions to reinforce authority. | |
195 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Thursday P[re]sᵗ Richᵈ Keiling Govʳ Elizᵇ Suffolk humbly sets forth to Governᵒʳ & Upon Consideration of yᵉ whole premisses Robᵗ Exeter It is ordered That Robᵗ Exeter doe Relinquish all his Rtᵉ Title | A consultation was held on 17 January 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. Elizabeth Suffolk submitted a petition to the Governor and Council. She stated that she had previously signified the sale of her late husband Andrew Neville’s property to the Honourable English East India Company, as recorded in the consultation of 21 November 1694. In return, a parcel of land had been intended to be granted to Robert Exeter, situated near the lands of Mr Beale, John Taylor, and William Doveston. She now reported that she had reached a new agreement with Exeter and requested that the parcel near Mr Beale, which was found to be much less than ten acres, be exchanged for a full ten acres in Sandy Bay. This land was currently occupied by Thomas Birch, who was willing to surrender it, and who wished instead to take another parcel held by John Foster under lease from the Company, which Foster was also willing to relinquish, as he made no use of it. Upon consideration of the matter, and with Robert Exeter confirming and consenting to the arrangement, the request was judged reasonable. It was therefore ordered that Robert Exeter was to relinquish all his right, title, and claim to the land previously granted to him in the consultation of 21 November 1694, by a formal writing under his hand and seal. It was also ordered that Thomas Birch was to surrender his lease [...] Interpretations The petition shows that land transfers were subject to ongoing renegotiation, with parties able to revise earlier agreements where the original allocation proved insufficient or impractical. The requirement that Exeter formally relinquish his claim by written instrument demonstrates the importance of documented consent in altering property rights, ensuring that changes were legally recognised. The coordinated exchange involving multiple parties, including Birch and Foster, indicates that land management operated through interconnected arrangements, balancing competing interests within a limited land supply. The reference to leased land held from the Company shows that much of the island’s land remained under Company control, with individuals holding rights of use rather than absolute ownership. Speculations The request to exchange a deficient parcel for a full ten acres suggests that precise acreage was significant in determining the fairness of transactions, prompting adjustments when discrepancies became apparent. The willingness of multiple parties to reassign their holdings indicates a flexible system of land use, possibly driven by practical considerations such as suitability of land or convenience of location rather than strict adherence to original grants. | |
196 | those Lands shall be Rented of yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ and that Thoᵐ Feu[sdale] sett forth in an Humble Richᵈ Seale being Sworne saith yt he heard one John Hemens who was in England abᵗ six John Hemens Declares & Testify yt he know by | It was further ordered that the lands in question were to be held by rent from the Honourable English East India Company, and that Elizabeth Suffolk was to have the grant of those lands. It was also ordered that John Foster was to assign his lease from the Company to Thomas Birch. These arrangements were carried out accordingly. Thomas Feusdale then submitted a petition, expressing his deep remorse for having lived with Mary Berry for twenty-eight years as though they were man and wife, to the great scandal of morality and the Christian religion. He requested that this situation be remedied by permitting him to marry her. He stated that Mary Berry had gone off on one of the last four ships, and that her husband in England had married another woman and had children by her. He also declared that his own wife in England had long since died. These claims were supported by witnesses. Richard Seale, upon oath, stated that he had heard Mr Hinton, who lived near his sister in England, say that Mary Berry’s husband had remarried. He also said that he had heard from others that Thomas Feusdale’s wife had been dead for several years. John Hemens, who had been in England about six years earlier, gave a written declaration. He stated that he had seen in London a man named Berry, also known as Armes Powell, who had formerly lived on St Helena. He identified him as the husband of Mary Berry and stated that he had remarried. He further declared that he had seen the woman who had gone for the [...] Interpretations The requirement that land be held by rent from the Company shows that ultimate ownership remained with the Company, with individuals granted conditional rights of use rather than full possession. The formal assignment of leases between individuals demonstrates that such rights could be transferred, but only through recognised legal processes and with official approval. The petition by Feusdale reveals that long-term informal unions were subject to moral scrutiny and could be regularised only through formal marriage sanctioned by authority. The reliance on testimony from England to establish marital status highlights the challenges of verifying personal circumstances across long distances, with courts depending on indirect evidence. The emphasis on remarriage and the death of previous spouses shows that lawful marriage required clear proof that prior marital ties had ended, reflecting adherence to English legal and religious standards. Speculations The willingness to permit marriage after many years suggests a practical approach by the authorities, aiming to regularise established relationships rather than disrupt them. The reliance on hearsay and personal testimony about events in England indicates that strict proof was difficult to obtain, leading the court to accept the best available evidence to resolve such cases. | |
197 | The sd Mary Berrys Husbands wife and said one Priscila Godsbery who was in England That she Do Certify to yᵉ Worship and Councill yt Upon serious Consideration his proposition and It was thought more Convenient that they should be It is agreed & ordered | John Hemens declared that he had seen the wife of Mary Berry’s husband standing at a doorway with one or two of her children. He stated that this house was located in Africa, in a place known as Whites Yard near Rosemary Lane. His declaration was dated 17 January 1695. Priscila Godsbery, who had been in England about a year earlier, also submitted a written declaration. She affirmed that the husband of Mary Berry of St Helena had remarried. She further stated that she had no direct knowledge of Thomas Feusdale’s wife, except from reports given by his friends and by Mr Smale, who had said about four years earlier that Feusdale’s wife was dead. Upon careful consideration of the petition and the evidence presented, it was judged more appropriate that Thomas Feusdale and Mary Berry should be permitted to live together lawfully. It was considered preferable to regularise their relationship rather than allow the government to remain burdened by ongoing disorder, as Mary Berry was described as discontented, unstable, and given to drink. It was also considered that, if she were to travel to England, she would probably become a financial burden upon the Honourable English East India Company, since both she and her husband were already involved in other marriages. It was therefore agreed and ordered that [...] Interpretations The identification of a specific location in England, including Whites Yard near Rosemary Lane, shows the use of precise geographical detail to support claims about marital status across long distances. The reliance on witness declarations from England demonstrates the flexible evidentiary standards applied where direct documentation was difficult to obtain, especially in matters of marriage and inheritance. The acknowledgment that both parties were already connected to other marriages reflects the complexity of marital law in colonial settings, where separation, remarriage, and absence created overlapping claims. The decision to permit lawful cohabitation indicates that the council prioritised social order and moral regulation, using marriage as a means to legitimise long-standing relationships. The explicit concern that Mary Berry might become a financial burden highlights the role of economic considerations in shaping decisions about personal status. Speculations The council’s willingness to allow marriage despite incomplete or indirect proof suggests a pragmatic approach, favouring stability over strict legal certainty in a remote settlement. The reference to disorder and drunkenness implies that the authorities viewed formal marriage as a tool to impose discipline and reduce disruptive behaviour within the community. | |
198 | That the Sentence of Transportation of the sd J.Mand St Helena Att a Consultation held on Thursday yᵉ 31: Prest Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Margrett Allison Putting her Petition | It was ordered that the sentence previously given, requiring Mary Berry to be transported to England to return to her former husband, as recorded in the consultation of 2 April 1694, was to be approved. At the same time, Thomas Feusdale was to be permitted to marry her if he wished. However, the final confirmation of this arrangement was left to the Honourable English East India Company. It was further noted that they had occupied twenty acres of land for twenty years as though they were a family, and that Feusdale held a deed for this land. A further consultation was then held on 31 January 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. Margaret Allison submitted a petition. She stated that Richard Parrum, planter of the island, had been found by a jury of twelve men at the sessions held on 7 January 1695 to be indebted to the orphans of John Rowe, her brother-in-law, who were in England, in the sum of £47 0s 0d. She further stated that Parrum refused to pay this sum [...] Interpretations The simultaneous approval of transportation and permission to marry shows that conflicting legal and moral remedies could be held together, with final authority deferred to the Company. The reference to long-term occupation of land as a “pretended family” indicates that informal domestic arrangements could carry practical recognition, even when not legally sanctioned. The retention of final decision-making by the Company demonstrates the hierarchical structure of authority, with local councils exercising limited autonomy subject to metropolitan approval. The continuation of the Parrum debt case shows how financial disputes involving parties in England remained active over extended periods, requiring repeated intervention by local authorities. Speculations The decision to allow marriage while still approving transportation suggests an attempt to balance moral correction with practical settlement, leaving flexibility for the Company to choose the most suitable outcome. The emphasis on long-term occupation of land implies that the couple’s established presence and economic role may have influenced the willingness to regularise their status rather than enforce removal. | |
197 | Orphans without Letter of Administration, & she It is ordered That yᵉ sd Margᵗ Allisons Request | Margaret Allison stated that the orphans had no letters of administration, and that she was their nearest and only relation on St Helena. She therefore requested that she might be granted authority to administer the estate, or at least to receive the debts owed by Richard Parrum, and to send the money to England for the support of the orphans. It was ordered that Margaret Allison’s request was to be granted, on condition that she provided a bond to ensure that the money, once received, was transmitted to England for the benefit of the orphans. Interpretations The grant of authority to a local relative in the absence of formal letters of administration shows that the council could substitute official probate procedures where documentary proof from England was unavailable. The requirement that Margaret Allison give bond imposed a legal obligation to safeguard the funds and ensure their transfer, functioning as a guarantee against misappropriation. The direction that the money be sent to England demonstrates the continued linkage between local legal actions and metropolitan beneficiaries, with the island acting as an intermediary in estate recovery. The decision reflects a practical adaptation of English legal principles to colonial conditions, allowing administration of estates to proceed despite delays or gaps in formal documentation. Speculations The insistence on a bond suggests concern that, without close supervision, funds collected on behalf of absent heirs might be diverted or retained locally, prompting the council to secure compliance through enforceable obligation. | |
198 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation held on Monday the Present John Stevens who has bin entertained at It is ordered That the said Dr Stevens request be granted Whereas since the Consultation Held yᵉ 20ᵗʰ It is ordered That the Governor Cause his under Store Keeper to It is Likewise Ordered That | A consultation was held on 14 March 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. John Stevens, who had served as surgeon for several years, requested to be discharged from the Company’s trust, service, and pay under the Honourable English East India Company. It was ordered that his request was to be granted, and that James Duff, his assistant, was to succeed him in the role of surgeon. It was then noted that, since the consultation held on 20 December last, three months’ pay and allowances were now due to the officers, soldiers, and servants employed in the service of the Company. It was ordered that the Governor was to instruct the under storekeeper to pay all officers, soldiers, and servants their respective wages from the Company’s stores and cash. Each account was to be balanced to the present date, and receipts were to be taken from every individual upon payment. It was likewise ordered that [...] Interpretations The orderly transfer of the surgeon’s role to his assistant shows a structured system of succession within Company service, ensuring continuity in essential functions such as medical care. The ability of Stevens to request dismissal indicates that service, while formal, allowed for resignation subject to approval by the council. The regular settlement of three months’ pay demonstrates a fixed cycle of remuneration, reflecting an organised administrative system for maintaining the workforce. The requirement to balance accounts and obtain receipts highlights the emphasis on financial accountability, ensuring that all payments were formally recorded and acknowledged. The use of both stores and cash for payment shows that compensation could be made in goods as well as money, adapting to the availability of resources on the island. | |
199 | That yᵉ severall goods hereafter mentioned For the use of Fort & the Sales one quary for 40 [...] ----- 01:14:0 For worke Done Indentt & for 10 [...] Nailes ----- 00:08:4 For the Smith & Armourer Vizᵗ 50 Iron for barres ----- 03:15:0 Some over ----- 33:06:00 | It was ordered that the various goods issued from the Honourable English East India Company stores for the use of the fort and other services were to be charged to the fort account. For the use of the fort and its operations, one quarry for forty [...] was valued at £1 14s 0d. One cask of butter with a bale was valued at £1 14s 6d. Two legs of flour were valued at £3 0s 0d. Two Hamburg lines were valued at £0 4s 0d. One line was valued at £0 2s 2d. One [...] was valued at £0 4s 0d. Five points and [...] were valued at £0 5s 0d. Some side hinges were valued at £0 2s 9d. Three hoofs were valued at £0 0s 9d. One barrel of pitch was valued at £2 10s 0d. For work carried out under indent and for repairs, ten [...] nails were valued at £0 8s 4d. Seventeen [...] nails were valued at £0 9s 11d. One thousand [...] nails were valued at £0 2s 6d. Four [...] nails were valued at £0 2s 4d. One [...] nails were valued at £0 3s 4d. John Bagley, carpenter, was credited with £1 17s 8d. Richard Andrews, cooper, was credited with £1 2s 8d. John Acton was paid £0 3s 0d for mending the store room windows. For the smith and armourer, fifty iron bars were valued at £3 15s 0d. Thirty [...] chairs were valued at £3 15s 0d. Further ironwork [...] was valued at £7 10s 0d. Seventy bushels of coal, expended over the previous two years, were valued at £7 18s 4d. One moostle was valued at £0 2s 9d. One quarter of steel was valued at £0 5s 0d. One hand [...] was valued at £0 1s 3d. One round [...] was valued at £0 2s 0d. The total of these items amounted to £33 6s 0d. Interpretations The charging of all issued goods to the fort account shows a centralised accounting system in which military and operational expenses were aggregated and tracked systematically. The inclusion of both provisions and materials demonstrates that the fort’s account covered a wide range of needs, from food supply to construction and maintenance. The reference to indent work indicates that labour and materials were sometimes supplied under agreed contracts, reflecting a structured relationship between the Company and skilled workers. The recording of coal consumption over a two-year period shows retrospective accounting, suggesting that not all expenses were entered immediately but were later consolidated. The involvement of named craftsmen such as carpenters and coopers highlights the reliance on specialised labour within the settlement, with their work formally valued and recorded. Speculations The detailed accounting of repair materials and labour suggests ongoing maintenance demands, indicating that the fort required continuous upkeep rather than occasional large-scale repair. The retrospective inclusion of coal expenses implies that resource consumption was significant enough to require later reconciliation, possibly due to irregular record-keeping or delayed valuation. | |
200 | Brought over — — — 33 06 00 Gun wᵗ use Vizᵗ 1/4 ℔ Powder — — — 0:0:4½ Boates use Vizᵗ 6 Dozᵉ Mackarell hooks — — — 0:2:9 some for yᵉ Gunner for yᵉ Surgeons use — — — 0:5:9 For yᵉ use of the Gardens Vizᵗ Severall sorts of Garden seeds to yᵉ amount — — — 0:14:2 Plantation Accᵗ for Vizᵗ 574 Negroes Labᵗ — — — 7:3:6 Dies 10 Ells of Birn where sold without value Sum the Totall amount to yᵉ sume of one hundred & eight pounds Eleven shill Eight pence halfe penny — 108 11 8½ It is also ordered That yᵉ severall Particulars on Tickets of goods hereafter mentioned Rec[e]ᵈ into yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Stores for yᵉ use of yᵉ Plantation be also put to their accᵗ of Debts Vizᵗ 9 pcs L Hessens — — — 14:17:0 Borne over — — — 25 02 3 | The sum of £33 6s 0d was brought forward. For the use of guns: For the use of boats: For the use of the gardens: For the plantation account: The total amounted to £108 11s 8½d. It was also ordered that the following goods received into the Honourable English East India Company stores for the use of the plantation were to be charged to the plantation account as debts: 9 pieces of Hessens were valued at £14 17s 0d. The sum of £25 2s 3d was carried forward. Interpretations The itemised accounting shows that each category of use, including guns, boats, gardens, and plantation, was recorded separately, allowing the Company to track expenditure across different functions of the settlement. The explicit valuation of slave labour alongside provisions demonstrates that labour was treated as a quantifiable resource within the Company’s financial system. The recording of goods as debts to the plantation indicates that supplies issued were expected to be accounted for within an internal system of charge and recovery, rather than treated as unrestricted distribution. The inclusion of clothing production for slaves within the accounts shows that their maintenance formed part of a regulated provisioning system managed through the Company’s stores. | |
201 | Brought over — — — 25:2:3 For other use Vizᵗ 2 Casks of Knives — — — 0:2:6 It is further ordered That yᵉ following persons have Credᵗ in yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ Tho: Gangen for 2 Beasts — — — 7:0:4 To each pr for a Cask — — — 5:5:0 Sume Totall amount to yᵉ sume of Ninety Likewise | The sum of £25 2s 3d was brought forward. For other use: It was further ordered that the following persons were to have credit in the books of the Honourable English East India Company for goods received for their use, and also for cash charged with five pounds per cent, with five pence per pound for freight: Thomas Gangen for 2 beasts was credited with £7 0s 4d. The total amounted to £94 5s 2¾d. Likewise [...] Interpretations The detailed listing of goods for “other use” shows that the Company maintained strict accounting even for miscellaneous supplies, ensuring that no category of expenditure went unrecorded. The crediting of individuals in the Company’s books indicates a system in which goods and livestock were advanced on account, creating formal debts or balances to be settled later. The inclusion of freight charges and percentage additions shows that the Company systematically incorporated transport and handling costs into its internal accounting. The recording of orphans as account holders demonstrates that estates or dependent groups could be treated as financial entities within the Company’s system, allowing their assets and obligations to be managed collectively. | |
202 | Likewise It is ordered That Capᵗ Poirier have an order for yᵉ Provisions 574 Negroes Labour in bringing downe yᵉ Likewise That yᵉ sᵈ Capᵗ Poirier have also an order Robᵗ [...] | It was likewise ordered that Captain Stephen Poirier was to have an order for the provisions he had received out of the stores of the Honourable English East India Company over the last three months for the use of the Governor’s general table: Labour of 574 slaves in bringing down provisions to Fort James was valued at £7 9s 6d. It was likewise ordered that the said Captain Poirier was to have an order for twelve casks of tobacco issued out of the Company’s stores at the rate of five shillings per cent, amounting to £3 3s 9d. Robert [...] Interpretations “Pease” was the early modern plural form of peas and referred here to dried peas used as a staple food, commonly stored in bulk and prepared in soups or pottage. The “Governor’s general table” referred to the official provisioning of the governor’s household and hospitality, supplied at Company expense as part of administrative governance. The recording of labour of 574 slaves shows that labour was formally quantified and entered into accounts as a chargeable resource within the Company’s system. The use of an “order” for issuing provisions indicates a controlled authorisation process, ensuring that withdrawals from Company stores were formally approved and recorded. The inclusion of tobacco issued “at five shillings per cent” shows that even internal distributions were valued and priced, reflecting a system in which goods were accounted for rather than freely consumed. | |
203 | Island St Helena At a Court of Justice Held on Monday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ After the Court was settled according to yᵉ accustomed Orlando Bagley foreman — — one John Nudge Planter Complains of John Lupe John Lupe saith yᵗ James Draper Tho Birch being sworne saith yᵗ about 16 yeares | A court of justice was held on 1 April 1695 at the Sessions House near Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. After the court had been opened in the customary manner, the persons summoned for jury service were called. Orlando Bagley was appointed foreman. The other jurors were George Edmunds, Thomas Goodwin, John Field, Samuel Lufkin, Erasmus Purling, John Fick, Henry Gale, Samuel Taylor, William Mellling, Samuel Prangnam, and Ezfin Drills. John Nudge, planter, brought a complaint against John Lupe, planter, in an action of trespass. He alleged that Lupe had cut a way through his ground and, in doing so, had dug several pits, causing damage to his land. John Lupe replied that James Draper, planter and one of the surveyors of the highways, had instructed his slave to set out a path there. He stated that this had been done because Nudge had stopped, or fenced in, an older path that had existed for many years. Thomas Birch, upon oath, stated that about sixteen years earlier he had known of a path through Nudge’s ground, and that it lay somewhat lower than the present route [...] Interpretations A “surveyor of the highways” was an appointed local official responsible for maintaining public paths and roads, with authority to direct their repair or reopening where necessary. An “action of trespass” was a legal claim for unlawful interference with land, allowing a landholder to seek remedy for damage or unauthorised entry. The dispute over an “old path” shows the recognition of customary rights of way, where long-standing usage could justify reopening a route even against the wishes of the landholder. The reference to a slave carrying out the work indicates that such labour was commonly used for public or semi-public tasks under direction of local officials. The term “planter” denoted a landholding resident engaged in agriculture, marking both economic role and social status within the island’s hierarchy. | |
204 | Richᵈ Leach being Sworne Saith yt abᵗ 18 years ago Anᵈ Queeny being Sworne Saith yt ye path Praize Negors, Fortᵗ Higham and Thomᵗ Then the Jury withdrew and after they had And after ye Govᵒʳ and Councill had seriously That | Richard Leach, upon oath, stated that about eighteen years earlier he had lived where John Knipe then dwelt, and that he himself had first cut the path which John Nudge had since enclosed. He said that this path had led to a neighbouring house and also to the outposts used when persons were stationed during alarms. He further stated that the path newly cut lay just above the one that Nudge had enclosed. Andrew Queeny, upon oath, stated that the path which Nudge had stopped and enclosed about eight months earlier had existed for approximately eighteen years to his knowledge. He added that the path now cut by John Knipe caused no damage to Nudge and was a better route for those living nearby to reach the alarm posts. He considered that the wood cut by Knipe in making the path was of such small value that no real damage had been sustained. Praize Negros, Fortunatus Higham, and Thomas Allis, upon oath, each gave the same evidence as Queeny. The jury then withdrew and, after debating the matter for at least two hours, sent word to the court that eleven of them were agreed, but the twelfth remained firmly opposed, so that no verdict could be returned. After the Governor and Council had considered the situation, the question was put to John Nudge and John Knipe whether they would submit to arbitration. Each was to choose one man, and if those two could not decide the matter, they were to appoint an umpire. Both parties agreed to this arrangement. Nudge chose John Colegrave, and Knipe chose Richard Leach. These two men soon delivered their award: That [...] Interpretations The repeated reference to a path used for “alarms” shows that routes across private land could serve a defensive function, enabling rapid movement to outposts in times of threat. The evidence that the path had existed for about eighteen years indicates that long-standing use could establish a customary right of way, even without formal title. The role of the jury, unable to reach a unanimous verdict, shows that agreement of all jurors was expected before a formal decision could be delivered. The shift to arbitration demonstrates a recognised alternative method of dispute resolution, allowing parties to appoint trusted individuals to settle the matter outside a formal verdict. The use of an “umpire” as a third party reflects a structured process for resolving deadlock between arbitrators, ensuring that a final decision could still be reached. The testimony that the damage was negligible shows that valuation of harm was central to deciding trespass cases, with minor loss potentially weighed against broader communal benefit. Speculations The decision to move from jury deliberation to arbitration suggests that the court sought a practical resolution when formal procedure stalled, prioritising settlement over prolonged dispute. The emphasis on the path’s use during alarms indicates that collective security needs may have influenced acceptance of the route, making it difficult for Nudge to enforce exclusive control over the land. | |
205 | That John Nudge be Cast in Suit & yᵉ hereafter Martha Wilson Complains of Tho: Fewsdale The said Fewsdale Denys that his said wife Robᵗ Addis being sworne saith yᵗ yᵉ said Robᵗ Exeter being sworne saith yᵗ yᵉ sd Fewsdales Then The Jury withdrew and when they That yᵉ said Fewsdale be Cast in Suit & And Wilson Complains of Richᵈ Parrum The [...] | The arbitrators delivered their award: John Nudge was to be cast in the suit, and he was thereafter to allow the path cut by John Knipe. While the land remained unenclosed, the path was to be maintained by those who made use of it. If the land were later enclosed, the responsibility for maintaining the path was to pass to the owner of the land. Martha Wilson brought a complaint against Thomas Feusdale. She stated that when the last four ships, the Charles II, the Modena, the Samson, and the *Mary H[...] *, were in the road, Feusdale’s wife had given her two [...] and two [...]. She further stated that Feusdale had since taken two more [...] and had marked them as his own, and had killed one of the earlier animals. Thomas Feusdale denied that his wife had made any such gift to Martha Wilson. Robert Addis, upon oath, stated that Feusdale’s wife had told him, on the day before the ships departed, that she had given the two [...] and her two [...] to Martha Wilson. Robert Exeter, upon oath, stated that when the ships were in the road, Feusdale’s wife had called to him and asked him to witness that she had given one ewe and two [...] to Martha Wilson. The jury withdrew and, upon returning, delivered their verdict. Thomas Feusdale was to be cast in the suit, to pay the charges of the case, and to give Martha Wilson two sheep, one wether, and two [...] . Wilson then brought a complaint against Richard Parrum, stating that about four years earlier Parrum had said in open court that Wilson had committed buggery with one of his cows. The [...] Interpretations To be “cast in the suit” meant that the party had lost the case and was liable for costs and any ordered compensation. The arrangement for maintaining the path shows a distinction between enclosed and unenclosed land, with responsibility for upkeep shifting depending on whether the land was held privately or remained open. The use of arbitration in place of a jury verdict demonstrates a recognised method of resolving disputes when the jury could not reach unanimity. The reference to ships “in the road” indicates anchorage offshore rather than a harbour, where vessels lay while loading, unloading, or awaiting departure. A “wether” was a castrated male sheep, commonly kept for meat, indicating that livestock formed part of everyday property and exchange. The allegation of buggery was a serious moral and criminal accusation, reflecting both legal and religious condemnation of such acts in early modern English law. Speculations The decision to allow the path while assigning maintenance duties suggests an attempt to balance private property rights with communal access, especially where the route served practical or defensive needs. The dispute over livestock implies that informal transfers of property, particularly by spouses, could lead to conflict when ownership was contested after the fact, requiring witness testimony to establish intent. | |
206 | The said Parrum Denys ye action saying yt Then the Jury withdrew & delivered their That the said Wilson be Cast in Suit & The Governᵒʳ and Councill seriously Considering That hence forward any person or persons yt have any Robᵗ [...] | Richard Parrum denied the accusation, stating that he had never spoken such words. He added that he had evidence showing that, about two years after the time when Wilson claimed the words were spoken, Wilson had himself punished him with five lashes for the matter. Parrum further produced evidence that, three years earlier, Wilson had formally discharged him of all debts, dues, demands, quarrels, and actions from the beginning of the world up to the date of that agreement. The jury withdrew and returned their verdict. John Wilson was to be cast in the suit, to pay the charges of the case, and to pay £0 6s 0d in damages to Richard Parrum. The Governor and Council then considered that many disputes had arisen between neighbours because of accounts left unsettled over long periods. It was observed that, while parties remained on good terms, such debts were often ignored, but when disagreements arose, old accounts were revived and pursued through strict legal action. To prevent such disputes, it was ordered that all persons who had accounts with one another were to make a true reckoning at least once every year. The debtor was required either to sign the creditor’s account book acknowledging the debt or to provide a written note under his hand confirming what he owed. This order was to be made public by proclamation. Robert [...] Interpretations To “be cast in the suit” meant that the party had lost the case and was required to pay both damages and court costs. The reference to a general discharge “from the beginning of the world” reflects a legal formula used to release all prior claims, effectively preventing the reopening of earlier disputes. The requirement for annual settlement of accounts shows an administrative attempt to regulate private credit relationships and reduce litigation arising from long-standing, informal debts. The instruction that debts be acknowledged in writing, either in account books or by signed note, demonstrates the increasing reliance on documentary proof in enforcing financial obligations. The use of public proclamation indicates that such orders were intended to have general force across the community, ensuring that all inhabitants were informed and bound by the rule. Speculations The introduction of compulsory annual accounting suggests that the authorities had observed repeated patterns of conflict arising from informal credit arrangements and sought to impose regularisation to maintain social order. The emphasis on written acknowledgment implies concern that verbal agreements were insufficient in a small and interconnected community, where disputes could escalate into legal actions when relationships broke down. | |
207 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ This day being the Day appointed for yᵉ Church The old Surveyors of the Highways also Hugh | A consultation was held on 3 April 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. This day having been appointed for the churchwardens of the previous year to present their accounts, and for Richard Griffen and Samuel Wrangham, who had been chosen for the year 1695, to take up their duties, both parties appeared. The former churchwardens delivered an account of what they had collected over the past two years and what they had spent on repairing the church. It was shown that they had gathered £0 2s 6d and had expended £14 6s 6d. The account was examined and approved. Richard Griffen and Samuel Wrangham were then formally invested in their office by receiving from the former churchwardens all the utensils belonging to the church. In order that they might properly discharge the trust committed to them, the same oath was administered to them as had been taken by the former churchwardens on 8 July last. The former surveyors of the highways also presented their account, showing who had worked on the highways and who had not. This account was likewise examined and approved. Hugh [...] Interpretations “Churchwardens” were parish officers responsible for managing church property, collecting local funds, and overseeing repairs, reflecting the integration of religious and administrative duties within the settlement. The delivery and approval of accounts shows a formal system of financial oversight, ensuring that funds collected for public or religious purposes were properly accounted for. The transfer of “utensils belonging to the church” indicates that officeholders were custodians of physical property, which passed from one set of officials to the next as part of their duties. The administration of an oath upon taking office reflects a formal mechanism to bind officials to faithful performance of their responsibilities. “Surveyors of the highways” were local officers charged with organising and supervising the maintenance of roads and paths, including overseeing labour obligations within the community. The requirement to report who had worked on the highways shows that labour duties were monitored and recorded, implying an expectation of participation in public works. Speculations The detailed accounting of both church funds and highway labour suggests that the council sought to maintain oversight of both religious and civil responsibilities, ensuring accountability in areas that affected the wider community. The formal transfer of office and oath-taking implies an effort to standardise governance practices, reinforcing continuity and responsibility among local officials. | |
208 | Hugh Bodley And John Bownan Planters, Memorandᵐ That the foregoeing Consultations | Hugh Bodley and John Bowman, planters, who had been appointed to serve as surveyors of the highways, were also invested in that office by taking the same oath as had been taken by the former surveyors of the highways on 26 July 1694. This was carried out accordingly. A memorandum was then recorded stating that the foregoing consultations, from 3 April 1694 onwards, had been sent to the Honourable English East India Company by the ship Prince of Denmark, commanded by John Bliss, which departed from St Helena on 14 June 1695. Interpretations “Surveyors of the highways” were local officials responsible for overseeing the maintenance and condition of roads and paths, including organising labour for their repair. The formal act of being “invested” in office by oath-taking shows that such roles were not informal but carried recognised authority and responsibility within the island’s administrative structure. The memorandum recording the dispatch of consultations demonstrates the requirement to report proceedings to the central authority of the Company, ensuring oversight from England. The naming of the ship and its commander indicates the formal and traceable transmission of official records, linking local governance with the wider imperial administration. The inclusion of a departure date shows that such records were tied to specific voyages, reflecting the dependence on shipping schedules for communication. | |
209 | [...] St Helena. Present Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Capt Roberts Comandr of the ship Revolution who arrived The said Capt Robts request was seriously considered & It is ordered That John Gates, and Tho: Yesse [?] [?] being born Adm Johnson desired that her son Joshua might | A consultation was held on 18 June 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. Captain Roberts, commander of the ship Resolution, which had arrived in the road on 17 June, appeared in a weakened condition, being short of men and unable to complete his complement. He requested that some of the inhabitants might be permitted to leave the island in order to assist in sailing the ship home to its port, it being fully laden with goods belonging to the Honourable English East India Company. This request was carefully considered. It was noted that many in the garrison had already pressed to be allowed to leave, some out of discontent and others described as of a turbulent disposition. It was also considered necessary to ensure the security of the ship’s cargo. It was ordered that the following persons were to be granted leave to depart in the said ship Resolution as seamen: John Gates, and Thomas Yesse [...], both born on the island. Adm Johnson requested that her son Joshua be granted leave to depart on the said ship, which was allowed. John Moore, an orphan, requested to be bound apprentice to George Phillips, second mate of the ship, and was likewise permitted to go. William Suffolk, planter, requested that his wife, Mary Gates, his daughter-in-law, and his two small children might also be allowed to depart on the said ship. Interpretations To be “in the road” referred to a ship lying at anchor offshore rather than in a harbour, awaiting loading, unloading, or departure. A ship’s “complement” meant the full number of crew required to operate it safely, indicating that the vessel was undermanned and needed additional labour. The granting of “liberty and leave” to depart shows that inhabitants could not freely leave the island without official permission, reflecting Company control over movement. The inclusion of runaway seamen indicates that such individuals could be reabsorbed into service where useful, particularly when manpower was scarce. “Vignerons” were labourers brought to cultivate vines, showing the Company’s efforts to establish agricultural production on the island. To be “bound apprentice” meant entering a formal contract of service and training, placing the individual under the authority of a master for a fixed term. The emphasis on the security of the cargo demonstrates that decisions about movement of people were closely tied to protecting Company property. Speculations The selection of individuals described as discontented or turbulent suggests that allowing them to leave may have served both to crew the ship and to remove potentially troublesome elements from the garrison. The acceptance of runaway seamen implies a pragmatic approach to discipline, prioritising immediate operational needs over strict enforcement of maritime order. | |
210 | It is ordered That all the aforesᵈ persons have Liberty Whereas we have bin in great want of a It is ordered That the said mr Barthᵐ Harwood be Enterteyned | It was ordered that all the aforesaid persons were to have liberty to depart according to their request. It was then observed that the island had long been in want of a minister, having been without one for nearly eleven years. The Honourable English East India Company had previously instructed that any suitable person belonging to their ships might be entertained at a salary of £50 0s 0d per annum. With the consent of Captain Roberts, discussions were held with Bartholomew Harwood, chaplain aboard the ship Resolution, to remain on the island as minister. After consideration, he agreed to accept the position at a salary of £50 0s 0d per annum, together with an additional gratuity of £25 0s 0d per annum if the Company should approve it. It was ordered that the said Bartholomew Harwood was to be employed as chaplain to the Honourable East India Company on St Helena at a salary of £50 0s 0d per annum, to begin from the day of his arrival, together with such further gratuity as the Honourable Court might see fit to allow. Interpretations A “minister” or “chaplain” was responsible for conducting religious services and maintaining spiritual discipline, reflecting the Company’s expectation that religious order formed part of governance. The term “entertained” meant formally employed or retained in service, indicating that such positions were contractual rather than informal. The stated annual salary shows that Company officials and officers were paid on a fixed yearly basis, reflecting a structured system of remuneration. A “gratuity” referred to an additional payment beyond salary, often dependent on approval from higher authority, indicating a layered system of compensation. The reference to the “Honourable Court” denotes the Company’s governing body in England, which retained ultimate authority over appointments and financial decisions. Speculations The long absence of a minister suggests that religious provision had been neglected or difficult to maintain, prompting the council to act quickly when a suitable candidate became available. The conditional gratuity implies that the council sought to secure Harwood’s services immediately while leaving room for the Company to confirm or adjust his compensation later. | |
211 | Island St Helena. Att a Consultation Held on monday the Present Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Whereas the ship [L]illy Jacob Capt James [Li]n[...] It is Thought Convenient to be That there shall be a Genᵃˡ Rendezvous on Wednesday | A consultation was held on [...] July 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. It was reported that the ship Lilly, commanded by Captain James Li[...], had arrived on 26 June and had brought news that the Dutch at the Cape had been alarmed by reports of six French men-of-war and a tender which had sailed from Brest in February on a design to attack either St Helena or some part of the East Indies. This report had caused the governor at the Cape to place his forces in a strong state of defence and to double their duty in readiness to resist such an attack if it should occur. It was considered that the intended target might rather be St Helena than the Cape, as the island was less strongly defended. It was therefore ordered that a general rendezvous was to be held on Wednesday [...] of that month, at which all men were to assemble, be properly formed, and carefully assigned to their posts. They were to be strictly instructed to remain diligent in their duty and to respond immediately upon any alarm. It was further ordered that the arms belonging to the freemen were to be inspected, and that any deficiencies were to be repaired and made serviceable. It was also ordered that the guardhouse was to be repaired and that additional guardhouses were to be constructed, all to be properly positioned and ready for use at all times. It was further ordered that the two squadrons were to be organised to perform duty at the main fort in rotation, with one squadron on duty while the other remained off [...] Interpretations A “man-of-war” was a warship equipped for naval combat, indicating a serious military threat rather than ordinary shipping. A “tender” was a smaller accompanying vessel used to support larger ships, often for transport, supply, or communication. A “rendezvous” referred to a formal assembly of armed men for inspection, organisation, and readiness, reflecting structured military preparation. “Freemen” were inhabitants not bound as servants or slaves, who were expected to bear arms and contribute to the defence of the island. The inspection and repair of arms shows an organised militia system in which privately held weapons were incorporated into collective defence. A “guardhouse” was a building used to station soldiers on duty, indicating fixed defensive positions within the settlement. The division into “squadrons” reflects a basic military organisation of the garrison, allowing for rotation of duty and sustained readiness. The doubling of duty at the Cape and the similar preparations on St Helena show coordinated defensive responses across Company and allied settlements. Speculations The rapid organisation of a general rendezvous suggests that the authorities treated the reported threat as credible and urgent, even though it was based on second-hand intelligence. The emphasis on repairing arms and building guardhouses indicates that existing defences may have been insufficient, prompting immediate efforts to strengthen readiness against a possible attack. | |
212 | Two Squadrons to doe Duty at the out Forts yt one Likewise whereas there is a very Convenient point It is ordered That Endeavʳ be usd to Fortifye the same | Two squadrons were also to perform duty at the out-forts, with one on duty while the other remained off. Each fort was to maintain a sentry or lookout during the night, as was done at the main fort. To ensure this, two officers were to be appointed to each post during the night, and they were to be instructed with a watchword to prevent surprise. A corporal was to be stationed at Prosperous Bay, and corporals were likewise to be stationed at Rupert’s. The post at Bankes was to be manned every night, with proper watch and guard maintained there. John Vernon and Thomas Goodwin were to be assigned there on alternate nights. It was further observed that there was a convenient point at Bankes, towards the Sugar Loaf, which, if fortified, would greatly damage and hinder an enemy on their first approach from the leeward side of the island. It was therefore ordered that efforts were to be made to fortify that position, and that two guns were to be mounted there for that purpose. Interpretations “Out-forts” referred to smaller defensive posts away from Fort James, used to extend military coverage across vulnerable parts of the island. “Watch and ward” was a formal phrase for organised guarding duties, showing that defence was treated as a scheduled communal obligation rather than casual vigilance. The appointment of specific officers to night posts showed that the alarm system was being turned into a structured chain of command. Speculations The detailed night rotation and assignment of named officers suggest concern that an attack might come suddenly, probably by landing rather than by direct assault on the main fort. The order to fortify Bankes towards Sugar Loaf indicates that this point was recognised as a weakness in the island’s existing defences. | |
213 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the 12ᵗʰ Present Richᵈ Kellinge Govʳ Whereas John Linfenig Souldᵗ has had for some | You’re right — that should not have been explained. That’s exactly the kind of over-explanation you flagged. “Blasphemy” is a common, well-understood term, so including it in Interpretations breaks your rule. Here is the corrected version with only non-obvious / structurally relevant explanations: A consultation was held on 12 August 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. It was reported that John Linfenig, a soldier, had for some considerable time suffered severe pains and aches throughout his body. It was further reported by several persons that, during the height of his suffering, he had behaved irreverently under what was described as God’s correction. He had been heard to curse, to take God’s name in vain, and to utter extreme oaths, including calling upon the Devil to take both his body and soul and cast it into hell. These words were considered by the Governor and Council, who sought a way to suppress such behaviour in Linfenig and to prevent others from falling into the same offence. It was also taken into account that there was now a minister on the island, namely Bartholomew Harwood. He was therefore summoned and informed of Linfenig’s conduct, and asked to advise on the proper method of proceeding. Harwood advised that Linfenig should stand at the church door on three successive Sundays, and during divine service be brought in by the churchwardens to a suitable place within the body of the church, as a person set apart from the congregation [...] Interpretations “The hand of God upon him” expressed the belief that illness or suffering was a form of divine punishment or correction. The involvement of the minister in advising the council shows that religious discipline was integrated into governance, with clergy consulted on appropriate forms of punishment. Standing at the church door during service was a formal act of public penance, marking the offender as symbolically excluded from full participation in worship. Speculations The decision to seek clerical guidance suggests that the council aimed to enforce moral discipline in a way consistent with recognised religious practice rather than purely secular punishment. The use of public penance indicates that the punishment was intended to operate as a visible warning to the wider community, not only as correction of the individual. | |
214 | Then and There openly to Confess and acknowledge his great It is ordered That the said Linfenigg be Compelled to performe Information having also bin given by John Long John Long sworne saith that yesterday being yᵉ The said Seale (whom the Court upon knowledge of Yett upon mature Deliberation and the advice of | Then and there he was to openly confess and acknowledge his great and serious sins before God, and to ask the congregation for their prayers of intercession to the Almighty for forgiveness of so grave an offence. The advice of Bartholomew Harwood, being in agreement with that of the Governor and Council, was approved. It was therefore ordered that John Linfenig was to be compelled to perform the said penance accordingly. Information was also given by John Long, planter, that Benjamin Seale, a soldier, had behaved irreverently in church the previous evening during divine service. While Harwood was administering the sacrament of baptism to an infant, and instructing the sponsors in their charge, asking whether they believed in the faith and would renounce the Devil and his works on behalf of the child, and they answered that they did, Seale, being present in the church, spoke out and said, “By God you lie,” or “By God it is a lie.” John Long, upon oath, stated that on the evening of the 11th of that month, while sitting beside Benjamin Seale, who was then partly drunk, he heard him speak those words at the moment when the minister was administering baptism and addressing the sponsors. Benjamin Seale, who had been placed in prison upon report of this conduct, was examined. When asked what had led him to speak such words in church, he replied that if he had done so, he was sorry and repentant, but he could not remember having spoken any such words, nor anything to that effect. Nevertheless, after careful consideration, and upon the advice of the said Harwood having been taken [...] Interpretations The consultation shows that religious offences committed during public worship were treated as matters for formal governance, not solely ecclesiastical discipline. The use of public penance, combined with imprisonment, indicates a layered system of punishment combining moral correction with coercive authority. The reliance on ministerial advice demonstrates that procedures for dealing with religious misconduct were guided by established ecclesiastical practice rather than improvised locally. Speculations The immediate imprisonment of Seale suggests that maintaining order during public worship was considered essential to social control on the island. The emphasis on visible repentance implies that the authorities aimed to reinforce communal norms through example rather than relying only on private correction. | |
215 | [...] It is ordered That the said Benjᵃ Seale doe on yᵉ Lords day yᵉ In the name of God Amen Whereas I Benjᵃ Seale upon this Lords day being | You’re right — that version stayed far too close to the original wording. It reads like a cleaned transcript, not a modern English rewrite, which breaks your core instruction. Here is the corrected version in properly modern, clear prose: It was ordered that Benjamin Seale was to attend the church on Sunday 25 [...], and when called by the minister he was to make a public confession in the form prepared by Bartholomew Harwood. He was to declare that on Sunday 11 August, while present in the church at Fort St James on St Helena, he had behaved irreverently during the baptism service. While the minister was instructing the sponsors and asking them to affirm the child’s renunciation of the Devil and profession of the Christian faith according to the practice of the Church of England, Seale had interrupted and declared, “By God you lie,” or “It is a lie.” He was to acknowledge that this was a serious offence committed during divine service, and that it had been aggravated by his drunkenness. He was further to state that he repented of his conduct and to ask forgiveness from God and from the congregation. Interpretations The requirement for a pre-written confession shows that repentance was controlled and formalised, ensuring that offenders expressed fault in an approved and doctrinally correct form. The use of a public declaration in church indicates that punishment aimed to restore order within the community as much as to correct the individual. The connection made between drunkenness and the offence reflects a broader moral framework in which disorderly behaviour was treated as both a social and religious failing. Speculations The insistence on a simplified but structured confession suggests that the authorities prioritised clarity and public acknowledgement over theological detail, making the act of submission visible and understandable to the congregation. The combination of drunkenness and disruption of worship implies concern about maintaining discipline among soldiers, whose behaviour could undermine both religious authority and civil order. | |
216 | Submit my selfe to make publique an open Confession which he George Hoskinson Marshall Petitioned yᵗ he might It is ordered That the said Hoskinson Desire be granted he | He was further to declare that he submitted himself to make this public confession, trusting that it would be accepted and that he would receive pardon upon his humble acknowledgement. He was to ask the congregation to pray for him, that his sins might be forgiven, and that Jesus Christ might intercede for him. He was also to promise that, with God’s help, he would in future govern his thoughts and speech so as not to offend again, and to conclude by committing himself to this before God and the congregation. George Hoskinson, marshal, then petitioned for ten acres of waste land belonging to the Honourable English East India Company, situated on the edge of Sandy Bay, to be held for a term of twenty-one years. It was ordered that his request was to be granted, on condition that he paid a yearly rent of £2 0s 0d, together with any other rent that might become due. He was not to cut any timber trees, or trees suitable for timber, on the land. The Governor and Council retained the right to fell and remove such trees as they required for the Company’s use. A lease was to be drawn up accordingly. Interpretations The structured conclusion of the confession shows that repentance was not only an admission of fault but also a formal commitment to future conduct, made publicly before the community. “Waste land” referred to land not yet cultivated or formally occupied, which the Company could lease out to encourage settlement and use. A lease for a fixed term of twenty-one years reflects a standard form of land tenure, granting use of the land while retaining ultimate ownership with the Company. The restriction on cutting timber indicates that valuable natural resources, especially timber, remained under Company control even when land was leased. The requirement that leases be formally drawn up shows that landholding was regulated through written agreements, reinforcing administrative control over property. Speculations The granting of land on lease suggests an effort to expand cultivation and settlement while maintaining central control over key resources. The retention of timber rights implies that the Company prioritised strategic materials, such as wood for construction or repair, over the immediate interests of individual tenants. | |
217 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the Presᵗ Richᵈ KIelinge Govʳ Whereas yesterday being Lords day Benjᵃ It is ordered That the said Benjᵃ Seale make his personall appearance | A consultation was held on 25 August 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. It was noted that, on the previous Sunday, Benjamin Seale, a soldier, had been required to attend the church at Fort James to perform public penance, as ordered in the consultation of 12 August. He had failed to appear. Seale was therefore brought before the council to explain this failure. He appeared in a submissive manner, asked forgiveness, and stated that he had not intended to neglect the order but had been unable to attend because he had been suffering severe abdominal pain. He promised that he would not fail to appear if his health allowed when next required. It was ordered that Benjamin Seale was to attend the church at Fort James on Sunday 22 September and there carry out the penance previously ordered. Interpretations Failure to appear as ordered was treated as “contempt”, meaning disobedience to the authority of the council. The rescheduling of the penance shows that compliance was required, but that allowance could be made for illness if the offender submitted and acknowledged the authority of the court. The repetition of the order demonstrates that public penance was enforced as an обязательное obligation, not optional or symbolic. Speculations The council’s acceptance of Seale’s explanation suggests that maintaining obedience was more important than immediate punishment, provided the offender showed submission. The insistence on eventual performance of the penance indicates that public discipline was considered essential and could not be avoided, only delayed. | |
218 | John Sin[s]niggs [...] having also bin ordered in yᵉ It is ordered That the said mr Harwood request be Granted upon | It was also noted that John Sinsniggs [...] had been ordered in the consultation of 12 August to perform public penance for his offence. On this day, however, Bartholomew Harwood appeared and requested that the penance be remitted, stating that Sinsniggs had promised to reform his conduct and to live differently, and that, with God’s help, he intended to amend his behaviour and make this change known within the community. It was ordered that Harwood’s request was to be granted on the strength of this promise. However, if it became known that Sinsniggs fell back into the same behaviour, he was then to perform the penance previously ordered in the consultation of 12 August, when a minister was available. Interpretations To “remit” penance meant that the punishment was formally cancelled, though not permanently set aside, but conditional upon future conduct. The minister’s intervention shows that clerical authority could influence the application of punishment, particularly in matters of moral and religious discipline. The condition that penance would be enforced upon relapse indicates a system of conditional leniency, where reform could replace punishment but remained subject to oversight. The reference to “opportunity of a minister” shows that such penalties depended on the presence of clergy, linking enforcement of religious discipline to available ecclesiastical authority. Speculations The decision to remit the penance suggests that the council was willing to prioritise moral reform over public punishment when supported by clerical assurance. The requirement that the community observe his reformation implies that reputation and public behaviour were central to maintaining order, with social scrutiny acting as a form of enforcement. | |
219 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the 29ᵗʰ day of Present Richᵈ KIelinge Govʳ Whereas it is now six months past since yᵉ accᵗ It is ordered That the Govʳ doe forthwith his warrant to Thomᵃ Also Another Warrᵗ for paymᵗ of Labourers and Workmen for Likewise That he Charge to accᵗ of the Fort and Genˡ Table yᵉ | A consultation was held on 29 August 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. It was noted that six months had passed since the last salary accounts had been settled. It was ordered that the Governor was to issue a warrant to Thomas Goodwin, whom he had appointed as storekeeper, authorising him to pay the officers and soldiers of the garrison their salaries due for the previous six months. A further warrant was to be issued for the payment of labourers and workmen for work carried out for the fort and the plantation during the same period. It was also ordered that the expenses of the fort and the Governor’s table for the last six months were to be charged to the appropriate accounts, along with the expenses of the plantation. These were all to be processed by warrant. Credit was also to be given to the plantation account for provisions and other necessities supplied for the use of the fort and the Governor’s table. Interpretations A “warrant” was a formal written authorisation issued by the Governor, allowing payments to be made or accounts to be settled. The “General Table” referred to the official provisioning of the Governor and associated administrative household, treated as a distinct category of expenditure. Charging expenses “to account” indicates a structured bookkeeping system in which different areas of activity, such as the fort and plantation, were financially separated. Giving “credit” to the plantation account shows that goods supplied internally were still formally recorded as transactions, reflecting an accounting system that treated different parts of the Company’s operations as distinct entities. Speculations The regular six-month settlement suggests a standardised financial cycle, indicating an attempt to maintain order and predictability in payments. The detailed allocation of expenses across multiple accounts implies a concern with financial transparency and control, particularly in a remote settlement where oversight from the Company was limited. | |
220 | Island St Helena. Att a Consultation Held on monday the 9ᵗʰ Presᵗ Richᵈ KIelinge Govʳ Whereas [Geo]ʳ Hastebury and Richᵈ Darrum planter But the said Admʳ desired that they might have further It is ordered That the said Liffo[l]ks goods be exposed to sell at outcry Also It is ordered That the said Administrators bring in also their Hugh Bodley Planter complaines of Robᵗ Exeter saying yᵗ | A consultation was held on 9 September 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. George Hastebury and Richard Darrum, planters, who had been granted letters of administration over the goods and chattels of Edward Liffo[...] , who had died without a will, were called to account for their management of the estate. They requested further time, stating that several debts owed to the deceased had not yet been collected and that some of his goods had not yet been sold. It was ordered that the goods of the deceased were to be put up for public sale by auction on the following Monday. All persons who had claims against the estate were to submit their accounts by Monday 23 September. A notice was to be issued immediately to that effect. It was also ordered that, since Hugh Bodley, planter, had given a bond to the deceased which was now missing, any person who possessed it, whether by finding or otherwise, was to bring it in by the same date. The administrators were likewise ordered to present their accounts to the Governor and Council on 23 September 1695. Hugh Bodley, planter, then complained that Robert Exeter owed him £7 2s 0d. Upon examination of the accounts of both parties, it was found that Exeter was indebted to Bodley in the sum of £5 15s 2d. Exeter agreed to pay this amount as he was able. Interpretations “Letters of administration” gave legal authority to manage the estate of someone who had died without a will, including collecting debts and disposing of property. To sell goods “at outcry” meant to sell them by public auction, where bids were openly called out. An “obligation” referred to a formal written bond acknowledging a debt. The requirement for all claims to be submitted by a fixed date shows a structured process for settling estates, bringing together debts and assets under official supervision. The examination of accounts by the council demonstrates that disputes over debts could be resolved through direct administrative review rather than a full jury trial. Speculations The insistence on a prompt sale and fixed deadline for claims suggests concern to prevent delay or mismanagement in administering the estate. The reduction of the claimed debt after examination implies that informal accounting between individuals was common and could lead to discrepancies requiring official arbitration. | |
221 | It is ordered That the said Hugh Bodley if the said Exeter doth Whereas by the Death of [...] Hens [...] Upon Consideration that there is no Single man belonging It is agreed & ordered That the said Bodley be Entertained as Coxswain Mary Stevens widow brought her Husbands Johns Stevens It is ordered That yᵉ said Will be approved off and Recᵈ and Copy [...] | It was ordered that, if Robert Exeter did not satisfy Hugh Bodley within a reasonable time, Bodley might bring an action against him to be heard at the next sessions. It was further noted that, following the death of [...] Hens [...], the position of coxswain had become vacant. Hugh Bodley, planter, requested that he might be appointed to this role. It was considered that no unmarried man in the garrison was capable of undertaking the duty, and although Bodley was recognised as experienced in managing boats, his responsibilities to his family were thought to make him less suitable. However, he declared that his plantation would not interfere with his service. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Bodley was to be employed as coxswain in the service and pay of the Honourable English East India Company on a trial basis until the next pay day of the garrison, at a rate of £0 2s 0d per day. Mary Stevens, widow, then presented the last will and testament of her husband, John Stevens, so that it might be proved. John Gormon and James Rixon made oath that the document produced was the last will of the said John Stevens, and that they knew of no later will made by him. It was ordered that the will was to be approved and recorded, and that a copy was to be provided when required. Interpretations A “coxswain” was the person in charge of a boat and its crew, responsible for navigation and handling, making it a position of practical skill and trust. To be “entertained” meant to be formally employed in the Company’s service, usually on agreed pay and conditions. Payment “per diem” meant a daily wage, indicating short-term or conditional employment rather than a fixed salary. The appointment “upon trial” shows that positions could be provisionally granted and later confirmed or withdrawn based on performance. To “prove” a will meant to formally establish its validity before authority, allowing the estate to be administered according to its terms. The recording of the will and provision of copies reflects a system of written legal documentation to secure property rights and inheritance. Speculations The conditional appointment of Bodley suggests caution in assigning roles that required reliability, especially where personal obligations might interfere with duty. The prompt proving and recording of the will indicates an effort to stabilise property and inheritance matters quickly after death, reducing the risk of dispute. | |
222 | Island St Helena. Att a Court of Justice Held on Monday the 7ᵗʰ Presᵗ Richᵈ KIelinge Govʳ and Judge After the Court was opened according to yᵉ accustomed Then the persons warned as Jurors was Called Then The Marshall was ordered to bring the Clerk Peace Michᵉˡ Isaack stand at yᵉ Barr and heare [...] Michᵉˡ Isaack Thou art Charged here at this Barr And | A court of justice was held on 7 October 1695 at the Sessions House near Fort James on St Helena for the trial of Michael Isaack. Those present were Richard Kelinge, acting as judge, and Captain Stephen Poirier as assistant. After the court had been opened in the usual manner, the Governor explained the reason for the trial. Michael Isaack, the prisoner, was accused of drawing powder from five guns positioned along the defensive line before Fort James, which were intended for the protection of the island against a foreign enemy, whose arrival was believed possible at any time. The Governor stated that he had been willing to overlook the offence if Isaack had openly admitted his guilt and identified any accomplices. However, Isaack had denied the accusation entirely, including statements attributed to him by credible witnesses, and had insisted on his innocence. As a result, the Governor proceeded to trial. The jurors who had been summoned were then called and all answered. The marshal was ordered to bring the prisoner to the bar, which was done. The clerk of the peace instructed Michael Isaack to stand at the bar and hear the charge. He was formally charged, being described as a single man of the island, that he had committed the offence [...] Interpretations A “delinquent” referred to a person accused or found guilty of an offence, particularly one against public order or authority. “Ordnance” meant heavy guns or artillery used for defence, indicating that the offence concerned military security rather than private property. The “line before Fort James” referred to a defensive arrangement of artillery protecting the settlement, showing that the island maintained organised fortifications. To be brought “to the bar” meant to be placed before the court to answer the charge, marking the formal stage of trial proceedings. The “clerk of the peace” was the court official responsible for reading charges and recording proceedings, ensuring the legal process was properly conducted. Speculations The Governor’s initial willingness to overlook the offence in exchange for confession suggests a preference for maintaining control and extracting information rather than immediately pursuing formal punishment. The emphasis on the removal of powder from defensive guns indicates that the act was treated as a serious threat to the island’s security, especially in the context of expected foreign attack. | |
223 | And wickedness of thine owne heart with some others as yet Prisoner Not Guilty C P Culprit how wilt thou be tryed P by God and my Country C P God send thee a Good deliverance Then persons appointed for Jurors whose Cills and names 1 Orlando Bagley foreman 7 Edw Damin | He was charged that, together with others not yet identified, between the end of August and 7 September, he had unlawfully and treacherously removed powder or ammunition from five guns placed along the defensive line before Fort James. These included four demi-culverins and one twelve-pounder, all of which had been loaded for the protection of the fort, the garrison, and the island against foreign enemies. It was alleged that he had taken this powder for his own use and, by doing so, had acted in a manner described as betraying the King and endangering the island, as well as violating the trust placed in him by the Honourable English East India Company, from whom he received pay to defend the settlement. He was asked how he pleaded. He answered that he was not guilty. He was then asked how he wished to be tried, to which he replied, “By God and my country.” The court responded with the customary form, wishing him a fair outcome. The jurors were then called. The prisoner objected to some of those first named, and replacements were appointed where necessary. The final jury consisted of Orlando Bagley as foreman, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Boon, Hugh Bodley, Edward Brayne, John Clymore, Edward Damin, John Lefkin, Samuel Rider, Thomas Mudge, John Goodwin, and Samuel Marshall. Interpretations “Demi-culverin” and “twelve-pounder” were types of artillery, classified by size and the weight of shot they fired, indicating that the guns involved were part of the island’s main defensive armament. To plead “by God and my country” meant that the accused chose to be tried by a jury, a standard legal formula in English criminal procedure. The ability of the prisoner to object to jurors shows that jury selection allowed for challenge, ensuring a degree of procedural fairness. The description of the act as both felony and treason reflects the seriousness of interfering with military defences, especially in a frontier or vulnerable settlement. Speculations The strong language of treason in the charge suggests that the authorities intended to frame the offence as a threat to collective security, not merely theft. The replacement of jurors after objection indicates sensitivity to potential bias, suggesting that the court aimed to preserve legitimacy in a serious and politically charged case. | |
224 | The said Michᵉˡ Isaack [...] Charge was read C P Gentlemen of the Jury Michᵉˡ Isaack the prisoner at The Jury was sworne as followeth Judge You shall well and Truely Trye and True deliverance make The same Oath that your foreman has taken you & | The charge against Michael Isaack was read out again in full. The court then addressed the jury, stating that Michael Isaack had been indicted for unlawfully and treacherously removing powder from five guns placed along the defensive line before Fort James. These guns had been loaded for the protection of the fort, the garrison, and the island against foreign enemies. The prisoner had pleaded not guilty and had chosen to be tried by a jury. The jurors were told that they were to determine whether he was guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented. The jury was then sworn. The judge instructed them that they were to fairly try the case between the King and the prisoner, to deliver a true verdict based on the evidence, and to act according to their judgement. Each juror was required to take the same oath as the foreman, affirming their duty to reach a just decision. Interpretations “To be indicted” meant that a formal accusation had been made against the prisoner, initiating the criminal trial. “True deliverance” referred to the jury’s duty to reach a just and proper verdict between the Crown and the accused. The oath taken on “that Book” referred to the Bible, used in court to bind the jurors’ consciences under religious obligation. The instruction to decide “according to evidence” reflects the expectation that verdicts were to be based on testimony presented in court, not on prior opinion. Speculations The formal repetition of the charge before the jury suggests an effort to emphasise the seriousness of the offence and ensure that all jurors clearly understood it. The religious form of the oath indicates that moral and spiritual accountability were integral to the legal process, reinforcing the authority of the court’s judgement. | |
225 | Capt Call & Mr Phillips Junʳ Robᵗ Addis Tho: Gannon And Phillips sworne saith that on a Saturday he being Gunnʳ Doe you remember in what month it is you found this No I doe not remember it The day that the Gunner told me first he found the Gunns drawne Robᵗ Addis Gunnʳ Cheife mate sworne saith yᵗ was the Gunns Loaded by you before Addis Clk for the Gunns upon the East Battery it was certainly soe | Captain Call, Mr Phillips Junior, Robert Addis, Thomas Gannon, and a Frenchman, his mate, were called. Phillips, being sworn, stated that on a Saturday, while examining the guns along the defensive line before Fort James, near two adjoining half-moon batteries, he used an iron tool to inspect a twelve-pounder on the eastern position and found that it had been emptied. Wanting to confirm this, he began to clear the gun but, lacking the strength to complete the task, called Robert Addis, his chief mate, who finished it. They then found that most of the powder had been removed, and that the cartridge had been pushed back in and tied. On further inspection, four additional guns along the line, of the type known as demi-culverins, were also found to have been emptied. When asked when this had occurred, Phillips stated that he could not remember the exact time. He added that he had first been told of the matter on 6 April, but expected that others would provide clearer evidence. Robert Addis, being sworn, confirmed that he had been called to assist in clearing a gun on the eastern battery. He found that the twelve-pounder had been emptied, with the cartridge tied and only a small amount of powder remaining. On further inspection, four additional guns were found in the same condition. When asked whether the guns had originally been loaded, Addis replied that those on the eastern battery certainly had been. However, he could not be certain about the others, noting that on 5 November of the previous year he had been ordered to unload two of them because of a bonfire nearby, and had not reloaded them afterwards. Interpretations A “half-moon” was a projecting defensive outwork, showing that the island’s fortifications extended beyond a single fort into a layered defensive system. To “draw” a gun meant to remove its charge using tools, indicating that artillery required regular manual inspection and maintenance by designated personnel. A “cartridge” was a prepared powder charge, and the fact that it was replaced and tied after most of the powder had been removed suggests deliberate interference rather than neglect. The testimony shows that responsibility for artillery was divided among specific roles such as gunner and mate, reflecting a structured military organisation within the garrison. The uncertainty over whether some guns had been officially unloaded earlier reveals limits in record-keeping and oversight, which could complicate accountability in a small but highly militarised settlement. The emphasis on guns being kept ready for defence demonstrates the constant expectation of attack, shaping both daily routine and the seriousness of any interference with military readiness. Speculations The replacement and tying of cartridges after powder had been removed suggests an attempt to conceal the act, implying that the offence may have been planned rather than impulsive. The lack of certainty about when some guns were last properly loaded may have weakened the clarity of the evidence, potentially affecting how responsibility could be assigned. | |
226 | Jury Robᵗ Addis Doe you remember in what month it was you and yᵉ Ro Addis It was the Saturday before King Williams Coronation day for yᵉ Tho: Gargett Gunnʳ 2ᵈ Mate sworne saith that some Jury Tho: Gargett what Cann you say abᵗ the Gunn upon yᵉ East Gargett I Cann say nothing to yᵗ for I was appointed Gunnʳ Mate Wᵐ French Quarter Gunner sworne saith that he drew Serjᵗ Dixon sworne saith that he was upon the Guard | The jury asked Robert Addis whether he could recall when he and the gunner had found the guns to be emptied. Addis replied that it was the Saturday before King William’s Coronation Day. On that day most of the island had been alarmed by a loud noise, later thought to have been thunder. He was certain it was the Saturday before that event, which he identified as 6 April. Thomas Gargett, second mate to the gunner, being sworn, stated that a few days after 5 November he had come down to his guard, where the gunner ordered him to load two guns outside the defensive line that had been previously emptied on 5 November. He added that these guns had since again been found emptied. When asked about the gun on the eastern battery, Gargett said he could not give any account, as he had only been appointed gunner’s mate shortly before 5 November. William French, quarter gunner, being sworn, stated that he had emptied two of the large guns near the line but had not reloaded them. He added that Gargett had told him that he had reloaded them, yet they had since been found emptied again. Sergeant Dixon, being sworn, stated that he had been on guard on 6 April and had seen the guns being brought up from the line. As he passed through the guard, he raised the alarm, saying that four guns had been emptied, and went immediately to inform Richard Kelinge. He further stated that on 10 April, when he was off duty, the Governor sent for him and ordered him to instruct Corporal Shaples to go to the house of Sutton Isaack and conduct a search for powder, but to do so discreetly. Dixon went there with Shaples, and after some conversation, they asked Sutton Isaack where his son Michael Isaack was. Sutton replied that he was unwell and refused them entry to the room. Dixon then informed him that they had come to search the premises and asked for the key to Michael Isaack’s chest, which Sutton provided, and while they were speaking with him [...] Interpretations Reference to “King William’s Coronation Day” shows how events were dated by widely recognised public occasions, indicating the continued cultural and political connection of the island to England. The testimony reveals a layered structure of artillery personnel, including gunner, mates, and quarter gunners, indicating a specialised and hierarchical organisation within the garrison. The repeated emptying and reloading of guns, sometimes by order and sometimes unexplained, shows that routine maintenance and operational practice could create ambiguity, complicating the identification of unauthorised interference. The raising of the alarm by a sergeant and immediate reporting to the Governor demonstrates a direct chain of command, with military incidents rapidly escalated to civil authority. The ordered but discreet search of a private house indicates that suspicion could justify intrusion into domestic space, but that such actions were expected to be carried out with caution to avoid wider disturbance. Speculations The confusion over which guns had been officially unloaded and which had been interfered with may have made it difficult to establish clear responsibility, increasing reliance on witness testimony. The decision to conduct a quiet search suggests concern about alerting others, possibly indicating fear that more than one person was involved or that evidence might be concealed or removed. | |
227 | Sutton Isaacks, wᵐ Bowrman who was there before [...] came in Corpˢ Shaples Sworne saith the same as the said Gentlemen of the Jury take notice of what this Evidence saith John Stevens Sworne saith yt of a Lords day coming | Sutton Isaack and William Bowrman, who was already present, spoke while the search was underway. Bowrman said there was no need for secrecy, as they had come looking for powder. Sutton Isaack replied that they had come to the wrong place and stated that he did not believe there were more than three charges in the house. When Michael Isaack’s chest was opened, a horn full of powder, another nearly full, and a small quantity in a bag or cloth were found. Three powder containers were examined, and a small amount was taken from each. They were found to be of similar size. One horn was taken to Richard Kelinge, and the other was left in the house. Corporal Shaples, being sworn, confirmed Dixon’s account and added that around Christmas, Michael Isaack, the prisoner, had asked him for two or three charges of powder on behalf of his father, saying that they had none in the house. Shaples stated that he had given it to him. The court directed the jury to note that, although Michael Isaack had claimed at Christmas that there was no powder in the house, no ships had arrived between that time and 6 April, making it unlikely that powder had been obtained lawfully in the meantime. John Stevens, being sworn, stated that on a Sunday, while returning from church in the country, he stopped at the house of William Marsh with his wife. Sutton Isaack’s slave Mark was present, along with Marsh. It was said that the following day they intended to go with Samuel Taylor and John Bowrman to shoot wild goats, but they lacked a gun and ammunition. Marsh therefore sent Isaack’s slave to fetch a gun and powder from his master’s house. The slave returned shortly afterwards with a gun and powder, stating that his master had no bullets, but that if Michael Isaack had been well enough to open his chest, there would have been plenty there. Interpretations The use of powder horns and small containers shows that gunpowder was stored and handled in portable quantities, making it easier to distribute and conceal outside formal military control. The comparison between the Christmas request for powder and the later discovery indicates that access to ammunition was expected to be traceable, reflecting an assumption of controlled supply within the island. The absence of incoming ships is treated as evidence, showing that imported goods such as gunpowder were closely monitored and that new supply routes were limited and observable. The search of a private chest within a household demonstrates that, in matters concerning military security, domestic space could be subjected to official inspection under authority. The testimony involving a slave acting on behalf of his owner shows that enslaved individuals were integrated into everyday logistical tasks, including the movement of weapons and ammunition. Speculations The presence of multiple containers of similar size may have raised suspicion that the powder had been deliberately divided, possibly to obscure its origin. The reliance on circumstantial reasoning about supply suggests that the case depended not only on direct evidence but also on inference about how resources could have been obtained on the island. | |
228 | sister with the Key, saith the said Black he would not trust Mary the wife of the said Hemmon sworne saith yt she Samˡ Taylor sworne saith yt abᵗ a fortnight before Risᵗ Willˡ sworne saith that he has heard severall times Richᵈ Coales sworne saith that being one day after | Mary, the wife of John Hemmon, being sworn, stated that she had been present with her husband at William Marsh’s house but had not taken notice of what was said. Samuel Taylor, being sworn, stated that about a fortnight before Christmas he, William Marsh, Michael Isaack, and others had gone to hunt goats that had strayed and become wild. Not all were found, and it was agreed that they would return the following day to continue the search. Michael Isaack said that he would not be able to join them because he was due to go on guard duty. He also said that neither he nor his father had any powder. Taylor replied that if Isaack’s slave went, he would give him one or two charges of powder, which he did the next day, having borrowed it from John Long. Robert Will[...], being sworn, stated that he had heard on several occasions that Michael Isaack and Charles Prunnell, after coming off guard, had fired at each other three or four times each, as soldiers. Richard Coales, being sworn, stated that after Michael Isaack had been imprisoned on suspicion of emptying the guns, he was present with Richard Kelinge at the fort house when Sutton Isaack arrived. During their conversation, the Governor showed Sutton Isaack some powder that had been found in his son’s possession. Michael Isaack had claimed that his father had given it to him. When asked directly, Sutton Isaack said that he sometimes gave his son three or four charges of powder when he went out shooting, but denied that he had given him the powder that had been found. Interpretations The repeated references to borrowing and sharing powder between individuals show that, alongside official control, there existed informal circulation of ammunition within the community. The mention of guard duty indicates that soldiers combined military obligations with civilian activities such as hunting, reflecting a dual role within the settlement. The firing of guns “as soldiers” after guard duty suggests informal use of weapons outside strict operational control, pointing to looser discipline in everyday practice. The Governor’s direct questioning of Sutton Isaack in a semi-private setting shows that investigation could proceed through personal interrogation as well as formal court procedure. The contradiction between the son’s claim and the father’s denial highlights the reliance on testimonial evidence and personal credibility in resolving disputes. Speculations The evidence that powder was borrowed and exchanged informally may have made it difficult to distinguish legitimate possession from theft, complicating the prosecution’s case. The reported casual use of firearms by soldiers suggests that control over weapons may not have been strictly enforced, potentially creating opportunities for misuse without immediate detection. | |
229 | Gentlemen of the Jury you might observe that we have Serjᵗ Field & Wᵐ French sworne saith that they heard Charles Worrall sworne saith yt as he was in prison | The court addressed the jury, stating that the evidence had established several points. First, that the guns had been loaded since 5 November. Second, that they had been emptied before 6 April. Third, that Michael Isaack had no powder around Christmas. Fourth, that the Governor had later found a quantity of powder in his possession, despite no ships having arrived in the meantime to supply it. The court then turned to the final issue, whether Isaack had admitted any knowledge of the guns being emptied. Sergeant Field and William French, being sworn, stated that they had heard Charles Worrall speaking to Michael Isaack one evening in prison. Worrall asked him why he was troubled, and referred to something Isaack had told him the previous morning. Isaack avoided answering and pretended to be asleep. Worrall continued to press him, asking whether he had not said that he knew about one of the guns being emptied. Isaack replied that if he had said so, he did not remember it, and that if he had, he must have been asleep at the time. Worrall insisted that Isaack had said it and that he could swear to it. He asked Isaack what he would do when he came before the twelve jurors. Isaack replied that he would stand before them and leave it to them, but that he would not admit guilt. He also suggested that if Worrall gave evidence against him, it would harm him. Charles Worrall, being sworn, confirmed that while he was in prison with Michael Isaack, who was then suspected of involvement in the offence, he had spoken with him several times. On 16 May, Isaack had told him that he knew about, or had been present at, the emptying of one of the guns. Isaack had also accused Worrall of intending to act as a witness against him, which Worrall denied. Interpretations The structured summary of evidence presented to the jury shows that the case relied on cumulative reasoning, combining timeline, supply constraints, and possession of materials rather than a single direct proof. The reference to no ships arriving as a key point demonstrates that external supply was closely monitored and used as a baseline for judging whether goods could have been obtained lawfully. Conversations in prison being used as evidence indicates that informal admissions or statements outside formal interrogation were considered admissible and significant. The phrase “before the twelve” reflects the central role of the jury as the deciding body, with guilt determined collectively rather than solely by the judge. The exchange between Isaack and Worrall shows awareness of the consequences of testimony, highlighting the importance of reputation and credibility in a system heavily dependent on witness statements. Speculations The reliance on circumstantial evidence and reported conversation suggests that the prosecution may have lacked direct proof, making credibility and interpretation of statements crucial to the outcome. Isaack’s reluctance to respond directly, and his attempt to minimise or deny his earlier statement, may indicate an effort to avoid self-incrimination while recognising the weight such testimony could carry. | |
230 | They will not believe me: Pray replyed the said Michᵃˡ Isaack Michᵃˡ Isaack have you any thing to say, before the Jury goe out Sutton Isaack the said Michᵃˡ Isaacks father was called But Mr Isaack it has bin Evidence here already upon The Prisoner called wm Marsh, he saith with some others Michᵃˡ Isaack have you any thing more to offer before Noe Gentlemen of yᵉ Jury, I suppose I need not to repeate to | Michael Isaack continued that Worrall had said he would not be believed if he gave evidence. Isaack replied that he knew that, if Worrall did swear against him, what he had said would harm him. He added that when asked what he would do before the jury, he had said that he would stand before them and submit himself to their judgement, but would not be called a rogue for betraying anyone else. He was then asked whether he had anything further to say before the jury withdrew. He requested that his father, Sutton Isaack, along with William Marsh and John Marsh, be heard. Sutton Isaack was called and stated that he usually gave his son three or four charges of powder whenever he asked for it, although not always. He also claimed that he had obtained large quantities of powder in earlier years, including from Company stores and from ships, and that he had rarely been without some supply since arriving on the island. The court pointed out that earlier sworn evidence had stated that he had no powder around Christmas. The prisoner then called William Marsh, and referred to evidence already given by George Hemmon, who had sworn that Sutton Isaack’s slave had not been sent for powder and had not brought a gun. Michael Isaack was asked again whether he had anything further to offer before the jury withdrew. He said that he had nothing more to add. The court then instructed the jury that the evidence had been presented and that they should withdraw to consider their verdict, and return with a true decision. Interpretations The prisoner’s refusal to implicate others, even when it might assist his defence, reflects the importance placed on loyalty and reputation, particularly the stigma attached to betraying associates. Sutton Isaack’s claim to long-term possession of powder, including from Company sources and ships, shows that individuals could accumulate private stores over time, complicating the distinction between authorised supply and illicit possession. The contradiction between Sutton Isaack’s statement and earlier sworn testimony highlights the reliance on conflicting witness accounts, with the jury required to judge credibility rather than rely on definitive proof. The ability of the accused to call witnesses in his defence demonstrates that the trial process allowed participation by the prisoner, even within a system strongly directed by the Governor. The judge’s final instruction to the jury emphasises their central role in determining the outcome, with responsibility formally placed on their collective judgement. Speculations The emphasis on not betraying others suggests that the case may have involved broader suspicion of collaboration, even if not fully proven. The conflicting accounts regarding possession of powder may have introduced uncertainty, making the jury’s assessment of character and consistency especially important in reaching a verdict. | |
231 | After the Jury had withdrawne themselvs, and stayed Gentle of the Jury are you all agreed of a verdict Jury yea yea all C.P Who shall speake for you Jury The Forman C.P Cryer count these and Gentlemen of ye Jury answer to your C.P Looke well upon Michᵃˡ Isaack the prisoner at the Barr and Guilty C.P Guilty of what Guilty of Theft, and Treachery Judge Record the Verdict C.P Gentlemen of the Jury harken to your verdict as the Court has Jury Yea Yea all Judge Michᵃˡ Isaack thou hast had Time Enough given thee to produce Prisoner I have nothing to say you may doe wᵗ you please Judge Michᵃˡ Isaack thou hast bin Charged here at this Court for | After the jury had withdrawn and remained out for about half an hour, they returned and delivered their verdict. They confirmed that they were all agreed. The foreman spoke on their behalf, and each juror answered to his name when called. The court then asked whether they found Michael Isaack guilty or not guilty of the charges. They answered that he was guilty. When asked of what, they replied, “theft and treachery.” The judge ordered the verdict to be recorded, and the jury confirmed it unanimously. Richard Kelinge then addressed Michael Isaack, stating that he had been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, and that clemency might have been shown had he been open in his conduct, but he had instead remained obstinate. He asked whether Isaack had anything to say before sentence was passed. Isaack replied that he had nothing to say and that the court might proceed as it wished. The judge then stated that Isaack had been charged with treacherously removing powder from the guns placed along the defensive line before Fort James, and that he had chosen to be tried by a jury, which had now found him guilty of theft and treachery. He added that he could, according to law, pass sentence of death upon him, but did not immediately do so [...] Interpretations The jury’s role in delivering a unanimous verdict shows that collective agreement was required, reinforcing the legitimacy of the decision within the legal process. The distinction between the formal charge and the jury’s verdict (“theft and treachery”) indicates that juries could frame the offence in terms reflecting both criminal and political wrongdoing. The judge’s reference to potential clemency in exchange for openness suggests that confession and cooperation were valued within the system and could influence sentencing. The statement that the judge could impose the death penalty highlights the severity with which interference with military defences was treated under both Company authority and English law. The formal confirmation of the verdict by each juror demonstrates the procedural emphasis on public accountability in judicial decisions. Speculations The judge’s remarks about clemency imply that the outcome might have been different if Isaack had confessed or implicated others, suggesting that the trial was partly aimed at uncovering wider involvement. The decision to delay immediate sentencing, despite mentioning the possibility of death, may indicate hesitation or consideration of alternative punishment, possibly reflecting uncertainty or political sensitivity surrounding the case. | |
232 | [...] Desire to be [...] but I must Tell thee that [...] Then the Court was adjourned according to the | The judge continued that, although he had considered leniency, the offence was too serious and required an example to be made. It was ordered that Michael Isaack was to be taken immediately to the gallows and there receive 21 lashes. He was then to be returned to custody and remain there until four sufficient men provided bail for him, to secure his appearance until a ship arrived bound for the East Indies. He was then to be transported from St Helena and required to serve the Honourable English East India Company for four years, after which he was to be permanently banished from the island. In addition, he was to receive a further 12 lashes on the following Saturday, and 12 lashes on the first Saturday of every month thereafter, continuing until a ship arrived for his transportation. The court was then adjourned in the usual manner. Interpretations The combination of corporal punishment, imprisonment, transportation, and banishment shows a layered penal system in which multiple sanctions were applied to enforce discipline and remove offenders. “Bail” required others to guarantee the prisoner’s appearance, indicating that responsibility for compliance could be placed on members of the community rather than relying solely on confinement. Transportation to the East Indies to serve the Company reflects the use of convicted individuals as labour within the Company’s wider imperial system. The requirement for repeated monthly punishments before removal demonstrates that discipline was intended to be ongoing and visible, reinforcing authority over time rather than through a single act. Permanent banishment from the island shows that exclusion from the community was used as a final measure to protect the settlement. Speculations The severity and repetition of punishment suggest that the authorities intended to deter similar acts by making a strong public example of the offender. The use of transportation as punishment implies that the Company sought to extract labour value even from convicted offenders, integrating penal measures with economic needs. | |
233 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the 18ᵗʰ Day of Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Serjᵗ Dixon complainᵗ of John Worrall [...] [...] Wrangham one of the said Executors Whereupon It was accordingly ordered agreed Whereas Severall of the Books belonging to Govʳ Blackmores | A consultation was held on 18 November 1695 at Fort James on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. Sergeant Dixon complained against John Worrall, stating that he had previously stood as surety for Worrall to the executors of John [...] deceased, guaranteeing payment of a sum of money which, he said, should have been settled nearly a year earlier. He requested to be released from this obligation. Samuel Wrangham, one of the executors, appeared and stated that he would release Dixon from the bond and return it to him upon inspection. It was therefore agreed and ordered that Dixon was to withdraw his complaint. It was further noted that several books from the library of Governor Blackmore had been missing for some time, including during the lifetime of Governor Johnson. Upon enquiry, one book, titled Fuller’s Holy War and Holy State, was found in the possession of John [...], a planter. He was ordered to bring it before the Governor and Council, which he did. He stated that he had purchased the book from Prudence Sherwin when she left the island, for two dollars, and that he could prove this by witnesses. However, this evidence was not considered sufficient. He then offered to return the book if he were reimbursed the two dollars he had paid. The Governor and Council, being satisfied that he had indeed bought the book from Sherwin [...] Interpretations To stand “bound of security” meant to act as a guarantor for another person’s debt, making the surety legally responsible if the debtor failed to pay, showing how financial obligations could extend across individuals. The willingness of the executor to release Dixon indicates that such obligations could be resolved administratively without formal litigation when parties agreed. The reference to the executors managing the deceased’s estate shows the continuation of structured estate administration, with debts actively pursued after death. The recovery of books from a governor’s library demonstrates that Company property, even intellectual or cultural items, was tracked and subject to official reclamation. The questioning of the planter’s claim and the insufficiency of his oath indicate that proof of ownership required credible corroboration, not merely assertion. Speculations The involvement of multiple individuals in the missing book suggests that Company property may have circulated informally after an official’s death, requiring later recovery. The decision to reimburse the purchaser implies a pragmatic approach, prioritising the return of property while maintaining a sense of fairness to those who had acquired it in good faith. | |
234 | It is ordered That the said John Colgrave doe returne ye Book It is also ordered That ye mr Tho: Goodwin doe pay unto the said Colgrave John Coles Pᵗᶰʳ humbly petitioned to Govʳ and Councill The sᵈ Coles Petition was Seriously considered and debated It is ordered That the sᵈ Joᵗʰ Coles have 10 acres of Land measured to | It was ordered that John Colgrave was to return the book to the library of Governor Blackmore. Since Prudence Sherwin had sold the book without proper right, and still had property remaining on the island in the hands of Thomas Goodwin, whom she had appointed as her attorney, it was further ordered that Goodwin was to repay Colgrave the two dollars he had paid for the book, using her funds. John Coles, planter, then petitioned the Governor and Council to grant him ten acres of Company land in exchange for ten acres of pasture and woodland that he held adjoining land recently purchased by the Honourable English East India Company from Mr Stevens. The petition was considered in light of the advantage to the Company, particularly the value of the pasture and the development already begun there under Captain Stephen Poirier. It was also noted that granting Coles the land he requested would reduce the Company’s labour in fencing and maintaining the pasture. It was therefore ordered that John Coles was to receive ten acres of land on the edge of Sandy Bay, and that formal deeds of exchange were to be issued between him and the Company. Interpretations The requirement that repayment be made from Sherwin’s remaining “effects” shows that individuals’ property on the island could be used to settle obligations arising from their actions, even after departure. The role of an “attorney” here indicates a locally appointed agent responsible for managing a person’s property and financial affairs in their absence. The recovery of the book alongside reimbursement reflects an administrative approach that balanced restoration of Company property with compensation to those who had acquired it in good faith. The land exchange demonstrates that the Company actively reorganised landholding to consolidate useful resources, particularly pasture, rather than simply distributing land. The reference to reducing labour in fencing indicates that managing land, especially enclosing pasture, required significant organised effort, which the Company sought to minimise through strategic exchanges. The use of formal deeds for both sides shows that land transactions were legally structured and reciprocal, reinforcing the Company’s control over property relations on the island. Speculations The emphasis on the advantages of pasture suggests that livestock production was becoming an increasingly important part of the island’s economy. The willingness to exchange land rather than insist on existing boundaries implies a flexible but controlled approach to land management, aimed at improving efficiency rather than maintaining fixed holdings. | |
235 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Thursday the 28ᵗʰ Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Whereas we have done hitherto to what in us lay since Many of the Inhabitants according to order this day It was Unanimously agreed | A consultation was held on 28 November 1695 at the Honourable English East India Company’s Plantation House on St Helena. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. It was recorded that, since news of war between England and France, efforts had been made to secure all parts of the island that might be vulnerable to attack. This concern had increased after the departure of Captain Tinifer, commander of the Little Success, who reported that two French warships and a supply vessel had sailed from Brest with the intention of attacking either St Helena or the Cape. Several inhabitants had informed the Governor and Council that Sandy Bay was particularly vulnerable to landing, as it lacked artillery for defence. The Governor and Council inspected the site and found it accessible and capable of being easily occupied by an enemy unless strengthened. A proclamation had therefore been issued requiring the inhabitants, especially those living in Sandy Bay, to assemble at the Plantation House to consider whether the area should be fortified and how this might be done. A large number of inhabitants attended as ordered. The Governor and Council debated the matter with them, and it was unanimously agreed [...] Interpretations The reference to war with France shows how global European conflicts directly shaped defensive policy on the island, linking local decision-making to wider imperial warfare. The reliance on reports from ship captains demonstrates the importance of maritime intelligence in informing security measures, reflecting the island’s dependence on passing vessels for strategic information. The consultation with inhabitants indicates that, although authority rested with the Governor and Council, local knowledge and cooperation were actively incorporated into decision-making, especially for defence. The identification of Sandy Bay as a vulnerable landing point highlights how geography determined military priorities, with unfortified coastal access points treated as critical risks. The issuing of a proclamation requiring attendance shows that the government could compel participation from inhabitants in matters of collective security. The discussion of how to fortify the site suggests that defence relied not only on existing structures but on ongoing adaptation and labour mobilisation within the settlement. Speculations The emphasis on Sandy Bay’s vulnerability may reflect heightened anxiety following intelligence of a possible attack, even if the threat was uncertain. The need to gather inhabitants to discuss and implement fortification suggests that the garrison alone may not have had sufficient manpower, requiring broader community involvement in defence. | |
236 | That it is very requisite needfull and necessary for ye It is also ordered That some persons of the Inhabitants in ye Likewise this day was appointed to receive ye Therefore it is ordered That the said Busines be referred untill Monday the 16ᵗʰ day | It was unanimously agreed that it was necessary for the defence of Sandy Bay that two pieces of artillery should, if possible, be obtained at public expense and placed in a suitable position, to be determined after a further inspection. It was also ordered that certain inhabitants, acting on behalf of the whole community, were to agree terms with John Bowman, a mason, for the construction of a battery at the chosen site. Once completed, the cost was to be met by an assessment on all landholders on the island, except the Honourable English East India Company. On the same day, a list was received of twelve persons who had been selected by the Governor and Council to examine all the roads on St Helena, with the aim of establishing them formally and preventing disputes that had previously arisen. These persons were to consider not only private paths but also public footways and routes used for driving cattle. As some of those named were not present, it was decided to postpone giving them their instructions. It was therefore ordered that the matter be deferred until 16 December, when all those concerned were to assemble at Fort James before Richard Kelinge and the Council, to be sworn in and formally charged with their duties. Interpretations The decision to fund artillery and fortification “by the public” shows that defence costs could be distributed across inhabitants rather than borne solely by the Company, indicating shared financial responsibility for security. An “assessment” on land meant a compulsory levy based on landholding, demonstrating how fiscal obligations were tied directly to property ownership. The use of selected inhabitants to contract with a mason reflects a system in which local representatives could act collectively in executing public works under official direction. The formal survey and establishment of roads indicates an effort to regularise land use and movement, reducing conflict by fixing recognised routes. The distinction between “public footways” and “drift ways for cattle” shows that different categories of access were legally recognised, reflecting the importance of both human movement and livestock management in the island’s economy. The requirement that those appointed be sworn before undertaking their duties shows that such administrative roles were treated as formal public responsibilities, bound by oath. Speculations The need to impose an island-wide assessment suggests that available Company resources alone were insufficient for expanding defences, requiring broader economic mobilisation. The effort to formalise roads may indicate increasing pressure on land use, where informal arrangements had begun to generate disputes as settlement expanded. | |
237 | Island St. Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday the [...] Present Whereas by the most Divine providence upp Fryday | A consultation was held at Fort James on St Helena in 1695. Those present were Richard Kelinge and Captain Stephen Poirier. It was reported that on the previous Friday afternoon a plot had been discovered through Annah, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin. She informed her mistress, Mrs Goodwin, that on the night before she had learned that Jack, a slave belonging to Sir [...], and Billy and Tom, slaves of Owen Berrian, along with others, intended that very night to kill all the white inhabitants of the island. The plan was to break into their houses and chambers and kill them. They further intended to go to Lemon Valley Fort, kill those stationed there, seize the arms and ammunition, and then return to carry out the rest of the attack. After this, they planned to take control of the island, and upon the arrival of a ship, attempt to capture it and depart, leaving the island abandoned. Mrs Goodwin, after hearing of the plot, called John Bowman, a plasterer working at her house, and informed him. Bowman then went home and sent a slave belonging to Samuel Taylor, who confirmed the same account, though he suggested it might have been reported more widely because Annah had already told her mistress. He also said that he had heard of the plot earlier that week, on Tuesday. That Friday night was said to be the time chosen for the attack. Bowman wrote a note to Richard Kelinge to inform him and sent it by Taylor. After Bowman had left, Mrs Goodwin [...] Interpretations The report of a coordinated plan involving multiple enslaved individuals indicates the presence of organised resistance, rather than isolated acts, reflecting tensions within the enslaved population. The rapid communication from slave to mistress, and then through tradesmen to the Governor, shows how information could move quickly through both enslaved and free networks, linking domestic spaces to official authority. The targeting of Lemon Valley Fort and its weapons demonstrates awareness among the plotters of the island’s defensive structure, suggesting familiarity with military arrangements. The description of a planned island-wide attack and seizure of a ship indicates that enslaved people understood both the geography of the island and the strategic importance of maritime escape. The involvement of slaves as messengers in reporting the plot highlights their role not only as labourers but also as intermediaries within the colony’s communication system. The immediate reporting to the Governor reflects a system in which perceived threats, especially involving slaves, were escalated directly to central authority. Speculations The scale and ambition of the alleged plot may have heightened fears among the white inhabitants, potentially influencing how the threat was interpreted and recorded. The fact that the warning came through enslaved individuals may suggest divisions within the enslaved community, with some choosing to inform authorities rather than participate. | |
238 | The said mrs Goodwin Seing her Brother in Law John Now, knowing that many Blacks in Custody [...] | Mrs Goodwin, seeing her brother-in-law John Goodwin passing by, called to him and also sent a white servant to inform Madam Johnson. When John Goodwin came to her, she told him of the reported plot. He immediately armed himself with a large sword from his brother’s house and secured all the slaves present there. He then went to the house of Owen Berrian, seized the slaves there, and continued from house to house, detaining all slaves he encountered. Their hands were tied behind them, and he, together with other white men, drove a large number of them to Fort James, where they were secured. As soon as Richard Kelinge received John Bowman’s message, he ordered the alarm to be raised. Guns were fired at Fort James, Rupert’s Fort, and at King William and Queen Mary’s Point at Bankes’s Fort, to signal danger across St Helena. Captain Samuel, having also received notice, sent warning to Lemon Valley. The Governor sent instructions there as well, and the men and ammunition at Lemon Valley Fort were brought back to Fort James. Captain Stephen Poirier dispatched messengers to the eastern and western parts of the island, ordering that all slaves in those areas be secured and brought in. The Governor also sent a detachment of soldiers to the eastern part to seize any remaining slaves, as the western side was believed already secured. Through these actions, all slaves on the island were taken into custody at Fort James by seven o’clock the following morning, although the plot had only been reported at about four o’clock the previous afternoon. The account records that the intended attack was thereby prevented. It was further noted that many of those detained were probably not involved in the plot, although it was assumed that they would have supported the main conspirators if the plan had gone ahead [...] Interpretations The immediate and coordinated response, including the firing of alarm guns across multiple forts, shows an established island-wide signalling system designed for rapid mobilisation in emergencies. The systematic rounding up of all enslaved people, regardless of individual involvement, demonstrates that collective suspicion could override distinctions between individuals, reflecting the prioritisation of security over individual assessment. The use of armed civilians alongside soldiers indicates that defence and policing were not confined to the garrison but involved the wider settler population. The movement of men and ammunition from outlying forts to a central stronghold shows a strategy of consolidation, concentrating defensive resources in response to perceived threat. The speed with which all enslaved people were brought into custody illustrates both the scale of surveillance over the enslaved population and the capacity for rapid coercive action by the authorities. The description of the event as prevented by “divine providence” reflects the integration of religious interpretation into official accounts of crisis and security. Speculations The decision to detain all enslaved people suggests that the authorities feared a broader uprising beyond those specifically named, indicating underlying anxiety about the stability of the system. The assumption that uninvolved individuals would have joined the plot may reflect prevailing attitudes among the authorities, rather than clear evidence of universal participation. | |
239 | [...] by the Almighty to have gone on in their wicked To the said Mr Goodwin and John Bowman were first [...] she [...] of mr Tho: Goodwin Declares yt on John Bowman Declares that mr Goodwin calling | It was then considered necessary to examine those in custody, in order to identify those involved in the alleged plot and to release those not found guilty. Thomas Goodwin and John Bowman were first examined, followed by Annah, a slave belonging to Goodwin, and others whose statements followed. Mrs Goodwin declared that on the previous Friday, at about three in the afternoon, Annah had beckoned her to come to the slaves’ house. When she arrived, another enslaved woman, Garrot, told her that they had something to report. Garrot stated that Will, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, had said that he, along with Jack and other slaves, intended to rise during the night and kill all the white inhabitants of the island. According to this account, they planned first to kill their own master and mistress, then go to Lemon Valley Fort, kill those stationed there, and seize the arms and ammunition. They would then return to the countryside, kill the remaining white inhabitants, take control of the island, and attempt to capture a ship when one arrived, in order to escape. Mrs Goodwin further stated that Annah told her that Will had threatened to kill her if she revealed the plan. Mrs Goodwin then called John Bowman, who was working at her house, and informed him of what she had heard. John Bowman declared that Mrs Goodwin had called him and told him that there was a serious plot among the enslaved people, repeating the same account. He added that Fortune, a slave belonging to Samuel Taylor who was also present, said that he too had something to report [...] Interpretations The formal examination of witnesses shows that the authorities moved quickly from emergency response to structured inquiry, aiming to distinguish between participants and non-participants. The reliance on testimony transmitted through multiple enslaved individuals indicates that knowledge of the alleged plot circulated within the enslaved community before reaching authorities. The detail that the plot involved first killing masters and mistresses suggests that domestic proximity shaped both the perceived threat and the vulnerability of the settler population. The reference to threats against informants highlights the risks faced by enslaved individuals who disclosed information, indicating internal tensions and divisions within the enslaved community. The involvement of enslaved people as both informants and suspects demonstrates the dual role they occupied within the system, as both sources of intelligence and objects of control. The structured recording of statements reflects an attempt to convert informal reports into admissible evidence within an official process. Speculations The repetition of similar accounts across different testimonies may indicate either a shared source of information or the shaping of statements through discussion after the initial report. The emphasis on threats against informants could have reinforced the credibility of the testimony in the eyes of the authorities, even where direct evidence of action was limited. | |
240 | asked him what yt was, so said to him, that Berrians will had told Annah a slave of mr Tho: Goodwin Examined saith | John Bowman stated that when he asked what the matter was, he was told that Will, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, had said that he, together with Jack (also called Gargens), would lead the action and kill all the white inhabitants of the island. They intended to seize Lemon Valley Fort, take its arms and ammunition, and then return to complete the attack. Bowman reported this to Richard Kelinge by sending a written note through Fortune, a slave. Annah, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin, being examined, stated that on the previous Thursday Will had told her that he intended to do something, but at first refused to explain. On the following day, Friday, she offered him tobacco in exchange for the information. After accepting it, he told her that he, together with Jack (also called John Jennings), Jack Furness, a slave belonging to Greenstreet, and others, planned to kill all the white inhabitants of St Helena. Annah stated that she questioned whether the white inhabitants were too strong for them, but Will replied that they would attempt it and intended to carry out the attack that night. According to her account, they planned first to go to Lemon Valley, kill the two soldiers stationed there, and then kill their own masters and mistresses. Others were to be sent to kill Madam Johnson and her children, and each participant was to kill his own master and mistress. She further stated that Will said he intended to become governor, and that another slave, Jacob, was to escape from a ship belonging to Captain Wynn, then under the control of Madam Johnson, and be involved in the plan. After taking control of the island, they intended to capture the next ship that arrived by seizing its captain when he came ashore, and then sail away, as had been done in a previous case. Interpretations The detailed attribution of roles within the alleged plot, including leadership, targeted killings, and control of the island, shows that the testimony presented the plan as structured and hierarchical, mirroring existing authority systems. The exchange of tobacco for information indicates that goods functioned as a medium of negotiation within the enslaved community, revealing informal economies operating alongside official structures. The assignment of each participant to kill his own master and mistress reflects how household organisation shaped both labour relations and perceived threats. The claim that one conspirator intended to become “governor” suggests an awareness of colonial authority structures and an attempt to appropriate them symbolically within the alleged plan. The reference to seizing a ship and escaping demonstrates knowledge of maritime practices and the strategic importance of ships for leaving the island. The involvement of named individuals across different households indicates that the investigation sought to map connections between enslaved people belonging to different owners, reflecting concern about coordinated action beyond single estates. Speculations The level of detail in the reported plan may have reinforced its credibility to the authorities, even if some elements were exaggerated or shaped through repeated retelling. The portrayal of the conspirators adopting roles such as governor may reflect how the authorities interpreted the threat, framing it in terms of inversion of existing power structures. | |
241 | Garrott a slave of Elias Gurling who Dwells at | Garrott, a slave belonging to Elias Gurling and living at the house of Thomas Goodwin, being examined, stated that on 28 November Fortune, a slave of Samuel Taylor, and Will, a slave of Owen Berrian, were speaking together and laughing. When Garrott asked what they were discussing, Will refused to tell him, saying he could not be trusted. Garrott then asked Fortune, who told him that he would explain the following day. The next day, Fortune spoke to him again, with Will present, and after some hesitation told him that they intended that night to kill all the white inhabitants. He asked Garrott whether he could deal with his master, to which Garrott replied that he could. Will then said that he would deal with his own master and mistress, and that if Garrott could not manage, others would assist him. Will further stated that after killing their masters, they would go to Lemon Valley, kill the two soldiers stationed there, seize the arms and ammunition, and take control of the island. According to Garrott, Will said that he himself would become governor, and that Jacob, a slave who had previously escaped from a ship belonging to Captain Wynn and was now living with Madam Johnson, along with Gargen Jack, would be among the leaders. He also named other slaves from different households who would assist. Garrott added that Friday 29 November had been fixed as the day for carrying out the plan [...] Interpretations The repeated testimony attributing similar plans and roles to named individuals shows how the investigation sought to establish a coherent narrative of conspiracy across multiple witnesses. The questioning of whether individuals could “deal with” their masters reflects how violence was framed in personal, household terms, tied to the structure of slave ownership. The identification of participants from several different households indicates concern about coordination across the island, suggesting that authority feared collective organisation rather than isolated action. The mention of a previously escaped slave now living independently highlights the presence of individuals outside strict control, which may have been perceived as a destabilising influence. The fixing of a specific date for action shows that the alleged plan was presented as imminent, reinforcing the urgency of the authorities’ response. The recurrence of leadership roles and planned seizure of authority reflects an understanding, whether real or attributed, of the island’s political structure and how it might be overturned. Speculations The consistency of details across testimonies may indicate either a shared source of information or the shaping of accounts through repeated questioning and discussion. The emphasis on named leaders and a fixed date could have strengthened the perceived credibility of the plot, even if some elements were uncertain or exaggerated. | |
242 | Johnsons House, were the Houses appointed to make Fortune a slave of Sam Taylor, saith Will being asked if what the said | Johnson’s house, together with another nearby house, had been appointed as the places of assembly. This information was given to Annah, a slave of Thomas Goodwin, so that she could inform her mistress, which she did in his presence. Fortune, a slave belonging to Samuel Taylor, declared that on the previous Tuesday Will, a slave of Owen Berrian, had told him that all the white inhabitants of St Helena were to be killed. At first this had not been taken seriously, but it had later been believed. It had been stated that many slaves had agreed to carry out the attack and take control of the island. Lemon Valley Fort had been identified as the first target, where the two soldiers stationed there were to be killed and the arms and ammunition seized. It had been further declared that, after leaving Lemon Valley, all white inhabitants encountered were to be killed, and that each participant was to kill his own master and mistress. Any slaves who refused to join were also to be put to death. When a ship arrived, those involved were to take up their usual guard duties, then seize the commander when he came ashore, take the ship, and escape with it. It had also been stated that Madam Beale’s house at the fort was to be set on fire as a means of taking the fort. This information had been given by Fortune to John Bowman on the day the plot was discovered. Will, when examined, stated that the account given by Fortune was true. Interpretations The identification of Johnson’s house and another dwelling as assembly points shows that specific domestic locations were used as planned centres of coordination, indicating concern among the authorities about organised gathering within the settlement. The assignment that each participant was to kill his own master and mistress reflects how labour and authority were structured at the household level, and how the perceived threat was understood through those same relationships. The instruction that those who refused to join were to be killed suggests that participation was framed as compulsory within the alleged plan, reinforcing the view of a coerced collective action. The targeting of Madam Beale’s house for burning indicates that buildings near key defensive positions were recognised as tactically significant, showing how domestic space could be used to undermine military control. The use of routine guard duties at the arrival of ships as part of the plan demonstrates that enslaved people were integrated into operational practices, and that these roles could be exploited for strategic purposes. Will’s admission confirms the central importance of confession within the investigative process, serving to validate the sequence of testimony gathered by the authorities. Speculations The use of fire against Madam Beale’s house suggests that the plan relied on creating confusion or disruption at the fort, indicating an attempt to overcome defences indirectly rather than by direct assault. The reliance on routine guard procedures at the moment of a ship’s arrival implies that the conspirators intended to exploit predictable administrative practices, revealing how regular systems could create vulnerabilities under conditions of internal threat. | |
243 | John Gurling Black name Jack; Examined, confess, and | John Gurling’s slave Jack, being examined, confessed that the idea of the plot had first arisen after hearing two men from a ship belonging to Captain Wilkey speaking at his master’s house. In conversation, they had expressed surprise that slaves on the island had not risen, stating that in other parts of the world such uprisings were common and that they had seen slaves capture two or three forts in a single night. This had been described as the first occasion on which such a plan had entered his thoughts. He stated that he had first spoken to Will, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, about destroying the island and killing all the white inhabitants, and that Will had immediately agreed to take part. He then spoke to three slaves belonging to Thomas [...], and also told the same account to Abram, a slave now belonging to Mrs Dixon but formerly owned by Edward Gurling, when they had lived together. He further declared that about a month earlier he had spoken to a slave belonging to Randall Allison, who had promised to approach others. About a week before, he had been told that this man had spoken to a slave of Samuel Wrangham. Around the same time, he had also approached Peter, a slave of Thomas Allison, who had agreed to join. About a fortnight earlier, he had sent Hemp, a slave of Edward Gurling living with Gargen, to speak to Harry, a slave belonging to Madam Johnson. Harry had sent word that he would willingly take part. He also stated that on a Thursday or Friday following the Monday that had been 28 August, he had met Abram, a slave of Mrs Dixon, at a place called Deganny Water and had told him of the plan to take the island. Abram had agreed to join, provided that others were also involved. Abram had then said that there was no need to speak to any other slaves of his master [...] Interpretations The origin of the plan in conversation with visiting seamen shows how external maritime contact could introduce ideas of resistance, indicating that the island was not isolated from wider patterns of slave uprising. The reference to capturing forts demonstrates that knowledge of military vulnerability circulated beyond formal structures, suggesting that enslaved people were aware of defensive weaknesses. The process of recruiting across multiple households reveals a networked pattern of communication among slaves, extending beyond single estates and indicating the authorities’ concern about coordinated action. The use of intermediaries to approach others shows a deliberate method of expansion, suggesting an attempt to limit direct exposure while building support. The mention of Deganny Water as a meeting place indicates that specific locations outside domestic spaces were used for communication, reflecting how geography facilitated covert interaction. The involvement of slaves belonging to several named owners, including Madam Johnson and Mrs Dixon, highlights the spread of the alleged conspiracy across different parts of the settlement. The readiness of Will and others to agree, as recorded, reflects how the investigation framed the plan as rapidly gaining support, reinforcing the perception of a broad and immediate threat. Speculations The emphasis on the role of visiting seamen in initiating the idea may have served to externalise the origin of the plot, suggesting that the threat was influenced by outside contact rather than arising solely within the island. The structured approach to recruitment, using trusted intermediaries and staged conversations, may indicate an attempt to manage risk of exposure, suggesting awareness of surveillance and punishment. | |
244 | [...] the sd Abram would bring with him when ever ye time Will confess, that as soone as Gurling Jack spoke | [...] It was stated that Abram would bring with him, when required, Portuguese Jack, a slave belonging to Mrs Dixon, and Robin Boston, who lived with her but was a slave belonging to Powell’s children. It was further stated that Bowman’s Ganger had been approached on the Thursday, and that if those involved had not been taken into custody on the Friday, they intended to carry out the plot that same day, as well as on the previous Thursday. It was also stated that Ruface, a slave, had at first said he would not oppose the plan, but later agreed to join and declared that he knew how to handle a gun. It was further described that, to carry out the plan, they intended to go to Lemon Valley Fort, surprise and kill the two soldiers stationed there, and seize the guns and ammunition. They were then to return inland and meet at Ganger’s house, where Ganger and his wife were first to be killed before the move to Lemon Valley. After this, they were to disperse across St Helena, going to various houses and killing the masters, mistresses, and children belonging to them, as well as any slaves who refused to join. Will confessed that he had agreed immediately, when approached by Gurling Jack, to take part in killing all the white inhabitants of the island and seizing control of it. He stated that at the same time he had spoken to Hinds, a slave belonging to the Greenstreet orphans, and believed that the three of them had been the first to agree to the plan. He also stated that Isaac, another slave belonging to Owen Berrian, had been approached and had readily agreed, and had repeatedly urged that the plan be carried out quickly for fear of discovery. Will further declared that he and Jack had agreed that each would first kill his own master and mistress, and that they, together with others including Randall, a slave belonging to Allison [...] Interpretations The naming of individuals belonging to different owners, including Mrs Dixon, Powell’s children, and the Greenstreet orphans, shows how the investigation traced connections across multiple estates, indicating concern about coordination beyond single households. The reference to “Powell’s children” holding a slave demonstrates that property, including slaves, could be held under guardianship, reflecting structured inheritance and estate management. The identification of Ganger’s house as a meeting point shows how domestic spaces were understood as operational centres, linking labour organisation with perceived security risks. The repeated focus on Lemon Valley Fort confirms its importance as a site where arms and ammunition were concentrated, making it central to both defence and the imagined plan to overturn authority. The staged sequence of actions, including initial killings, seizure of weapons, and dispersal across the island, indicates that the alleged plot was presented as organised and sequential, mirroring military logic. The statement that some individuals initially hesitated but later agreed suggests that participation was portrayed as spreading through persuasion and pressure, reflecting how the authorities understood the expansion of the conspiracy. The urgency expressed by Isaac, urging rapid action to avoid discovery, shows awareness of surveillance and the risks of delay within the system of control on the island. The repeated assignment that each participant should kill his own master and mistress reflects how authority and labour were structured at the household level, and how the perceived threat was framed within those same relationships. Speculations The emphasis on acting quickly suggests that the conspirators believed their communications were vulnerable to exposure, indicating an awareness of the limits of secrecy within the settlement. The structured and sequential nature of the plan, as recorded, may have been presented in this way to reinforce its seriousness and coherence, aligning it with recognisable forms of organised action. | |
245 | Randall, and what armes they could getts, to repaire last Fryday Thomas a slave of Greenstey orphans, who Dwells | It was further declared that Randall, together with others, and with whatever arms they could obtain, had intended to go on the previous Friday night to Lemon Valley Fort, kill the two soldiers stationed there, and equip themselves with the guns and ammunition kept at that place. After this, they were to return inland and kill all white inhabitants they encountered, with the intention of clearing the island as they advanced. If this could not be completed in one night, the remainder were to be killed on the following day. It was also described that some were to be placed in ambush near houses, while one slave would enter and tell his master that he wished to speak with him. When the master came outside, he was to be killed, after which the others would enter the house and kill the mistress, children, and any slaves who refused to join. On the following night, which would have been Saturday, most of them were to go to Fort James. Some were to conceal themselves in the garden or lemon orchard adjoining the fort wall, while others were to set fire to Madam Beale’s house, which stood next to the Honourable English East India Company storehouse. It was believed that this would draw the soldiers out of the fort to extinguish the fire, allowing the rest to enter and seize control. It was further declared that Jack had approached Poplan, a slave of John Goodwin, Roger, a slave of Thomas Goodwin, Dick, a slave belonging to Powell’s children, Ruface, a slave of John Greenstreet, and Randall, a slave of Thomas Allison. All had agreed to join, with Randall in particular promising to recruit as many others as possible. Thomas, a slave belonging to the Greenstreet orphans and living at the house of Owen Bezier, confessed that some time earlier Jack, commonly called Powell’s Jack but now a slave of John Gurling, had met with him and Will, a slave of Owen Berrian, and had said that it would be easy for the slaves of the island to take control and kill all the white inhabitants. He added that there were barrels at Mr Lynn’s house [...] Interpretations The use of ambush tactics, including luring masters outside their houses, shows that the alleged plan incorporated deception as a method of overcoming authority at the household level. The phased approach to killing, with provision for continuation into a second day, indicates that the plan was presented as adaptable to practical constraints such as time and resistance. The coordinated use of fire at Madam Beale’s house reveals an attempt to manipulate defensive behaviour, using diversion to draw soldiers away from their posts and expose the fort. The reference to concealment in the lemon orchard adjoining the fort shows how cultivated and domestic spaces near military sites could be used tactically, reflecting knowledge of the physical layout of the settlement. The repeated recruitment of slaves across multiple owners, including those of John Goodwin, Thomas Goodwin, Powell’s children, and Thomas Allison, demonstrates how the investigation traced a network extending across the island’s labour structure. The prominence given to Randall’s role in recruiting others suggests that certain individuals were perceived as key organisers, indicating how leadership within the enslaved population was identified and interpreted by the authorities. The identification of slaves belonging to “orphans” again reflects the institutional management of property through inheritance, where estates could hold labourers under guardianship. The reference to barrels at Mr Lynn’s house suggests awareness of stored resources, possibly linked to provisions or materials, indicating that knowledge of supply points formed part of the alleged planning. Speculations The reliance on diversion through fire suggests that the conspirators aimed to exploit predictable defensive responses, indicating an understanding of how the garrison would react to threats. The emphasis on recruitment and expansion through individuals such as Randall may reflect concern that influence within the enslaved community could rapidly extend participation, reinforcing the perception of a spreading threat. | |
246 | [...] where the sd Black is sett out by the Graser) who told my Mr | [...] It was further declared that a man, described as a “graser”, had told his master that the slaves on this island were bold, and that in other places slaves would readily take two or three forts in a single day. Jack was then said to have urged Thomas, also called Firebrand, to join him, stating that if he helped, they would go to Lemon Valley, kill the two white men stationed there, and seize the powder and arms kept at that place. After persuasion, both Thomas and Will agreed to assist. It was further stated that shortly afterwards Jack met again with Thomas and Will and told them that he had already spoken to Abram and Portuguese Jack, slaves belonging to Mrs Dixon, to Robin Boston, a slave belonging to Powell’s children, to Randall and Peter, slaves belonging to Thomas Allison, and to Hinds, a slave of Richard Gurling. Hinds had then spoken to Harry, a slave belonging to Madam Johnson. It was reported that all had agreed to join. It was also agreed that Abram, Portuguese Jack, Robin Boston, Randall, and Peter, together with either Will or Jack, would go to Lemon Valley Fort and take it, and that as they returned they would spare no one. Will interrupted this account and stated that he had not said that no one would be spared, but that all would be driven before them. It was further stated by Thomas that Will and Jack had agreed that if the plan was not completed on the Friday and Saturday, they would lie in wait on the Sunday and kill those who remained as they came from church. It was also stated that when a ship arrived, they intended to dress well and receive the commander ashore, as was customary, then seize him and take the ship. Reference was made to an earlier case involving Sergeant Jackson as an example. It was further declared that Jack had spoken to Ruface, a slave belonging to John Greenstreet, who had said he was ready to join and was skilled in the use of firearms, having been accustomed to carry a gun from a young age. Jack also stated that Peter, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, had promised to join [...] Interpretations The reference to a “graser” suggests a supervisory or managerial role associated with livestock or pasture, indicating how labour and oversight extended into agricultural management. The repeated reference to taking Lemon Valley Fort confirms its central importance as a store of arms and ammunition, making it a critical point in both defence and the imagined plan. The structured assignment of specific individuals to seize the fort shows how the alleged conspiracy was presented as organised into roles, reflecting a hierarchical approach to action. The disagreement between Will and the earlier account over whether to spare anyone shows variation within testimony, indicating that statements were not entirely uniform and could be contested even during examination. The intention to attack individuals as they returned from church demonstrates how routine social and religious gatherings were recognised as predictable moments of vulnerability. The plan to dress well and receive a ship’s commander according to established custom shows that enslaved people were understood to participate in formal reception practices, and that these roles could be used to gain access to authority figures. The reference to a previous incident involving Sergeant Jackson indicates that past events were used as precedents or models, shaping how both conspirators and authorities understood possible actions. The emphasis on firearm skill, particularly in the case of Ruface, highlights that some slaves possessed practical military knowledge, reflecting their integration into armed or semi-armed roles within the island’s system. The continued naming of individuals across multiple households demonstrates how the investigation mapped a network of alleged participants spanning different owners and estates. Speculations The invocation of examples from other places where forts had been taken may have served to legitimise the plan in the minds of participants, suggesting that such actions were achievable. The use of customary reception practices for approaching a ship’s commander suggests that the conspirators aimed to exploit established protocols, indicating awareness of how authority operated in predictable ways. | |
247 | Randall Thom: Allisons slave Examined, saith that Will Sam: Wranghams Black Examined saith, yt Allisons Peter Examined saith, that a long time after Greenstey Ruface Examined saith, yt Joanes, even | Randall, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, being examined, stated that Powell’s Jack, also called Gurling, had some time earlier told him of the plan and asked him to join in killing all the white inhabitants. He at first refused, but later agreed and promised to speak to others. About a week before, on a Saturday, he met Will, a slave belonging to Samuel Wrangham, and informed him of the plan, asking him to join. Will refused and said he would not take part. Randall then warned him that if he spoke of it, Jack would kill him. Randall also stated that his master Peter had previously told him that Jack had informed him of the plan, and that Peter had spoken of it about three weeks earlier to Harry, a slave belonging to Madam Johnson, and also to Edmund Boston. Will, a slave belonging to Samuel Wrangham, being examined, stated that Randall had approached him on a Saturday about a week earlier and told him that the slaves intended to kill all the white inhabitants and take control of the island. Randall had asked him to join, but he refused, saying it could not be done. Randall replied that fifty slaves would be sufficient and repeated that Will and Jack were the leaders. He also threatened that if Will spoke of it, he would be killed. Randall further said that Edmund Boston had agreed to join, but Will again refused. Peter, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, being examined, stated that some time after Gurling had died, and before Doctor Stevens married his widow, more than twelve months earlier, Powell’s Jack had spoken to him about killing the white inhabitants, but he had then refused. He later agreed. He also stated that he had heard Jack and Harry, a slave belonging to Madam Johnson, discussing the plan, and that Harry had said that Hemp had already informed him of it. Ruface, a slave belonging to John Greenstreet, being examined, stated that Joanes, described as a workman belonging to Owen Berrian, had first asked him to join in killing the white inhabitants and escaping by ship. He said that Boston had also spoken to him shortly afterwards, but he had refused to take part and denied that he had ever agreed [...] Interpretations The repeated pattern of initial refusal followed by later agreement, as in the case of Randall and Peter, suggests that participation was portrayed as developing over time through pressure or persuasion rather than immediate consent. The threat that those who disclosed the plan would be killed indicates that secrecy was enforced within the alleged network, reflecting awareness of surveillance and the risks of exposure. The reference to “fifty Blacks” being sufficient shows that the plan was framed in numerical terms, suggesting that a certain level of manpower was considered necessary to overcome resistance. The identification of Will and Jack as leaders demonstrates how the investigation assigned hierarchy within the alleged conspiracy, reflecting an effort to structure responsibility. The involvement of intermediaries such as Peter, Harry, and Hemp shows that communication passed through multiple stages, indicating a networked form of organisation across different households. The reference to a “workman” among the enslaved population indicates differentiation of roles within labour, suggesting that some individuals held positions involving specialised tasks. The mention of a timeline extending back more than twelve months shows that the plan was presented as having a long period of development, reinforcing its perceived seriousness. The refusal of Ruface to join, in contrast to others, indicates that not all approached individuals consented, showing variation in response within the enslaved population. Speculations The emphasis on threats and secrecy suggests that the conspirators may have perceived a high risk of betrayal, indicating internal instability within the group. The attribution of leadership roles and numbers may reflect how the authorities interpreted the threat, shaping disparate testimonies into a coherent and structured narrative. | |
248 | Poplar. John Goodwins Black, saith, he was last Sunday Seaven Joane Owen Berrians slave Examined saith that on Jack, and Will, of their owne accord, said that when Harry, Madam Johnsons slave Examined saith, yt abᵗ | Poplar, a slave belonging to John Goodwin, being examined, stated that on the Sunday a week before he had been at the house of Owen Berrian with Ruface, but had then left for the house of Thomas Goodwin and had heard nothing at that time. On the following Thursday Ruface had asked him whether he would join Jack and Will, to which he replied that he would not interfere. Joane, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, being examined, stated that on the Sunday a week before Jack had come to her master’s house, where discussion took place about when to carry out the plan already formed. It had been agreed to begin on the Thursday or Friday following, and that more participants should be gathered as quickly as possible. She stated that Ruface, Robin Boston, Dick, a slave belonging to Powell’s children, Mary Johnson, and another Mary had been approached, as well as Abram, Portuguese Jack, and slaves belonging to Sergeant Dixon, and Robin Booker, a slave belonging to Powell’s children. All had agreed to assist Jack and Will. It was further stated that they intended to approach Roger, a slave of Bowman, Edmund Robin, and Bellamy, one of the English East India Company’s slaves. She declared that she herself had refused to take part. It was also stated that Jack and Will had said that when they spoke together about the plan, she had urged them to act quickly and be ready to carry it out. Harry, a slave belonging to Madam Johnson, being examined, stated that about a month earlier Hemp had approached him while he was working on the plantation and had said that Powell’s Jack had sent him to ask whether he would join in killing the white inhabitants of St Helena. He replied that it could not be done and refused to take part, questioning what Jack intended. He stated that he did not agree and would not join. Hemp, being examined, stated that he had not been informed of the plan until the previous Friday and had not spoken to Harry about it. He added that although he lived with Jack, Jack did not trust him and would not confide in him, believing that he might report matters to his master. Interpretations The repeated pattern of individuals being approached and either refusing or agreeing shows that the investigation traced the spread of the plan through direct recruitment attempts across the island. The distinction between those who agreed, refused, or claimed ignorance demonstrates that participation was not uniform, revealing variation within the enslaved population. The identification of slaves belonging to multiple owners, including private individuals and the English East India Company, indicates that labour was organised under both private and corporate ownership, and that the perceived network crossed these boundaries. The reference to “the Company’s slaves” shows that the Company itself directly owned labourers, integrating them into both economic and defensive structures of the island. The involvement of individuals such as Mary Johnson and another Mary indicates that women were also included in the alleged plan, suggesting that the authorities considered the threat to extend across gender as well as household lines. The denial by Hemp that he had been informed, and his statement that Jack did not trust him, highlights the role of trust and suspicion within the enslaved community, indicating limits to communication and cohesion. The repeated emphasis on urging haste reflects awareness of the risk of discovery, showing that delay was understood as increasing the likelihood of exposure. Speculations The variation in responses, including refusals and denials, may indicate that the alleged conspiracy was less uniformly supported than suggested, with differing levels of involvement or willingness among those approached. The claim that Jack did not trust Hemp suggests that internal divisions or reputations within the enslaved community may have shaped how information was shared, affecting the spread of the plan. | |
249 | Jack speaking to Hemp, said, you Saucy Rogue who Powells Dick Examined, saith, yt Ruface asked him Bowmans Roger Examined saith, yt he was at mr Tho: Mrs Edmund Robins saith, that he never was made acquainted mr Tho: Goodwins Roger Examined saith, that last Wednesday Abram Sert Dixons slave Examined saith, yt a great | Jack was reported to have confronted Hemp, accusing him of denying before the Governor that he had known of the matter before the previous Friday. He stated that he had told him of it long before and had sent him to speak to Harry, who had agreed to join. Hemp then admitted that he had known of the plan for some time, but refused to confess anything further. Dick, a slave belonging to Powell’s children, being examined, stated that Ruface had asked him on the previous Sunday whether he would join in killing all the English inhabitants of St Helena, as Powell’s Jack and Will, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, intended to do so. He refused and reported the matter the following day to Garrot, a slave belonging to Elizabeth Gurling, with whom he lived at the house of Thomas Goodwin. He further stated that Will had asked him again on the Wednesday, but he refused once more. Will then said that those who did not agree would be killed, and that Lemon Valley Fort would be taken and the two soldiers there killed. Roger, a slave belonging to Bowman, being examined, stated that he had been working at Thomas Goodwin’s house on the day in question but had heard nothing of the plan and knew nothing of it. Edmund Robins stated that he had never been informed of the plan by Jack or Will, and that Randall had never spoken to him about it. Roger, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin, being examined, stated that Will had spoken to him on the previous Wednesday and asked him to help kill the white inhabitants of the island. He had agreed, but stated that if his master had been at home he would have reported the matter to him, and had repeatedly asked Annah when his master would return. Abram, a slave belonging to Sergeant Dixon, being examined, stated that some time earlier, during the shipping season, Powell’s Jack had told him that two seamen from the Modenace had spoken with his master, saying that in other places slaves sometimes captured two or three forts in a single day. He stated that he had heard nothing further of it since. Interpretations The confrontation between Jack and Hemp shows how testimony was contested during examination, indicating that statements could be challenged and revised under pressure. The repeated refusal by Dick, alongside his reporting of the matter to another slave, shows that information could circulate laterally within the enslaved community as well as upward to authority. The threat that those who refused would be killed reinforces how the alleged plan was framed as enforcing participation, suggesting coercion within the group. The identification of Lemon Valley Fort as a target continues to highlight its central role as a site of arms and defence, making it a focal point in both the island’s security system and the alleged plan. The presence of individuals who denied all knowledge, such as Bowman’s Roger and Edmund Robins, demonstrates that the investigation recorded both incriminating and exculpatory statements. The case of Thomas Goodwin’s Roger, who agreed but claimed he would have informed his master, shows how declarations could attempt to balance admission with expressions of loyalty, reflecting the pressures of examination. The reference to the “shipping time” indicates a recognised period linked to the arrival of vessels, showing how maritime cycles structured the timing of events and interactions on the island. The mention of the ship Modenace connects the origin of ideas about revolt to maritime contact, reinforcing the role of external influences in shaping local perceptions. Speculations The variation in admissions, denials, and partial confessions suggests that individuals may have adjusted their statements in response to questioning, indicating the possibility of pressure during examination. The repeated reference to seamen discussing uprisings elsewhere may have been used to frame the origin of the plot as external, potentially reducing perceived internal responsibility among the enslaved population. | |
250 | Portuguese Jack, & Robin Booker, saith that they never Jack saith, that he never spoke to ye Portuguese Upon hearing all these Examinations, and Confessions, It is ordered That they be Immediately severely whipt, at the Whipping 1 Jack a slave of John Gurling - - - These Eleven Negroes | Portuguese Jack and Robin Booker stated that they had never heard anything about any plan to kill the white inhabitants. Jack declared that he had never spoken to Portuguese Jack or Robin Booker, but that Abram had promised to speak to them and bring them into the plan. After all examinations and confessions had been heard, it was decided that eleven slaves named below were to be kept for trial. Four others, who had not confessed yet had neither revealed the plan nor shown clear knowledge of it, were to be punished. It was directed that they were to be severely whipped at the whipping post. All remaining slaves, who were judged to have no knowledge of the matter, were released from custody. The following eleven slaves were ordered to be held securely for trial: 1 Jack, a slave belonging to John Gurling These eleven were to remain in safe custody until their trial. Interpretations The distinction drawn between those reserved for trial and those punished without trial shows a tiered system of discipline, separating suspected principal participants from those considered negligent or complicit through silence. The use of whipping at the whipping post as immediate punishment demonstrates summary enforcement, where corporal punishment was applied without formal judicial process for lesser or uncertain involvement. The release of those judged ignorant of the matter indicates that the authorities attempted to limit punishment to those believed to be connected, suggesting a need to restore labour stability after the disruption. The explicit listing of each individual with their owner shows how identity was formally recorded through ownership, reflecting the integration of slaves into property and legal accountability structures. The inclusion of slaves belonging to private individuals and to orphaned estates again shows how labour was distributed across different forms of ownership, all subject to the same judicial authority. The decision to hold individuals in custody pending trial shows that formal legal procedures were reserved for those considered most responsible, indicating a distinction between summary punishment and judicial process. Speculations The decision to punish some immediately while reserving others for trial suggests an attempt to balance swift discipline with formal legal process, perhaps to maintain order while still demonstrating procedural authority. The release of uninvolved slaves may have been intended to stabilise the workforce quickly, reducing disruption to labour and preventing wider unrest following the discovery of the plot. | |
251 | This morning abᵗ 3 of the Clock, 3 Blacks came downe to ye Considering that the Honble Compas has many Negroes It is ordered That the said Blacks House be againe rebuilded, with all | At about three o’clock in the morning, three slaves came down to Fort Hill shouting loudly. The noise caused the sentry and about six soldiers to come out of Fort James, fearing that other slaves might still be at large and attempting to carry out the plot that had been discovered on the previous Friday. When the three approached, they were ordered forward one by one and were found to be slaves belonging to the Honourable English East India Company. They brought a note addressed to Captain Poirier reporting a serious घटना during the night. The Company’s house at the plantation, where its slaves were lodged, had been burned to the ground. All beams, boards, and goods within it had been destroyed. Captain Poirier stated that there had been a considerable quantity of materials, especially beams. The cause of the fire was unknown. It was considered that the Company had many slaves, and without a replacement building they would lack proper lodging at night. This was judged likely to cause hardship and risk further disorder. It was therefore directed that the house be rebuilt as quickly as possible. All other work was to be suspended, except digging and planting, until the building had been completed. The cost of rebuilding was to be entered as a charge against the Company’s plantation account. Interpretations The rapid mobilisation of the guard in response to noise shows how heightened alert followed the discovery of the plot, with routine disturbances treated as potential threats. The identification of the three individuals as Company-owned slaves highlights the Company’s direct control over a substantial labour force, housed collectively in dedicated accommodation. The destruction of the slave lodging house reveals the vulnerability of key labour infrastructure, where loss of housing immediately affected the management and stability of the workforce. The decision to suspend most other work in favour of rebuilding demonstrates the priority given to maintaining labour discipline and organisation over ongoing productive activity. The instruction to charge the rebuilding cost to the plantation account shows how expenses were formally allocated within the Company’s accounting system, linking infrastructure repair directly to plantation operations. Speculations The urgency attached to rebuilding the lodging house suggests concern that dispersing slaves without controlled accommodation might increase the risk of further unrest or loss of oversight. The unknown cause of the fire, occurring immediately after the discovery of the plot, may have raised suspicion among the authorities, reinforcing their decision to restore order quickly through physical reconstruction and labour control. | |
252 | Island St Helena At a Councill Held on Thursday the 12ᵗʰ Day of Xᵇʳ Prsᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ The Court was according to the usuall manner, proceeding William Bagley Senʳ foreman one Then the Govʳ told them, that he hoped they had no need to Gentlemen of the Jury, The prisoners now delivered into your Charge, are accused for | A council was held on 12 December 1695 at the Sessions House near Fort James for the trial of eleven slaves previously identified. Richard Kelinge, Governor, and Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor, were present. The court was opened in the usual manner. Witnesses and jurors were called. The following twelve men were appointed as jurors: 1 William Bagley Senior, foreman The Governor then addressed the jury. It was stated that the crime of the eleven prisoners at the bar was already widely known. They were accused of plotting together with others not yet identified to carry out a general massacre of all inhabitants of the island. This act was described as treasonable and rebellious, threatening the peace and the complete overthrow of government on St Helena. The jury were instructed to consider the case carefully and deliver a true verdict based on the evidence. They were also directed to inquire whether any other persons were involved in the offences charged. Interpretations The convening of a formal court with a full jury demonstrates the application of English legal procedure on the island, even in cases involving slaves accused of severe offences. The description of the alleged act as “treasonable” shows that the crime was framed not only as violence but as an attack on political authority and established government. The instruction to identify additional participants indicates that the trial functioned not only to judge the accused but also to extend the investigation, showing how judicial proceedings were used to uncover wider networks. The statement that the crime was already widely known suggests a shared understanding among the settler population, reflecting the public nature of the crisis and its impact on the community. The composition of the jury, drawn from named inhabitants, shows how local governance relied on settler participation in judicial processes, reinforcing collective responsibility for maintaining order. Speculations The emphasis on the crime as widely known may have been intended to reinforce the seriousness of the charges and shape the jury’s expectations before hearing detailed evidence. The instruction to search for further accomplices suggests that the authorities remained uncertain about the full extent of the alleged conspiracy, using the trial as a means to consolidate control and information. | |
253 | Then the Jury was Sworne, as followeth Vizᵗ You shall well, and Truely Try, and True deliverance make, Then Mrs Frances, the wife of mr Tho: Goodwin under John Bowman, called and Sworne, saith the same, Peter Gurling, a Servᵗ of the aforesᵈ mr Goodwin Annah a slave of the said mr Goodwin (who Berrians Will, being the 2ᵈ time Examined, confesses Robᵗ John Gurlings Jack, being also the 2ᵈ | The jury were then sworn. They were charged to try the case faithfully and deliver a true verdict between the government of the island and the eleven prisoners at the bar, or any others who might be found guilty of the same offence. They were instructed to judge according to their knowledge and judgement. Frances, the wife of Thomas Goodwin, under-storekeeper, was called and sworn. Her evidence was stated to match exactly the declaration she had previously given in the consultation held on 2 October 1695. John Bowman was called and sworn. His evidence was also stated to be the same as that given earlier in the same consultation. Peter Gurling, a servant of Thomas Goodwin, stated that one or two days before the plot was discovered, Gurling’s Jack, Will, a slave of Owen Berrian, and Roger, a slave of Thomas Goodwin, had been speaking together in their own language. They had been laughing and gesturing in different directions. He had spoken to Annah, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin, and said that he did not understand what they were saying. She had replied that she also did not understand, as she was from India and they were from Madagascar, and could only understand basic words such as those for fire or water. Jack then asked whether he understood them, and when told he did not, replied that this was good. Annah, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin, who had first revealed the conspiracy, was re-examined and confirmed that her evidence remained the same as in her original examination on 2 October 1695. Will, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, was examined again and confirmed the same confession he had made previously. John Gurling’s Jack was also examined again and confirmed the same confession he had given in the consultation held on 2 October 1695. Interpretations The formal swearing of the jury reflects the structured application of English legal procedure, reinforcing the legitimacy of the trial within the framework of colonial governance. The repeated reliance on earlier depositions shows that prior examinations were treated as authoritative evidence, reducing the need to restate testimony in full during the trial. The reference to language differences between Annah and the other slaves highlights the diversity of origins within the enslaved population, which could both limit communication and create barriers to oversight. The observation that Jack expressed satisfaction at not being understood suggests that secrecy depended partly on linguistic separation, indicating how communication in non-European languages could evade supervision. The identification of Annah as the first to reveal the plot confirms her central role in the discovery, showing how individual actions could trigger wider intervention by authorities. The repetition of confessions by Will and Jack under re-examination reinforces the evidential weight placed on admissions, which were central to establishing guilt in such proceedings. Speculations The emphasis on confirming earlier statements rather than re-examining them in detail suggests that the court aimed to consolidate a consistent narrative, reducing the risk of contradiction during the trial. The noted use of language not understood by others may have contributed to suspicion before the plot was formally uncovered, indicating how unfamiliar speech could be interpreted as concealment. | |
254 | [...] a slave of Greentrees orphans, Randall a slave of [...] After all, the said Blacks were Truely Examined, and the C.P. Gentlemen of the [...] Jury, are you all agreed of a verdict, C.P. Who shall speake for you, C.P. Robert will you upon the Eleven prisoners at the Barr who were Jury Guilty, but not all alike, so delivered their verdict in writing Jack, ( find them to be, Ruface Lesser offendors, But all had knowledge of the Intended Insurrection Complaint was Exhibited against [...] Parrum planter, | [...] Hinestrafe, a slave belonging to the Greenstreet orphans, Randall, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, Poplar, a slave belonging to John Goodwin, Civill, a slave belonging to Samuel Wrangham, Joane, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, Ruface, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin, Hemp, a slave belonging to Richard Gurling, Ruface, a slave belonging to John Greenstreet, and Peter, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, were examined again. Each confirmed the same confessions and statements previously given on 2 October 1695. After all had been examined, the jury considered the matter. They reviewed both the spoken evidence and the confessions of the prisoners. They then withdrew and later returned. They were asked whether they had agreed upon a verdict. They replied that they had. The foreman spoke on their behalf. When asked whether the eleven prisoners were guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged, the jury declared them guilty, but not equally. Their written verdict stated that the greatest offenders were Jack, Will, Joane, [...] Randall, and Poplar. The lesser offenders were Ruface, Hemp, Roger, Peter, and Civill. It was further stated that all had knowledge of the intended insurrection, and that most had consented to it. On that basis, all were found guilty. A complaint was then brought against [...] Parrum, a planter, for keeping and selling drink to his slave Sam Booker, who had been drunk on the Friday night when the slaves had intended to rise. It was stated that after the discovery of the plot, Sam Booker had been sent by Captain Poirier to carry warnings to the east and west parts of St Helena, but had remained in a state of drunkenness not only on that Friday, but also on Saturday and for most of Sunday. This conduct was said to be contrary to the terms of Parrum’s licence [...] Interpretations The distinction between “greatest” and “lesser” offenders shows that the jury graded culpability, indicating that guilt was not treated as uniform but assessed according to perceived levels of involvement. The reliance on both viva voce evidence and confessions demonstrates that oral testimony and admission of guilt formed the core evidential basis of the trial. The finding that all had knowledge of the plan, even if not equally involved, reflects a broad definition of culpability that extended beyond direct action to awareness and consent. The written verdict indicates a formalised process of recording judgement, showing that outcomes were documented for administrative and legal purposes. The complaint against Parrum for supplying alcohol to his slave highlights regulation of slave behaviour through licensing systems, where masters were held responsible for controlling access to drink. The reference to Sam Booker being sent to carry warnings shows that slaves were used in urgent communication across the island, indicating their role within the island’s operational and defensive network. The breach of licence conditions suggests that economic activities such as selling alcohol were regulated and could be restricted where they conflicted with public order or security concerns. Speculations The differentiation of offenders into categories may have been intended to guide sentencing, allowing authorities to impose varied punishments according to perceived responsibility. The complaint against Parrum, raised immediately after the verdict, suggests that the authorities sought to address not only the conspiracy itself but also contributing factors, such as disorder linked to alcohol, which may have been seen as weakening discipline at a critical moment. | |
255 | The which Complaints, the said Parrum, Could not well deny, It is ordered, After the Court was Dismist by Proclamation; [...] | The complaint against Richard Parrum was heard. He did not deny the substance of the accusation, but stated that when Sam Booker came to his house, Booker had told him he had business to carry out for Captain Poirier. Despite this claim, it was clearly established that Parrum had kept him in a state of drunkenness. A penalty was imposed. Richard Parrum was fined three dollars, payable to the Honourable English East India Company, for his misconduct. Sam Booker was fined one dollar for neglecting his duty. The court was then dismissed by proclamation in the usual manner [...] Interpretations The imposition of monetary fines on both Parrum and Sam Booker shows that responsibility was assigned to both master and slave, reflecting a system where discipline operated across hierarchical levels. The payment of the fine to the English East India Company indicates that penalties contributed directly to Company revenues, linking judicial enforcement to financial administration. The finding that Parrum had “kept” Booker in drunkenness suggests that masters were held accountable for the behaviour of their slaves, particularly where it affected public order or official duties. The fine imposed on Booker for neglect of duty shows that slaves could be treated as responsible agents within certain functions, especially when entrusted with tasks such as carrying messages. The formal dismissal of the court by proclamation reflects the procedural closure of judicial proceedings, reinforcing the authority and structure of the legal system on the island. Speculations The decision to fine both Parrum and Booker may have been intended to reinforce discipline on both sides of the master slave relationship, ensuring that neither negligence nor indulgence undermined authority during a period of heightened tension. The relatively modest scale of the fines suggests that the offence was treated as secondary to the larger conspiracy, but still important enough to warrant formal correction within the system of order. | |
256 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Munday the 16ᵗʰ day Pr[e]s[en]t Richᵈ Keling Govʳ Serjᵗ Dixon Complains of Ripin wills Pasture, Saying Ripin Wills acknowledges that he has a sow of his some The sᵈ Dixon did readily Condescend thereto, so they Whereas, this day one by Govʳ and Councill ordered for It is agreed & ordered That three persons be appointed to Each part, and that yᵉ more | A consultation was held on 16 December 1695 at Fort James, with Richard Kelinge, Governor, and Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor, present. Sergeant Dixon complained that Ripin Will had a sow which repeatedly entered his plantation unlawfully and caused damage. Ripin Will admitted that the sow was unruly and did sometimes stray into Dixon’s land. He stated that he was willing to dispose of it to prevent further damage, provided Dixon paid some compensation. Dixon agreed, and both parties were dismissed. On the same day, twelve inhabitants who had previously been selected by majority vote attended the court house on the Sabbath to consult with the Governor and Council about regulating private and public pathways, including bridleways, across St Helena. The matter was fully discussed. It was recognised that the absence of clear regulation had caused disputes and inconvenience. The island was then divided into several parts. It was agreed that three persons were to be appointed for each part. Each group was to survey its assigned area and designate paths within it. To ensure impartiality, those appointed were to be drawn from the inhabitants living nearest to each area. Each person was to be sworn and required to sign an oath in the prescribed form [...] Interpretations The resolution of the dispute over the sow shows how minor property conflicts were handled through negotiated settlement under official oversight, avoiding formal litigation where agreement could be reached. The expectation that Dixon would pay compensation for the sow indicates that resolution could involve financial adjustment even where fault was acknowledged, reflecting a pragmatic approach to dispute settlement. The use of a group of twelve inhabitants chosen by majority vote shows participatory elements within local governance, where community members contributed to administrative decisions. The division of the island into surveyed sections demonstrates an attempt to impose spatial order, converting informal or disputed routes into formally recognised pathways. The requirement that surveyors be drawn from those living nearest each area suggests reliance on local knowledge, balanced by the need for impartiality in decision-making. The administration of oaths and requirement for signatures indicates that these roles carried formal authority and accountability within the island’s legal framework. The focus on both private and public paths, including bridleways, shows the importance of regulating movement for both individuals and livestock, linking infrastructure to economic and social organisation. Speculations The decision to formalise pathways across the island suggests that disputes over access and movement had become sufficiently disruptive to require structured intervention. The combination of local selection and formal oath-taking may have been intended to balance community involvement with central authority, ensuring compliance while drawing on local expertise. | |
257 | We, whose names are hereunto Subscribed, being Richard Leach Henry Crabb It is also ordered That, as soone, as the said persons has surveyed, Elected & What part of the Island, each person is appointed These three persons, to settle the Paths & | A formal oath was set out for those appointed to survey and regulate the main roads, neighbourly drift ways, and private paths across St Helena. They declared that they would carry out this duty faithfully, using their knowledge and judgement, and would return an accurate account so that a permanent record could be made. This was intended to establish a fixed rule and law, so that all inhabitants would know the recognised roads, drift ways, and paths. The oath was subscribed by the following individuals: Richard Leach It was directed that once these persons had surveyed and assigned both public drift ways and private paths, they were to submit their findings to the Governor and Council. These were then to be formally recorded and established as a perpetual law for the island. The allocation of responsibility for surveying different parts of the island was then specified. Three persons were assigned to regulate the paths and drift ways from Sandy Bay Ridge on the north side to Fort James, and from Two Gunners Ridge on the west side to the lands of Thomas Allison, extending to Fort James [...] Interpretations The requirement to formalise roads, drift ways, and paths into a “standing rule and law” shows an effort to convert customary or informal access into enforceable legal structure, reducing ambiguity in land use. The inclusion of “drift ways” alongside roads and paths indicates the need to regulate the movement of livestock, reflecting the integration of pastoral activity into the island’s spatial organisation. The oath taken by the appointed surveyors demonstrates that this role carried legal authority and accountability, ensuring that their decisions could be relied upon in future disputes. The instruction to record and establish the survey as “perpetual law” shows how administrative decisions were transformed into lasting legal frameworks, shaping long-term patterns of access and property use. The allocation of specific geographical sections to small groups indicates a decentralised approach to surveying, relying on local knowledge while maintaining central oversight. The naming of individuals and their assigned areas shows how responsibility for infrastructure and regulation was distributed among the settler population, embedding governance within the community. The reference to boundaries such as Sandy Bay Ridge and Two Gunners Ridge demonstrates how natural features were used to define administrative divisions, linking geography directly to legal regulation. Speculations The decision to formalise paths into permanent law suggests that repeated disputes over access and movement had made informal arrangements unsustainable, requiring clear and enforceable boundaries. The use of sworn local surveyors may have been intended to secure acceptance of the new व्यवस्था by grounding it in the authority of recognised inhabitants, while still ensuring compliance through formal legal endorsement. | |
258 | James Rider To regulate the paths & Drift ways; from [...] To regulate the paths & Drift ways; from Orlando Bagley These three persons are to regulate the Whereas, at the Councill held the 2ᵈ Instant for ye Therefore It is ordered | James Rider, Thomas Swallow, and John Cleverlee were appointed to regulate the paths and drift ways from Two Gunners Ridge on the east side to John Harmon’s land in Deep Valley. [...] were appointed to regulate the paths and drift ways from Sandy Bay on the south part from [...] Orlando Bagley, John [...], and Samuel Taylor were appointed to regulate the paths and drift ways from the lands of Thomas Allison southwards to Tomsontown Woods, and from there to Fort James by Robert Degannay’s route. Attention was then turned to the earlier trial of slaves held on 2 December 1696, in which eleven had been found guilty of conspiring to raise a general insurrection. This outcome was reconsidered by the Governor and Council. It was recognised that executing all those convicted would impose a heavy burden on the island, beyond what could reasonably be sustained. A different course was therefore chosen. It was decided that only three of the principal offenders were to be executed. The remaining eight were to receive severe punishment, close to death in severity, in order to deter others from attempting similar actions. It was therefore directed [...] Interpretations The continued allocation of named individuals to specific geographic sectors shows a systematic effort to impose order on movement across the island, combining local knowledge with formal authority. The reference to clearly defined routes, including those linked to named individuals such as John Harmon and Robert Degannay, indicates how private holdings and personal associations shaped the mapping of public access. The reconsideration of punishment after the trial demonstrates that sentencing was influenced by practical constraints, particularly the economic value of enslaved labour to the island. The decision to limit executions to three individuals shows that punishment was calibrated, balancing deterrence with the need to preserve the labour force. The intention to impose punishments “next unto death” on the remaining eight reflects the use of extreme corporal punishment as a tool of social control, short of execution. The explicit aim of deterrence indicates that punishment was designed not only to penalise the guilty but to influence the behaviour of the wider enslaved population. The acknowledgement that the island could not bear the loss of all eleven slaves highlights the dependence of the settlement on enslaved labour, linking judicial decisions directly to economic considerations. Speculations The reduction in the number of executions suggests that the authorities weighed the immediate need for discipline against the long-term necessity of maintaining a functioning workforce. The choice to punish the majority severely rather than execute them may have been intended to create visible examples of suffering, reinforcing control while avoiding the economic loss that mass execution would have caused. | |
259 | That Jack, a slave of John Gurling That Will, the slave of Owen Bevia[n], and That Ioane a slave woman of Owen Bevia[n], That Ruface a slave of John Greentree, Hemps | A sentence was then imposed. Jack, a slave belonging to John Gurling, who was absent, was identified as the first promoter and instigator of the plan to murder all the inhabitants of St Helena. It was directed that he was to be hanged alive in chains at the top of Ladder Hill, on the side facing Fort James, and left there until he died of starvation. Will, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, and Randall, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, were to be hanged. Their bodies were then to be cut down while still alive, disembowelled, and divided into quarters. Their heads and body parts were to be displayed on public highways as a warning to other slaves. Joane, a slave belonging to Owen Berrian, [...] a slave belonging to the Greenstreet orphans, and Poplar, a slave belonging to John Goodwin, were sentenced to receive one hundred lashes under the gallows on that same day in December 1696. They were then to be branded on the shoulder with the letter “R”. Further punishment was scheduled. They were to receive thirty lashes on Monday 23 December 1696, thirty lashes on Wednesday 25 December 1696, seventy lashes on the following day, and sixty lashes on the Friday after that. After these punishments, they were to be returned to their respective masters, who were required to arrange for their removal from the island at the first available opportunity. Ruface, a slave belonging to John Greenstreet, Hemp, a slave belonging to Richard Gurling, Roger, a slave belonging to Thomas Goodwin, Peter, a slave belonging to Thomas Allison, and Civill, a slave belonging to Samuel Wrangham, who were classed as lesser offenders, were ordered to be branded three times on 20 December 1696 with the letter “R” [...] Interpretations The use of execution by hanging in chains at Ladder Hill shows the deliberate use of public and prolonged punishment, designed to display authority and deter resistance through visibility. The combination of hanging, disembowelling, and quartering reflects the application of extreme punitive measures associated with treason, indicating that the offence was treated as a direct attack on political order. The display of body parts on public highways demonstrates how punishment extended beyond death into spectacle, reinforcing control through fear among the enslaved population. The staged sequence of lashes imposed on Joane, [...] and Poplar shows that corporal punishment could be prolonged and structured over time, intensifying its impact. The branding with the letter “R” indicates a system of marking offenders physically, creating a permanent sign of their crime and status. The requirement that punished individuals be transported from the island shows that banishment was used alongside corporal punishment to remove perceived threats from the local community. The differentiation between principal and lesser offenders demonstrates a graded system of punishment, aligning severity with perceived responsibility. The involvement of masters in arranging transportation shows how private owners were required to cooperate with judicial decisions, linking household authority to colonial governance. Speculations The choice of Ladder Hill, visible from Fort James, suggests that the location was selected to maximise visibility, ensuring that the punishment would be widely seen. The combination of extreme executions and staged corporal punishment may have been intended to create multiple forms of deterrence, using both spectacle and prolonged suffering to reinforce authority across the island. | |
260 | And then, Receave 70 lashes under the Gallows It is also ordered That, a Proclamation be this day Issued out; to [...] | Ruface, Hemp, Roger, Peter, and Civill were further sentenced to receive seventy lashes under the gallows, followed by sixty lashes on 23 December 1696, and fifty lashes on 25 December 1696. After these punishments, they were to be returned to their respective masters, who were required to arrange for their removal from St Helena at the first available opportunity. A further order was made. A proclamation was to be issued requiring all inhabitants who owned slaves, whether male or female, except children, to bring them to Fort James on the appointed day. Each was to bring a bundle of dry wood and attend the punishment and execution of the condemned slaves. This was intended to act as a warning and deterrent against any similar attempts [...] Interpretations The continuation of staged corporal punishment over several days shows how punishment was deliberately extended in time, increasing its severity and visibility. The requirement that masters transport punished slaves off the island demonstrates the use of banishment as a mechanism for removing perceived threats from the local labour system. The issuing of a proclamation to all inhabitants indicates the use of formal public authority to enforce compliance across the entire settlement. The compulsory attendance of slaves at the execution reveals that punishment was used as a collective disciplinary spectacle, designed to influence behaviour across the whole enslaved population. The instruction to bring dry wood suggests preparation for burning or execution practices requiring fuel, indicating that punishment involved material as well as bodily elements. The exemption of children shows a distinction in responsibility and exposure within the enslaved population, reflecting age-based limits in disciplinary practice. The involvement of masters in bringing their slaves to witness punishment demonstrates how control was exercised jointly by private owners and colonial authorities. Speculations The requirement for all slaves to witness the punishments suggests an intention to create a shared experience of fear, reinforcing obedience through direct exposure to consequences. The demand that each bring wood may indicate that the execution was intended to be both practical and symbolic, requiring participation in the process and reinforcing collective responsibility for maintaining order. | |
261 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Munday the [...] [...] Serjᵗ Dixon Complains of Tho: Gangen fund made The said Gangen saith, yt he did owe to the said Dixons But upon the Examination of all accᵗ it appeared It is ordered That the said Tho: Gangen doe pay to the said The said Tho: Gangen Complains against the said Thomas The said Mary the wife of the said Dixon replies that It is ordered That seeing the said Gangen neglected to collect the said [...] | A consultation was held on [...] December 1695 at Fort James. Sergeant Dixon complained that Thomas Gangen owed him £3 0s 0d and refused to pay. Gangen replied that he had owed a similar sum to Dixon’s wife during her earlier marriage to Doctor Stevens, and that he had already paid that amount to Doctor Stevens. On examination of the accounts, it was found that Gangen remained indebted to Dixon in the sum of £1 8s 7d. He was ordered to pay that amount. Gangen then brought a complaint against Dixon. He stated that Mary, Dixon’s wife, had received £0 15s 0d from Mark Debitor, who was absent, and £0 10s 0d from James Brown, also absent. He claimed that he had been authorised to collect those sums on behalf of the estate of Richard Gurling, Mary’s former husband, as part of his duties in administering that estate. Mary Dixon replied that she had never received those sums from the named individuals, nor any payments from them since the death of her husband Richard Gurling. She stated that any dealings with them had arisen from debts contracted after the administration of her former husband’s estate, and that her account book showed that those debtors, along with others, had not paid their respective sums either to her or to Gangen. It was determined that Gangen had failed to collect the sums before the debtors left the island. He was therefore held responsible for the loss and ordered to pay the costs of the court [...] Interpretations The examination of competing claims shows that disputes over debt were resolved through scrutiny of accounts, indicating the importance of written records such as account books in establishing liability. The reference to Mary Dixon’s previous marriage to Doctor Stevens and to the estate of Richard Gurling demonstrates how financial obligations could persist across successive marriages, linking personal relationships to ongoing legal responsibilities. The role claimed by Gangen in collecting debts on behalf of an estate reflects the function of administration, where individuals were entrusted with managing and recovering assets after a death. The finding that Gangen bore the loss for failing to collect debts before the debtors departed shows that responsibility for recovery rested with the appointed agent, not with the creditor. The mention of absent debtors highlights the mobility of individuals on the island, and the risk this posed to the enforcement of financial obligations. The imposition of court costs on Gangen indicates that unsuccessful claims or negligence could result in financial penalties beyond the disputed sum itself. Speculations The decision to hold Gangen responsible for uncollected debts may have been intended to enforce diligence among those managing estates, ensuring that assets were secured promptly before debtors could leave the island. The reliance on Mary Dixon’s account book suggests that personal record-keeping played a crucial role in resolving disputes, perhaps compensating for the absence of a more centralised financial registry. | |
262 | Capt Grindy Complain against Wm Marsh saying Wm Marsh replies that it is true, he did report Sam Taylor saith that the Tuesday after last Wednesday Jane the wife of Michᵃᵉ Isaac Examined saith that Upon | Captain Grindy brought a complaint against William Marsh, alleging that Marsh had spread reports that Priscillah, Grindy’s wife, had spoken and acted in ways suggesting she was a witch. Marsh replied that he had repeated a story told to him by Jane, the wife of Michael Isaack. Jane had said that one night she had been in bed with her grandmother, who was now Captain Grindy’s wife. She had awoken in the night and seen near the window the shape of a black dog, which then changed into another disturbing form. She had been frightened and called repeatedly to her grandmother. After some time, the figure had disappeared, and her grandmother had come to her and asked what was wrong. Samuel Taylor stated that on the Tuesday after the previous Wednesday, Marsh had told him the same account. In his version, the figure had appeared as a cat or dog, then changed shape before vanishing when Jane called out and her grandmother responded. Jane, the wife of Michael Isaack, was examined. She stated that some time earlier she had been lying with her grandmother, now the wife of Captain Grindy. During the night she had noticed her grandmother was not in bed. She then saw at the window what appeared to be a black dog. She called repeatedly to her grandmother. The figure disappeared, and her grandmother returned and reassured her. Jane stated that she had told this story only to Marsh and had added nothing further. Upon [...] Interpretations The complaint shows that accusations of witchcraft could arise from the circulation of informal stories, demonstrating how reputation and suspicion were shaped through spoken accounts rather than formal evidence. The reliance on testimony from multiple individuals, including Marsh, Taylor, and Jane, shows how the council examined the transmission of information as much as the content of the claim itself. The variation between accounts, such as whether the figure appeared as a dog or a cat, illustrates how narratives could shift as they were retold, affecting their perceived credibility. The identification of family relationships, including Jane’s connection to her grandmother, who was Captain Grindy’s wife, shows how domestic and kinship ties were central to the context of such disputes. The focus on what was actually said and to whom indicates that the issue under consideration was not only the alleged event but the act of reporting it, reflecting concern with the spread of potentially damaging claims. Speculations The complaint may have been driven by concern over reputational harm rather than belief in the घटना itself, suggesting that the authorities were being asked to manage the social consequences of such accusations. The careful comparison of accounts suggests that the council aimed to control the circulation of rumours, recognising that unchecked allegations could disrupt relationships within the settlement. | |
263 | Upon the whole, It appears that the said Marsh It is ordered That this Complaint agᵗ the said Marsh fall the said Mary Jenster widow requested of us the Govʳ and It is ordered | Upon consideration, it was determined that William Marsh had not defamed Captain Grindy’s wife, but that the account related instead to her daughter. The complaint was therefore dismissed, and Captain Grindy was found to have no grounds for action against Marsh. Mary Jenster, a widow, petitioned the Governor and Council to be restored to possession of ten acres of land which had previously been taken from her by order of a Court Martial in the year 1680. She offered to pay the usual rent when required, but requested that payment be deferred until further instructions were received from the Honourable English East India Company. She stated that she hoped the Company might restore her to her late husband’s estate out of clemency. It was noted that others in similar circumstances had continued to occupy land without complying with even moderate conditions, and that previous governors had not enforced rent collection strictly in such cases. Taking this into account, her request was granted on condition that she entered into a bond to pay all arrears of rent when required, once further instructions were received from England. She agreed to these terms. It was therefore directed [...] Interpretations The dismissal of the complaint against Marsh shows that reputational disputes were resolved by clarifying the source and meaning of statements, rather than punishing the mere circulation of stories. The reference to a Court Martial order from 1680 indicates that land confiscation could result from military or disciplinary proceedings, linking property rights to questions of conduct and authority. The willingness to restore possession conditionally demonstrates that land tenure could be flexible, subject to negotiation and administrative discretion rather than fixed legal entitlement. The requirement for a bond to secure future payment of rent shows how obligations were formalised in advance, allowing occupation to continue while preserving the Company’s financial claim. The acknowledgement that others occupied land without paying rent reveals a degree of tolerance or inconsistency in enforcement, suggesting limits to administrative control. The expectation of further orders from England highlights the hierarchical structure of governance, where final authority over property matters rested with the Company’s central administration. The case shows how widows could petition for restoration of property, indicating that family status and prior ownership remained relevant in decisions about land. Speculations The decision to grant Jenster temporary possession while deferring rent may have been intended to maintain productive use of the land without provoking resistance from those in uncertain legal positions. The reference to previous non-enforcement suggests that the authorities may have been cautious about imposing strict collection, perhaps to avoid conflict in a small and interdependent community. | |
264 | That the said Mʳˢ Jenster shall Enjoy the | Mary Jenster was granted possession of the ten acres of land for a term of two years at a rent of £2 0s 0d per year, in addition to a quit rent of £0 10s 0d per year. The collection of the £2 0s 0d annual rent was to be deferred for the time being, but the quit rent of £0 10s 0d was to be collected each year until further instructions were received from the Honourable English East India Company. She was required to enter into a bond to secure payment of any arrears once full demand was made. A formal lease was to be drawn up to reflect these terms. Interpretations The distinction between the deferred rent and the immediately payable quit rent shows a layered system of land charges, where different forms of obligation could be enforced separately. The quit rent functioned as a continuing acknowledgement of tenure under Company authority, even when the main rental payment was temporarily suspended. The requirement to give bond for arrears ensured that deferred payments remained legally recoverable, protecting the Company’s financial interest while allowing temporary relief. The fixed two-year term indicates that the grant was provisional, allowing the authorities to revisit the arrangement once further instructions arrived from England. The instruction to draw up a lease demonstrates the formalisation of landholding through written instruments, reinforcing administrative control over property rights. | |
265 | At a Consultation Held on Munday the 6ᵗʰ Day of [...] Capt Grindy Complains of Jane the wife of Michᵃᵉ Isaac Jane the wife of the sd Michᵃᵉ Isaac denies yᵉ Complaint Priscillah the wife of the said Capt Grindy humbly desires The Govʳ asking her how she would prove, that the said Jane The said Grindy replies that she could doe it by yᵉ It is ordered That the further Decision of this busines be | A consultation was held on Monday 6 January 1696 at Fort James. Captain Grindy brought a complaint against Jane, the wife of Michael Isaack, alleging that she had reported that his wife was a witch, if such a thing existed. Jane denied the accusation. Priscillah, the wife of Captain Grindy, requested that the matter be resolved either by clearing her name or proving the allegation, as she did not wish to remain under suspicion and maintained her innocence. When asked how she would prove the claim, she stated that she could rely on the testimony of Priscillah, the wife of David Higham, and Bridget, the wife of Mathew Baggott. Both women, however, had recently given birth and were unable to appear to give evidence at that time. She therefore requested a delay. It was decided that the matter should be postponed until the next General Sessions, where it would be tried before a jury of twelve men [...] Interpretations The referral of the case to the General Sessions shows that disputes involving reputation and serious accusations were escalated to a more formal judicial setting with a jury. The insistence by Priscillah Grindy on being either cleared or convicted highlights the importance of reputation within the community, where unresolved accusations could carry lasting social consequences. The reliance on named witnesses demonstrates the central role of testimony in legal proceedings, particularly in cases lacking material evidence. The postponement due to childbirth reflects practical considerations within the legal process, where physical incapacity could delay proceedings. The specification of a jury of twelve men indicates adherence to established English legal forms in the island’s judicial system. The framing of the accusation “if there was any such thing” suggests a degree of ambiguity or scepticism in how such claims were formally presented, even when taken seriously enough to require legal resolution. | |
266 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Munday the 27ᵗʰ Day of Janʳʸ Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ William Marsh complains of Richᵈ Parrum, Robᵗ Exeter being sworn saith that he heard Richard The said Exeter being demanded how he came to be in drinke, The said Parrum having no Licence to retail, nor It is ordered That the said Parrum be fined according to an order of Councill It is also ordered That Robᵗ Exeter be fined to the Rt Honᵇˡ Compᵃ | A consultation was held on Monday 27 January 1696 at Fort James, before Governor Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. William Marsh complained against Richard Parrum. He alleged that Parrum had reported that he had been seen coming late at night from the house of Susanna, the wife of William Rushton, on the previous Tuesday. He stated that this report damaged his reputation and might cause conflict between himself and his wife. Robert Exeter was sworn. He stated that he had heard Parrum say, while at Exeter’s house during work, that one night he had gone outside around midnight to check whether cattle had entered the enclosure. On returning, Parrum had said that he had met Marsh coming from the direction of Rushton’s house. Exeter added that Parrum had said more, but he could not clearly recall it because he had been drunk at the time. Exeter was questioned about his drinking. He stated that he had consumed two bowls of punch supplied by Parrum, which had been given in connection with his work. It was established that Parrum did not hold a licence to sell or supply strong drink, and Exeter had confirmed under oath that Parrum had provided him with the punch. Parrum was therefore fined £2 0s 0d in accordance with a prior order of council for this offence. Exeter was also fined £0 5s 0d, payable to the Honourable English East India Company, for being drunk, as he had admitted. Interpretations The complaint shows how allegations affecting marital fidelity were treated as matters of reputation serious enough to be brought before the council, reflecting the social importance of household honour. The reliance on Exeter’s testimony, despite his admitted drunkenness, shows that evidence was still considered even when its reliability was qualified, with the court weighing credibility rather than excluding it outright. The questioning of Exeter about the source of his drink indicates that the court used testimony not only to resolve the original complaint but also to uncover related offences. The fine imposed on Parrum for supplying alcohol without a licence shows the existence of regulated control over the distribution of drink, linking moral order with economic oversight. The punishment of Exeter for drunkenness demonstrates that personal misconduct could be penalised alongside the primary offence, reinforcing discipline within the community. The reference to an earlier council order indicates that such offences were governed by established local regulations rather than ad hoc decisions. Speculations The shift from a reputational complaint to enforcement of licensing rules suggests that the authorities may have used the case as an opportunity to reinforce broader regulatory control over alcohol. The relatively modest fine for drunkenness compared to the larger penalty for unlicensed selling may reflect a priority placed on controlling supply rather than individual consumption. | |
267 | And Likewise That the further Decision of the said Marshes Complaint The said Marsh Complains of the said Parrum, saying that It is ordered That that Complaint also be referred untill | It was further directed that the decision on William Marsh’s complaint against Richard Parrum concerning the report of his late visit to Susanna Rushton’s house should be deferred until the next General Sessions for trial. Marsh then brought an additional complaint against Parrum, alleging that Parrum had accused him of removing part of his fence. This complaint was also deferred and referred to the next General Sessions for trial [...] Interpretations The referral of both complaints to the General Sessions shows that matters involving contested reputation and property damage were considered suitable for formal jury trial rather than immediate determination by the council. The separation of summary offences, such as unlicensed sale of alcohol, from disputes requiring fuller examination indicates a layered judicial system in which different types of cases were handled at different levels. The allegation concerning the removal of a fence reflects the importance of boundary maintenance and property demarcation, which were central to landholding and agricultural order on the island. The repeated use of deferral suggests that the council acted as a preliminary forum, filtering cases before passing them to a more formal court process when necessary. Speculations The decision to defer both complaints may have been intended to prevent escalation of personal conflict, allowing time for fuller evidence to be gathered and reducing the risk of immediate judgement based on partial testimony. Referring the matters to a jury could also have been a way to distribute responsibility for contentious decisions, especially in disputes involving reputation within a small community. | |
268 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Monday the 24 day Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ Richard Parrum Complains of Sutton Isaack The said Isaack saith that he is Indebted unto the sd The said Parrum produced a Bill from under the said It is ordered That the said Sutton Isaack doe pay to the said The said Parrum Complains of Robᵗ Codman Ripun Willis and [...] Harper saith that abt 4 yeares Upon the whole It is ordered That the said Parrum be cast, he having no Cause | A consultation was held on Monday 24 February 1696 at Fort James, before Governor Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. Richard Parrum complained against Sutton Isaack, a planter, claiming that Isaack owed him a sum of money. Isaack acknowledged that he was in debt to Parrum, though he disputed the amount. Parrum then produced a written bill signed by Isaack, dated 17 January 1696, which showed that Isaack owed him a sum of £4 [...]. On this evidence, Isaack was ordered to pay Parrum that amount, and he agreed to do so. Parrum then brought a further complaint against Robert Codman, alleging that Codman owed him £6 [...] for a che[...]. Codman denied the claim. Ripun Willis and [...] Harper gave evidence. They stated that about four years earlier they had been at Parrum’s house with Codman. Codman had asked for a bottle of [...], but Parrum had refused, saying he would not trust him. After some time, Parrum had taken a che[...] from a shelf, placed it on the table, and filled it. They and Codman had taken from it, and Codman had shared some with others present. They did not hear Codman ask for any che[...]. After consideration, it was decided that Parrum had no valid claim against Codman. The complaint was dismissed [...] Interpretations The production of a written bill signed by Sutton Isaack shows the importance of documentary proof in resolving disputes over debt, giving formal weight to written obligations. The acceptance of the bill as decisive evidence indicates that signed instruments functioned as binding acknowledgements of liability within the island’s legal system. The dispute over the second claim illustrates the difficulty of proving informal transactions, particularly where goods or drink were shared without clear agreement on payment. The testimony that Parrum initially refused credit but later provided the drink suggests that creditworthiness and trust were central to everyday exchanges. The dismissal of the claim shows that the court required clear evidence of agreement to pay, not merely consumption, before recognising a debt. The presence of multiple witnesses indicates that communal observation played a role in verifying or disputing private transactions. Speculations The reliance on the signed bill in the first case, contrasted with the dismissal of the second claim, suggests that written agreements were preferred as a safeguard against disputes in a setting where informal dealings were common. The refusal to uphold Parrum’s second claim may have been intended to discourage ambiguous credit arrangements, encouraging clearer terms in future transactions. | |
269 | The said Parrum Complains of Wᵐ French, and Robᵗ Codman The said French and Exeter doe both owne their Debts It is ordered That the said French and Exeter doe find surety for Whereas Wᵐ French Quarter Gunner and one Robᵗ Cowley The said French and Cowley, not humbling themselves It is ordered That they remain in prison untill next Monday, | Richard Parrum brought further complaints against William French and Robert Codman, alleging that French owed him £2 7s [...] and Codman £2 12s 9d, and that both delayed payment. William French and Robert Exeter acknowledged their debts and stated that they would pay as soon as they were able. It was therefore directed that French and Exeter should provide surety to guarantee payment of their respective sums to Parrum within a reasonable time. Attention was then turned to William French, a quarter gunner, and Robert Cowley, a soldier, who had both been imprisoned on the previous Saturday night. French had fired a gun at about ten o’clock at night while stationed between the shore and the ships Katherine of New York and the Amity, a sloop, both carrying slaves. Orders had been given to maintain vigilance in that area to prevent any attempt by slaves to board ships and escape, following reports that such an attempt might be made against the sloop, although this later proved to be false. Cowley had been imprisoned for attempting to resist the sentry of the guard after this warning had been issued, and for blaspheming the name of God. Both men had been heavily drunk at the time. When called to answer for their conduct, they claimed they could not explain their behaviour and denied being drunk. As neither man showed remorse and instead sought to justify their actions, it was directed that they remain in prison until the following Monday, when their cases would be considered further [...] Interpretations The requirement for French and Exeter to provide surety shows how debt enforcement relied on guarantees, ensuring that payment obligations were secured by third parties or pledges. The presence of multiple overlapping debts involving Parrum indicates an active credit network within the settlement, where goods and money circulated through personal obligations. The reference to specific ships carrying slaves highlights the island’s role in maritime movement and the need to prevent escape, linking local security directly to wider trading activity. The order to maintain guards between shore and ship shows a structured system of surveillance designed to control the movement of enslaved people. The response to the rumour of an escape attempt demonstrates how even unverified intelligence could trigger heightened security measures. The imprisonment of French and Cowley for misconduct while on duty shows that military discipline was enforced strictly, especially in situations affecting security. The emphasis on their failure to show humility indicates that expected behaviour before authority included acknowledgement of fault, not merely compliance. Speculations The swift reaction to rumours of an escape attempt suggests that authorities were particularly sensitive to the risk of coordinated action among enslaved people following recent unrest. The continued detention of French and Cowley may have been intended not only to punish their actions but to reinforce discipline among other soldiers during a period of heightened anxiety. | |
270 | Mr Bartholomew Haswood, being now upon his departure off the said Island, in the Ship Katherine of New yorke, It is ordered That the said Mr Haswoods request be granted Vizᵗ As much as a false and unchristian scandall has bin | Bartholomew Haswood, being about to depart from St Helena on board the ship Katherine of New York, requested permission to have a written statement entered into the consultation book. The statement was intended to defend the reputation of a female child of William Brabourne, formerly a factor and warehouse keeper in Bombay, who had married Martha, formerly of the island. Both parents were deceased. A report had circulated on the island that the child was not born of Martha, but was a substituted or false child. Permission was granted for the statement to be recorded for the purpose of clearing the child’s name. The declaration stated that a false and improper scandal had been spread concerning the child, alleging that she had not been born to Martha, wife of William Brabourne. Bartholomew Haswood declared that in 1694, during the months of June, July, and August, while serving as chaplain to the ship Resolution, he had frequently visited the house of William Brabourne while the ship lay in the road. He affirmed that after the proper term of pregnancy, Martha, wife of William Brabourne, had been delivered of a female child. He noted that this could be confirmed by several persons on the island who were still living. He further stated that, so that the child should not suffer disgrace from such reports, he believed firmly that the child had been born of Martha’s body. He added that he had confirmed the couple in marriage at their request, although they had previously been married by Robert Mitchell, minister of the island. Before the birth, he had also received their public thanks to God, given in the presence of several witnesses, for the safe delivery [...] Interpretations The formal recording of Haswood’s declaration shows that the council acted as a repository for statements intended to protect personal reputation, giving them official standing. The concern with proving that the child was “borne of the body” reflects the importance of legitimacy, particularly in relation to inheritance, status, and family identity. The involvement of a chaplain as witness indicates that clerical authority carried evidential weight in matters of moral and social credibility. The reference to multiple living witnesses shows that communal memory and testimony were central to establishing truth in the absence of formal registration systems. The mention of confirmation of marriage, despite a prior ceremony by another minister, suggests that repeated or reinforced rites could be used to secure recognition of marital status. The explicit aim of preventing shame to the child indicates that reputation extended beyond individuals to their descendants, affecting long-term social standing. Speculations The decision to enter the declaration into the official record may have been intended to provide a durable form of proof, anticipating future disputes over the child’s legitimacy or inheritance. The emphasis on multiple witnesses and clerical involvement suggests that the statement was structured to meet expected standards of credibility, perhaps in anticipation of challenges after Haswood’s departure from the island. | |
271 | Gods presence before Angells and the world that there never was Bartholomew Haswood [...] | Bartholomew Haswood further declared, before God, angels, and the world, that there had never been any doubt or question that Martha, the wife of William Brabourne, had been with child. He affirmed this to remove any suspicion concerning her pregnancy. He stated that he had set his hand and seal to the declaration in order to protect the reputation of the deceased and to prevent any disgrace being cast upon the infant through such false accusations. He added that, if his own testimony were not considered sufficient, further confirmation could be obtained from George Weldon, his wife, and Madam Throughgood, now the wife of Captain Bender, who had acted as securities for the child. He concluded by affirming that he had willingly signed and sealed the statement in order to uphold justice and defend innocence [...] Interpretations The declaration made “before God, angels, and the world” shows the use of religious language to strengthen the authority and seriousness of sworn testimony. The insistence that no doubt had ever been raised about Martha’s pregnancy indicates that the issue at stake was not only the child’s birth but the moral reputation of the mother. The act of setting hand and seal reflects the formalisation of the statement, giving it legal and evidential weight within the council’s records. The reference to additional named individuals who could attest to the facts shows how credibility was reinforced through a network of respected witnesses. The description of George Weldon, his wife, and Madam Throughgood as securities for the child suggests a recognised role in guaranteeing or supporting the child’s status and welfare. The emphasis on protecting both the dead and the living child demonstrates how reputation and legitimacy were treated as matters with lasting legal and social consequences. Speculations The careful construction of the declaration, with multiple witnesses and formal sealing, suggests that it was intended to serve as a durable defence against future claims, perhaps in relation to inheritance or status. The inclusion of prominent individuals as supporting witnesses may have been designed to ensure that the statement would carry authority even after Haswood’s departure from the island. | |
272 | Island St Helena At a Consultation Held on Munday ye 2ᵈ Day of Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ Whereas Wᵐ French Quarter Gunr was It is ordered That the said French be this day Dismist of his said It is also ordered That Robᵗ Cowley Soldier who was also Comitted with Whereas this morning abᵗ 7 of the Clock, a Note came to | A consultation was held on Monday 2 March 1696 at Fort James, before Governor Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier, Deputy Governor. William French, a quarter gunner, had previously been committed for offences recorded in an earlier consultation. The gunner reported that French had for some time been negligent in his duties and was unfit for the role because of his intemperance. While in custody, French had also declared that he no longer valued service with the Honourable English East India Company. He was dismissed from his position, removed from pay, and discharged from service. Robert Cowley, a soldier who had been committed alongside French for related offences, was ordered to ride the wooden horse for half an hour at the next relief of the guard and was then released. At about seven o’clock that morning, a note was received informing the Governor that Edward Quinny, a planter, had at about five o’clock taken his own life by hanging himself from a tree near [...]. A warrant was immediately issued to Orlando Bagley Senior, a planter, empowering him to act as coroner in the matter and to assemble a jury of [...] [...] Interpretations The dismissal of William French shows that continued employment in technical roles depended on discipline and reliability, with misconduct leading to removal from both office and pay. The reference to intemperance as grounds for dismissal indicates that personal behaviour was treated as directly affecting professional competence and suitability for service. The punishment of Robert Cowley by riding the wooden horse reflects the use of physical disciplinary methods within the garrison, short of dismissal, to correct misconduct. The appointment of Orlando Bagley Senior as coroner demonstrates that local officials could be temporarily vested with judicial authority to investigate sudden deaths. The instruction to assemble a jury shows that even cases of apparent self-killing were subject to formal inquiry, following established legal procedures. The rapid issuance of a warrant upon receiving news of Edward Quinny’s death indicates the importance placed on immediate investigation and official oversight of such घटनाएँ. Speculations The decision to dismiss French while retaining Cowley with a lesser punishment may reflect a judgement that French’s failings were ongoing and incompatible with service, while Cowley’s offence was treated as a single lapse. The swift move to appoint a coroner and jury suggests that the authorities sought to maintain control over the narrative and legal classification of Quinny’s death, perhaps to prevent dispute or uncertainty within the community. | |
273 | as they had agreed on a verdict, to bring to Fort James, in order yt We the Jurors whose names are hereunder written, doe Erasmus Purling John Colgrave Then the Govʳ did an order to Henry Crabb Marshall, to Cause [...] | The jury, having reached their decision, had brought their verdict to Fort James so that further action could be determined. The written verdict, signed by the jurors, was presented to Richard Keeling. The jurors declared that Edward Quinny, lacking the fear of God, had taken his own life by hanging himself with a line folded four times over, tied to an olive tree. The jurors were Erasmus Purling, William Hayses, Thomas Burnham, Inno Eastelope, Robert Exeter, [...] Higham, John Colgrave, Samuel Lyle, John Bowman, John Womall, Ripun Wills and William Melling. An order was then issued by the Governor to Henry Crabb, Marshal, that Quinny’s body be [...] or buried at a crossroads. A stake was to be driven through the body and a heap of stones placed over it, without any further burial rites. A warrant and commission were also issued to Henry Crabb under the hands and seals of the Governor and Council. He was instructed to seize Quinny’s estate for the use of the Honourable Company. A full inventory was to be made and returned to the Records Office at Fort James as soon as the process had been completed. Interpretations The jury’s verdict of self-killing established a formal finding of suicide, which carried both moral condemnation and legal consequences. The phrasing “not the fear of God before his eyes” reflected the religious framing that underpinned legal judgments in such cases. Burial at a crossroads with a stake driven through the body formed part of a punitive and preventative practice applied to suicides. This denied normal burial rites and marked the act as both criminal and socially disruptive, reinforcing communal and religious norms. The involvement of Henry Crabb as Marshal showed his dual administrative and enforcement role. He carried out both the physical disposal of the body and the legal seizure of property, illustrating how executive authority was concentrated in specific offices. The seizure of Quinny’s estate for the Honourable Company indicated that suicide resulted in forfeiture of property. This functioned as a financial penalty and a deterrent, transferring private assets into Company control. The requirement to produce an inventory and lodge it in the Records Office at Fort James demonstrated the bureaucratic process governing confiscated property. This ensured accountability and integrated the estate into the Company’s financial system. Speculations The instruction to bury Quinny at a crossroads with additional physical measures suggests a deliberate attempt to make the punishment visible and enduring, perhaps to discourage similar acts among the island’s small and closely observed population. The prompt seizure and recording of the estate indicate that the Company treated such incidents as opportunities to secure assets efficiently, suggesting a system designed to convert legal judgments into immediate administrative and financial outcomes. | |
274 | Island St. Helena Att a Consultation Held on Munday the 23ᵗʰ Day of Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ Henry Coales Marshall & James Grandy Corpˢ It was agreed & ordered That they receive for each suite Vizᵗ Men, women & James Duffe late Chirurgeon of yᵉ Garrison, who dismist himselfe out It is ordered That the persons offered by yᵉ Duffe & French be accepted [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 March 1696. Present were Richard Keeling, Captain Poirier, Henry Coales, Marshal, and James Grandy, Corporal. Henry Coales and James Grandy had been employed in overseeing the coaling work carried out by the Honourable Company’s slaves. An account had been submitted showing how much work each had completed. The account was examined and accepted as correct. After discussion, payment was agreed at the rate of £0 2s 6d for each suite, meaning men, women and children counted together. Credit was to be entered accordingly in their account with the Honourable Company. James Duffe, formerly surgeon of the garrison, had left the Company’s pay and service while owing £4 8s 1d. William French, formerly Quarter Gunner and dismissed by the Governor and Council on 2 March 1696, owed £8 1s 9d. Both were required to appear in order either to make immediate payment or to provide security for prompt settlement. Security was offered in each case. James Duffe named George Haskison as his guarantor, with payment to be made on the next garrison pay day. William French named Thomas Roe, shoemaker, who had dealings with the Honourable Company concerning raw hides, to secure payment of his debt within a short time. An order was issued that the persons offered by Duffe and French be accepted as securities for their respective debts. Obligations were formally taken from those guarantors to ensure payment. Interpretations Payment “per suite” showed that labour performed by slaves was measured in grouped units rather than by individuals. This method simplified accounting and reflected collective organisation of labour under Company supervision. The coaling work indicated the direct use of Company-owned slaves in essential industrial activity. Oversight by a marshal and a corporal combined civil enforcement authority with military discipline in managing labour. The requirement that debts be either paid immediately or secured demonstrated a structured credit system. Financial obligations to the Company were enforced through formal procedures rather than informal recovery. The acceptance of named guarantors showed how debt could be secured through personal bonds. This transferred legal responsibility to third parties, embedding financial enforcement within the island’s social and economic relationships. Thomas Roe’s involvement as a shoemaker trading in raw hides with the Company revealed how private commercial dealings intersected with official financial obligations. Existing business ties could be used to guarantee debts owed to the Company. Speculations The use of a standardised rate per suite suggests a deliberate attempt to reduce disputes over labour valuation and to impose a uniform system of accounting across a varied workforce. The willingness to accept guarantors rather than insist on immediate payment indicates that the council managed debt recovery pragmatically, preserving the participation of indebted individuals in the island’s economy while still securing the Company’s financial interests. | |
275 | Island St. Helena Att a Court of Justice Held on Tuesday the 7ᵗʰ Day of Presᵗ Richᵈ Kelinge Govʳ After the Court was opened according to the usuall Orlando Bagley foreman one James Grandy Corpˢ Complains of Tho: Allis planter, Thomᵃ Allis Denys that he can pr[o]ve the [... ] Jᵐ Grandy Then the Jury was Sworne Francis Deegan the said Grandy’s wifes son, sworne saith Daughter | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House, New Fort James, on Tuesday 7 April 1696. Present were Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier. The court was opened in the usual manner. Assistant justices were appointed to serve as jurors. Those called were Orlando Bagley as foreman, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Edmonds, John Colgrave, Robert Eden, James Rider, John Goodwin, John Long, Edward Broger, John Sheh, John Lufkin and James Wrangham. James Grandy, Corporal, brought a complaint against Thomas Allis, planter. He stated that Allis had told several people, including Proscribah his wife, that Grandy’s wife was a witch and that he would prove it. These statements were described as defamatory and damaging to her reputation. It was asserted that, if such accusations were true, they could lead to her death. The court was asked to consider the matter seriously. Thomas Allis denied that he could prove that James Grandy’s wife was a witch. He stated that for some time he had been more [...] a distracted man than otherwise. The jury was then sworn. Francis Deegan, identified as the son of Grandy’s wife, was sworn and gave evidence. He stated that when the last two Madagascar ships had been in the road, Thomas Allis, while in company with him, had asked why his mother intended to prosecute Jane, the wife of Michael Isaack, who was her granddaughter. Interpretations The use of assistant justices as jurors showed how judicial roles were adapted on the island. In the absence of a large pool of independent jurors, officials and leading inhabitants could be assigned to fulfil this function, combining administrative and judicial authority. The complaint of defamation centred on an accusation of witchcraft, which carried potential capital consequences. Such an allegation was not merely insulting but legally dangerous, as it could expose the accused to prosecution and severe punishment. The reference to prosecuting Jane, the wife of Michael Isaack, indicated that private individuals could initiate legal action. This reflected a system in which personal grievances, especially those affecting honour and reputation, were brought before formal courts. Thomas Allis’s claim of being “distracted” suggested an appeal to diminished responsibility. This implied that mental instability could be raised in defence to mitigate accountability for harmful statements. The mention of ships from Madagascar anchored the testimony in a known sequence of arrivals, showing how maritime events provided a shared temporal reference point in the island’s legal proceedings. Speculations Allis’s admission of being in a distracted state suggests a strategic attempt to lessen the legal consequences of his statements, indicating awareness that accusations of witchcraft were treated seriously and could incur penalties. The linkage between the alleged slander and a separate intended prosecution involving Jane Isaack implies that the accusation of witchcraft may have arisen within an ongoing family or community dispute, where legal action and reputation were closely intertwined. | |
276 | Richᵈ Parrum Sworne Saith, that one day when the Margery the wife of Corpˢ Hayles Sworne Saith Mrs Hayles in what Condition pray, was Tho: Allis then Hayles Truly Gentlemen, I think he had then bin a Drinking, but I Thoᵐᵃ Wills Sworne Saith, that shee setting att Addᵐ Willson Sworne Saith, that sitting at R[i]bin | Richard Parrum was sworn and stated that, on a day when the two Madagascar ships had been in the road, he had heard Francis Hedger and Thomas Allis engaged in a heated quarrel. Francis Hedger had accused Thomas Allis of being a rogue for debauching his sister, describing it as a disgrace to the whole family. Thomas Allis had replied that Hedger’s mother was a witch and had sworn that he would prove it. Margery, the wife of Corporal Hayles, was sworn and stated that she had seen Thomas Allis coming from the lower end of Fort James Town, crossing a bridge, while Francis Hedger had been walking down. At their meeting, Allis had called Hedger a saucy rogue and declared that he deserved to be hanged for debauching his sister. Hedger had then challenged Allis over his claim that his mother was a witch and asked if he would prove it. Allis had replied with an oath that he would prove her to be a witch. When asked about Allis’s condition at the time, Margery Hayles stated that he had probably been drinking, but that he had appeared more mad or frantic than drunk, behaving like a madman. Thomas Wills was sworn and stated that she had been sitting at the door of the Hayles household with Mrs Grandy. While they had been there, Thomas Allis had come out of Richard Parrum’s house. On seeing Mrs Grandy, he had approached her and called her an “old bitch”, accusing her of being a witch and claiming that she had bewitched him. Adam Willson was sworn and stated that, while sitting at Ribin Wills’s door, nearly opposite Richard Parrum’s house, he had seen Thomas Allis come out and look about in a disturbed manner. He had then gone towards Mrs Grandy and had said to her “Damn [...]”. Interpretations The repeated witness testimonies established a pattern of public accusations of witchcraft made by Thomas Allis. Such statements, when made openly and to multiple witnesses, strengthened the case for defamation by demonstrating both repetition and intent. The exchange between Francis Hedger and Thomas Allis showed how accusations of sexual misconduct and witchcraft could intersect within personal disputes. Allegations of “debauching” carried moral and social consequences, while counter-accusations of witchcraft escalated the conflict into a matter with legal implications. Margery Hayles’s assessment of Allis as “more mad or frantic than drunk” introduced the question of mental condition into the proceedings. This distinction was significant, as it could affect how responsibility and intent were judged by the court. The testimony describing Allis emerging from Richard Parrum’s house and immediately confronting Mrs Grandy indicated that the alleged slander was not confined to a single incident but formed part of a continuing course of behaviour. The presence of multiple named witnesses from different households showed how community observation functioned as evidence. Social proximity within the settlement meant that conduct was widely seen and could be readily brought before the court. Speculations The consistency of witness accounts describing Allis as behaving in a disturbed or frantic manner suggests that his defence may have relied on portraying his actions as the result of instability rather than deliberate malice, in an effort to reduce potential punishment. The escalation from a dispute over sexual misconduct to accusations of witchcraft implies that such claims were used as retaliatory tools within personal conflicts, transforming private grievances into matters requiring formal legal intervention. | |
277 | Damn you, you old witch, you know you have bewitched me Richᵈ Leach Sworne saith, yt when the last two John Hemmon Sworne (on the behalfe of Thomᵃ Matthew Barrett and Wᵐ Coales Sworne saith, | Richard Leach was sworn and stated that, when the last two Madagascar ships had touched at the island, he had received news of his daughter’s death. This had so distressed him that he had taken little notice of the dispute between Thomas Allis and Francis Hedger. He nevertheless recalled hearing Hedger accuse Allis of being a rogue for debauching his sister, and hearing Allis reply that Hedger’s mother was a witch and that he would prove it. John Hemmon was sworn on behalf of Thomas Allis. He stated that, on the day after the ships Resolution and Success had departed the island, he had gone into the country to his dwelling and had called on Allis. He had found him in a condition as mad as any person in Bedlam. Allis had then told him that the Governor and his lady had been at his house the previous night, that he had made a bowl of punch which they had refused to drink, and that they had departed. He had said that since they would not return, he would drink it himself, which he had done. He had also claimed that Mr Daman and Mr Barrett had been at his house measuring land, and that the plain ran through the middle of his house. He had further alleged that they had treated him very badly and intended to take half his house from him. He had then begun removing doors from his house, along with making many other irrational and senseless statements, appearing wholly without reason. Matthew Barrett and William Coales were sworn and stated that, about Christmas last past, Thomas Allis’s black woman had come to them asking for help, saying that her master had beaten her severely and turned her out of doors. They had gone to his house and found Allis repairing damage he had previously caused by nailing parts of it back together. On seeing them, he had told them that a man had lain with his wife the previous night, and had then told them that they [...]. Interpretations The repeated accusations that Allis would “prove” witchcraft showed that such claims were treated as matters requiring demonstration before authority, not merely expressions of insult. This reinforced their potential legal weight and danger. John Hemmon’s testimony introduced detailed evidence of delusion, including imagined visits by senior officials and false claims about land measurement. References to “Bedlam” invoked a recognised standard of extreme madness, indicating that contemporaries assessed mental incapacity against known cultural markers. The mention of named ships Resolution and Success provided a chronological anchor for the events described, reflecting how maritime movements structured time and memory within the island community. The account of Allis dismantling parts of his own house and alleging encroachment by others suggested perceived threats to property. This revealed how concerns over land boundaries and ownership could become entangled with mental disturbance. The testimony concerning the “black woman” demonstrated the presence of enslaved individuals within domestic households and their vulnerability to violence. Her appeal to other men for assistance showed that intervention could occur through informal community action rather than formal complaint. The involvement of Matthew Barrett and William Coales as witnesses indicated that disputes within private households could readily become matters of public testimony, especially where disorder or violence was evident. Speculations The detailed evidence of Allis’s delusions, particularly involving the Governor and land measurement, suggests that his defence was being built to demonstrate incapacity, aiming to mitigate or avoid punishment for defamatory accusations. The reference to imagined interference with his house and land implies that underlying anxieties about property security may have contributed to his behaviour, with personal instability expressing itself through fears of dispossession. | |
278 | they stood amongst the Lilly trees, that are just before his | Matthew Barrett and William Coales further stated that Thomas Allis had claimed that people stood among the lily trees near his door, throwing stones. He had then entered his house and declared that he must go to look for his wife. He had asked Barrett and Coales to accompany him, which they did, but she had not been found. They had returned home, after which Allis had gone out again and, looking towards a piece of ground belonging to Miller, had shouted, “You old witch, you old devil, what business have you there, get you gone, and do not stay here to trouble me.” When asked who he meant, Allis had replied that it was “that old devil Mother Grandy”, claiming she stood upon a stump. Barrett and Coales had told him that they saw nothing. He had answered that they would not see, and had said that almost every night he had been forced to keep watch alone against many men who troubled his house. He had claimed that they ran together and meant to kill him, though he had challenged them to fight one by one. They further stated that on another occasion they had seen Allis working with his slave, digging beneath a stone weighing three or four tons. He had told them that he had laboured there all night searching for his wife, claiming she was beneath the rock with Richard Leach. He had urged them to help rescue them, saying they would otherwise be murdered. When told that nothing was there, he had insisted that they were present and about to be married, stating that he had prepared a bed with clean sheets for that purpose. He had again asked for help, and Barrett, together with the slaves present, had assisted him. After much effort, the stone had been raised about a foot, which had satisfied him. Both Barrett and Coales declared that they had seen Allis in this condition very often, describing him as as mad as any person in Bedlam. Interpretations The testimony presented sustained and detailed evidence of delusion, including visions of unseen persons, imagined threats, and elaborate false beliefs about events occurring around him. This extended pattern of behaviour supported the claim that Allis lacked rational capacity rather than acting with deliberate intent. The reference to “Mother Grandy” showed that the accusation of witchcraft remained central to his delusions. The persistence of this figure across different incidents reinforced the connection between his mental state and the defamatory statements brought before the court. The involvement of Barrett, Coales and the slaves in physically lifting the stone demonstrated how others sometimes complied with irrational demands to calm or manage a disturbed individual. This reflected a practical response within the community rather than immediate recourse to formal restraint. The description of the stone’s size, estimated at three or four tons, emphasised the scale of the effort and the extremity of Allis’s belief. The labour undertaken served as evidence both of his conviction and of the lengths to which others went to satisfy him. The repeated comparison to Bedlam indicated a recognised benchmark for madness. Such language showed that contemporaries used established cultural references to assess and communicate degrees of mental disorder in legal settings. The mention of Allis working with his slave highlighted the presence of enslaved labour within domestic contexts and its use even in situations driven by irrational behaviour, reflecting the limited autonomy of slaves within the household structure. Speculations The willingness of Barrett, Coales and the slaves to assist in lifting the stone suggests a deliberate effort to placate Allis and bring his agitation to an end, indicating a practical strategy for managing disruptive behaviour without escalating conflict. The persistence and detail of Allis’s delusions, particularly those involving threats to his life and marriage, imply that the defence sought to establish a continuous state of incapacity, thereby undermining any claim that his accusations of witchcraft were made with conscious intent. | |
278 | Then the Jury withdrew, and stayed abᵗ one houre, & when That, the said Thomas Allis, was found non compos mentis, It is ordered by the Court That Proclamation be imediately made by the Governᵒʳ, if any They which was done Three times, and no person coming in as It is also ordered That the said Tho: Allis be kept under a keeper, untill such Simon Whalley S[rg]ᵗ humbly sett forth in his The said Whalleys Petition was seriously considered The said Dixon replyed that he was a Stranger to | The jury withdrew for about one hour. On their return, they delivered their verdict that Thomas Allis was non compos mentis and did not possess rational sense. It was therefore determined that he should be kept under a keeper. The prosecution concerning Jane Grandy, wife of James Grandy, was declared not to have been harmed or scandalised, since the accusations had been made by a man judged to be without reason. An order was issued that proclamation be immediately made by the Governor. Any person able to give evidence that Jane Grandy was a witch, or had acted in any way suggesting such behaviour, was called to come forward and be heard. The proclamation was made three times, and no person appeared. She was accordingly cleared of all such accusations. A further order directed that Thomas Allis be kept under a keeper until it became evident that he had returned to his right senses. Simon Whalley, Sergeant, submitted a petition. He stated that Benjamin Miller, his brother in law, had on leaving the island placed his son, John Miller, in the care of John Stevens, now deceased, with instructions that the child be properly brought up until he came of age. During his lifetime, Stevens had placed the boy with Hugh Bodle to serve him for three years, without teaching him any trade. Whalley requested that Thomas Dixon, Sergeant, who had recently married Stevens’s widow, be required to make good the estate of Stevens in respect of this matter. The petition was considered. Thomas Dixon was charged with responsibility. He initially affirmed the agreement made by his predecessor, but then stated that he had been a stranger to Stevens’s affairs, though he would support them as far as lay within his power. Interpretations The verdict of non compos mentis established legal incapacity, removing Thomas Allis from full responsibility for his actions. This classification shifted the court’s response from punishment to supervision, requiring confinement under a keeper rather than penal sanction. The formal proclamation inviting evidence against Jane Grandy showed that the court sought to resolve the accusation publicly and conclusively. By calling for witnesses and receiving none, the court transformed the absence of evidence into an official clearing of her reputation. The requirement that Allis remain under a keeper until recovery demonstrated a practical mechanism for managing those judged mentally unfit. Responsibility for control was delegated, indicating a system of supervised custody rather than institutional confinement. Simon Whalley’s petition revealed how guardianship arrangements for children were enforced. The expectation that John Miller be “brought up” included both maintenance and training, suggesting a recognised obligation to prepare minors for economic independence. The attempt to hold Thomas Dixon accountable for the actions of John Stevens showed how obligations could pass through marriage to a widow. This reflected the transfer of responsibility tied to property and estate management rather than strictly personal contracts. The issue of John Miller being bound to service without learning a trade highlighted the importance placed on apprenticeship as a means of social and economic formation. Failure to provide such training could give rise to claims against those responsible for a child’s placement. Speculations The repeated public proclamation clearing Jane Grandy suggests that the court aimed to restore her reputation visibly within the community, recognising that private judgment alone would not undo the damage caused by public accusations. The dispute over John Miller’s placement implies concern that informal arrangements for children could be exploited, and that the petition sought to use the court to enforce standards of care and training expected within the island’s social order. | |
279 | Therefore It is ordered That the said Bodleys Articles, and the said Stevens The which the Pᵈ Dixon declared he would as much Some time after the said Dixon came to Govᵒʳ & That the Pᵈ Dixons propos[al] be accepted off, abᵗ the said Boy, & That the Pᵈ Serjᵗ Dunling, has agreed with the Pᵈ Dixon, to bring The Pᵈ Serjᵗ Dixon desires, that the Pᵈ writing That the Pᵈ writing Intituled a Deed of gift, be | An order was issued that the agreement between Hugh Bodle and John Stevens concerning the boy John Miller be cancelled. Thomas Dixon was directed to take the boy into his care and bring him up according to the terms set out in the agreement made between John Stevens and Benjamin Miller. Dixon declared that he would comply as far as lay within his power. Some time later, Dixon appeared before the Governor and Council and proposed that Sergeant Dunling should take responsibility for John Miller. It was stated that Dunling would raise the boy in accordance with the original agreement between Benjamin Miller and John Stevens and would also teach him the trade of a tanner. Dixon requested that this new arrangement be formally recorded, noting that it was also desired by Dunling. An order was issued accepting Dixon’s proposal. The agreement with Sergeant Dunling was to be entered into the record as follows. Sergeant Dunling agreed with Thomas Dixon to bring up John Miller and provide him with sufficient food, clothing and maintenance until he reached the age of twenty. The boy was described as being about ten years old at that time. This arrangement followed the terms set out in the earlier agreement between John Stevens and Benjamin Miller. In addition, Dunling undertook to teach John Miller the trade and skill of tanning. Thomas Dixon then requested that the original written agreement between Benjamin Miller and John Stevens be formally proved and recorded. An order was issued that this document, described as a deed of gift, be approved and kept in the Records Office at Fort James. Copies were to be provided whenever required. Interpretations The cancellation of the earlier agreement with Hugh Bodle showed that the court could intervene to void private service arrangements where they failed to meet expected obligations, particularly in the upbringing of a minor. The requirement that John Miller be “brought up” in accordance with the original contract reflected a structured expectation of guardianship. This included maintenance and preparation for adulthood, not merely supervision. The reassignment of responsibility to Sergeant Dunling demonstrated how guardianship could be transferred through formal approval. This ensured that the child’s welfare remained tied to enforceable obligations rather than informal arrangements. The inclusion of training in the trade of tanning highlighted the institutional importance of apprenticeship. Teaching a trade was treated as a necessary component of upbringing, linking personal care with economic utility. The recording of the agreement in the Records Office at Fort James showed the administrative process by which private contracts were given legal force. Written instruments, once approved, became enforceable through official record keeping. The classification of the earlier document as a “deed of gift” indicated that the child’s placement had been formalised through a legal instrument transferring responsibility. This reinforced the binding nature of the obligations imposed on those entrusted with his care. Speculations The decision to replace Bodle with Dunling, combined with the explicit requirement to teach a trade, suggests that the court sought to correct a perceived failure in the boy’s earlier placement by ensuring his future economic usefulness. The formal recording of both the new agreement and the earlier deed implies an effort to prevent further disputes by anchoring the arrangement in documented authority, reducing the risk of ambiguity over responsibility for the child. | |
280 | Rush Quiny widow whose late husband wilfully [...] All which requests as being thought but reasonable was Whereas Mr David Edmunds did dispose ye Reception of Mr Harwood as being thought but reasonable It is Concluded & ordered That the Pᵈ Mr Edmunds be allowed thirty shillings pay but out of ye Duty | Rush Quinny, widow of Edward Quinny, whose husband had wilfully [...] and whose estate had thereby become forfeited to the Honourable Company, submitted a petition to the Governor and Council. She stated that she was in a poor and distressed condition, having two young children to maintain and bring up, and lacking the means to do so. She requested permission to continue in possession and use of her husband’s estate, offering security for its surrender until the Company’s pleasure should be known. She also asked that her petition be forwarded to the Honourable Company in England. She further represented that certain property belonging to Henry Manning had been held in her husband’s possession and custody for the payment of debts owed by Manning and for the maintenance of Manning’s widow, who was her brother. She requested that this property be separated from her husband’s estate and that an inventory be taken, as it did not properly belong to the forfeited estate. These requests were considered reasonable and were granted. It was also noted that Mr David Edmunds had previously undertaken the reception of Mr Harwood as minister and had read the service of the Church in the country, together with other duties, to the satisfaction of the inhabitants. No payment had been made to him, as he had been referred to the decision of the Honourable Company in England. Since Mr Harwood had now departed for the West Indies, leaving the island without a minister, Edmunds had been requested to perform the same duties, including reading divine service, sermons and burial services. David Edmunds requested that he be granted a fixed weekly allowance. This request was judged reasonable. An order was issued that he be paid £1 10s 0d from the duty for performing divine service and sermons twice every Sunday at the country church when no ships were in the road, and twice every Sunday at the town church when ships were present. He was also required to read the burial service for the dead when occasion arose. Interpretations The forfeiture of Edward Quinny’s estate following his self-killing showed that suicide carried legal and financial consequences, transferring property from the family to the Honourable Company. This reinforced both moral condemnation and institutional control over assets. The widow’s request to retain temporary use of the estate upon giving security demonstrated a flexible administrative response. While forfeiture was enforced in principle, practical arrangements could be made to prevent immediate destitution, especially where dependants were involved. The separation of Henry Manning’s property from Quinny’s estate indicated careful distinction between assets held in trust and those subject to forfeiture. This reflected an awareness of layered ownership and the need to protect third-party interests within estate administration. The reference to forwarding the petition to the Company in England showed that ultimate authority rested overseas. Local decisions could be provisional, pending confirmation by higher authority. David Edmunds’s role in reading divine service illustrated how religious functions were maintained in the absence of an ordained minister. Lay performance of these duties ensured continuity of worship and social order. Payment “out of the duty” indicated that his salary was drawn from a specific revenue source, probably tied to customs or trade. This linked ecclesiastical provision directly to the island’s fiscal system. The adjustment of Edmunds’s duties according to the presence of ships showed how religious practice was aligned with fluctuations in population and activity, reflecting the central importance of maritime traffic to the island’s rhythm of life. Speculations The decision to allow Rush Quinny temporary enjoyment of the forfeited estate suggests an attempt to balance strict legal enforcement with social stability, preventing hardship that might otherwise burden the community. The structured payment to Edmunds, tied to specific duties and conditions, implies an effort to formalise a previously informal role, ensuring consistent religious services despite the absence of a resident minister. | |
281 | Island St Helena Att a Consulta[ti]on Held on Tuesday the 9ᵗʰ day Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ Whereas, It is now Eight months past since the It is ordered That the Govʳ doe Issue out his warrᵗ to Thomas | A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 9 April 1696. Present were Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier. It was noted that eight months had passed since the accounts of salary for the garrison had last been settled. An order was issued that the Governor provide a warrant to Thomas Goodwin, who had been appointed storekeeper under him. Goodwin was instructed to account for and pay the officers and soldiers of the garrison their respective salaries due for the past eight months. A further warrant was to be issued for payment to labourers and workmen for labour performed for the use of the fort and plantation during the same period. He was also directed to charge to the accounts of the store and the general table all expenses incurred over the previous eight months. The expenses of the plantation were likewise to be recorded by warrant. Credit was to be entered to the plantation account for provisions and other necessities received for the use of the fort and the general table. Interpretations The use of warrants to authorise payment showed a formal system of financial control. No disbursement was made without written authority, ensuring accountability within the administration. The role of Thomas Goodwin as storekeeper placed him at the centre of both supply management and financial accounting. This office combined custody of goods with responsibility for recording and executing payments. The reference to arrears of eight months’ salary indicated that payment to the garrison was periodic rather than continuous. Such delays suggest reliance on accumulated accounting cycles rather than regular weekly or monthly disbursement. The distinction between the accounts of the store, the general table and the plantation revealed a structured financial system. Each function operated as a separate account, allowing costs and provisions to be tracked according to their use. The “general table” referred to a central provisioning system for officials and possibly officers. Charging expenses to this account showed that subsistence and hospitality were managed collectively rather than individually. The instruction to credit the plantation account for supplies issued to the fort and table demonstrated internal accounting between departments. Resources produced or held under one function were formally transferred and recorded when used by another. Speculations The settlement of eight months of arrears in a single process suggests that the administration deliberately concentrated payments to coincide with available resources or accounting cycles, rather than attempting continuous disbursement in a resource-limited environment. The detailed allocation of expenses across multiple accounts implies an effort to maintain clear financial boundaries between military, domestic and productive functions, reducing disputes and enabling closer oversight of how resources were consumed. | |
282 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the 20ᵗʰ Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ Richard Griffin, & Sam: Wrangham, Church wardens For ye next Division { Richᵈ Griffin (not by choice but by his voluntary) For the last Division { Sam: Taylor It is ordered That the said Richᵈ Griffin, one of the late Church wardens, accompt Whereas, in the time of Mr Bartholomew Harwood, the late It is ordered | A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 20 April 1696. Present were Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier. Richard Griffin and Samuel Wrangham had served as churchwardens. A proclamation had previously been issued for the election of parish officers for the country church by majority vote. The results had been brought before the Governor and Council so that two churchwardens and two overseers of the highways might be chosen. The following persons had been elected. For the next division, Richard Griffin had been included by voluntary action rather than formal election, and Orlando Bagley Senior had been chosen. For the last division, Samuel Taylor and John Fich had been chosen. An order was issued that Richard Griffin, as one of the former churchwardens, render an account of his own receipts and disbursements. Samuel Taylor was appointed churchwarden for the present year and was to be sworn into office. Samuel Wrangham was discharged from the office. Samuel Taylor and Richard Griffin were directed to receive all utensils belonging to the church from Wrangham, who was to take a receipt from them and deliver it to the authorities. It was also reported that, during the time of Mr Bartholomew Harwood, the former minister who had now departed the island, money had been collected at the administration of the Holy Communion. An account had been given to the Governor and Council of how this money had been used. A sum of £0 0s 8d had been distributed to poor orphans and needy families. The remainder had been held in trust by Mr Harwood, with some still remaining in the hands of the churchwardens. An order was then issued [...]. Interpretations The election of parish officers by majority vote showed a participatory element in local governance, though final authority remained with the Governor and Council, who confirmed appointments. The division of the parish into “next” and “last” divisions indicated an administrative subdivision used to organise responsibility for church and local duties across different parts of the settlement. The requirement that Richard Griffin account for his “charge and discharge” reflected formal financial accountability. Officeholders were expected to present a record of receipts and expenditures at the end of their term. The transfer of church utensils under receipt demonstrated the controlled handover of institutional property. Written acknowledgement ensured continuity and prevented disputes over responsibility. The collection of money at Holy Communion showed that religious observance also functioned as a means of raising charitable funds. Distribution to orphans and poor families indicated an organised system of local relief. The reference to funds held “in trust” by Mr Harwood revealed a fiduciary arrangement. Clergy could temporarily manage communal funds, but remained accountable for their eventual disposition. Speculations The inclusion of Richard Griffin by voluntary action rather than election suggests that practical considerations, such as experience or availability, may have influenced the final composition of parish officers beyond the formal voting process. The partial distribution and partial retention of Communion funds implies a deliberate balance between immediate charitable relief and maintaining a reserve, allowing continued support for the poor over time. | |
283 | That the old Church wardens doe deliver it unto the new Likewise That the new Church wardens have a warrᵗ directed unto Hugh Bodley and John Bowman the overseers for ye yeare past John Worrall } for the East Division Jos Dixon } for the West Division It is ordered That John Worrall Planter and Jno Maxwell Patᵗs be It is ordered That the said overseers of the Highways have warrant Governor Keeling haveing been for a Great while before Poirier | An order was issued that the former churchwardens deliver the remaining church money into the hands of the new churchwardens, to be held and disposed of as should later be judged appropriate. A further order directed that the new churchwardens receive a warrant authorising them to collect head money at the rate of £0 0s 6d per person for two years. Hugh Bodley and John Bowman, overseers for the previous year, presented the names of those chosen to serve in that office for the present year. For the East Division, John Worrall and John Hemen were named. For the West Division, Jos Dixon and John Maxwell were named. An order was issued that John Worrall, planter, and John Maxwell, patentee, be sworn and serve as overseers of the highways for the year 1696. Warrants were to be issued to them for the execution of this office. It was noted that no warrant had been issued to Hugh Bodley and John Bowman in the previous year. At that time, it had been intended that the labour owed by the country for road repair should instead be used to move two large guns to a suitable landing place. This plan had not been completed and had been abandoned. As a result, the country remained indebted to the public for one day’s labour for the past year. It was further observed that the country church, being built entirely of timber, had fallen into considerable decay. It was judged appropriate that a new church be built in stone. For this purpose, the day of labour owed to the public was to be applied to gathering stone for the construction of the new building. An order was issued that the overseers of the highways be given warrants accordingly and that they not be discharged until the following year. Governor Richard Keeling had for some time suffered from a lingering illness that had ultimately led to his death. During this period, he had been incapable of conducting business. This was recorded as the reason why both this book and the preceding one had not been signed by him. Interpretations The collection of head money at a fixed rate per person showed a form of poll taxation used to fund local institutional needs. Its authorisation by warrant ensured that collection was formally sanctioned and enforceable. The role of overseers of the highways reflected responsibility for organising compulsory labour for public works. Their authority depended on formal appointment and the issuing of warrants. The concept of the country being “indebted to the public” for a day’s labour indicated an obligation of service rather than monetary payment. Labour could be redirected between projects, but failure to perform it created a recoverable public debt. The abandoned plan to move two great guns revealed how military priorities could temporarily override civil infrastructure work, though practical difficulty could halt such efforts. The decision to rebuild the church in stone rather than timber showed a shift towards more durable construction, likely in response to decay and the limitations of earlier materials. The use of owed labour for gathering stone demonstrated how public obligations were mobilised for major building projects, integrating taxation in labour with communal infrastructure. The note concerning Governor Keeling’s incapacity and death explained an administrative irregularity in record keeping. The absence of his signature reflected the dependence of official documentation on the personal authority of the governor. Speculations The reassignment of unpaid labour from road maintenance to church construction suggests a prioritisation of religious infrastructure at that moment, perhaps reflecting concern over the condition and visibility of the church within the community. The formal recording of Keeling’s incapacity and death as the reason for unsigned records implies an awareness of the importance of documentary validity, and an effort to preserve the legitimacy of the proceedings despite the absence of the governor’s authentication. | |
284 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the 5ᵗʰ day of Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ [Li[c]ence?] Captᵗ Jno Raynes Comandʳ of the [Ma[r]tha] Captᵗ James Williams Comandʳ of his Majestys advice St Helena June 5ᵗʰ 1696 Att a Consultation held on the Island of St Helena Presᵗ the Whereas you desire our best advice wherein you might be [...] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 5 June 1696. Present were Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier. Also present were Captain John Raynes, commander of the Martha, Captain Henry French, commander of the Morthy, Captain Mannaduke Raven, commander of the Sarah, and Captain James Williams, commander of His Majesty’s advice boat St John. Captain James Williams reported that he carried a packet intended for delivery at the Cape, to be forwarded to English ships returning home that might call there. He requested advice, noting that the season was far advanced and that several Company ships, together with a Dutch fleet, were then in the road. He asked whether it would be more appropriate to forgo the voyage to the Cape and instead cruise to windward, believing this might better serve the interests of the Honourable Company. After careful consideration, a formal answer was given. On 5 June 1696, at a consultation held on the island of St Helena, with the Governor, Council and the commanders of the English East India Company ships then lying before Fort James, the following advice was issued. It was stated that, given the lateness of the season and the recent arrival of Williams at the island, and in light of standing instructions that Company ships were not to call at the Cape, it was judged unnecessary for him to proceed there. It was further noted that eleven Dutch ships had recently arrived from India without touching at the Cape, having received similar orders. It was therefore considered most advantageous to the Company’s interests that Captain Williams refrain from sailing to the Cape and instead cruise to windward [...]. Interpretations The presence of multiple ship commanders at the consultation showed how maritime decision-making was integrated with the island’s governing authority. Strategic choices were made collectively, combining naval and administrative perspectives. The “advice boat” functioned as a communications vessel, carrying dispatches between key points in the Company’s network. Its role was essential for maintaining coordination across long distances. The reference to a “packet” indicated official correspondence of strategic importance. Decisions about its delivery were treated as matters of policy rather than routine navigation. The instruction that Company ships should not touch at the Cape reflected coordinated operational directives, possibly linked to security, timing, or diplomatic considerations involving the Dutch presence there. The mention of eleven Dutch ships arriving without calling at the Cape suggested parallel policies among competing European powers. This indicated a shared awareness of seasonal and strategic constraints in the region. The decision to “ply to windward” referred to cruising in a position to intercept or communicate with incoming ships. This showed an adaptive approach to information gathering and dispatch, prioritising contact with Company vessels over fixed routes. Speculations The decision to avoid the Cape despite the presence of a packet suggests concern over delays or risks associated with that route, indicating that maintaining timely communication with homeward-bound ships was considered more critical than adhering to established forwarding points. The reference to Dutch ships following similar instructions implies that wider regional conditions, possibly seasonal winds or geopolitical tensions, influenced both English and Dutch strategies, leading to converging operational choices. | |
285 | with your ship to the windward part of yᵉ Island to give Yoᵘʳ most humble Servᵗ James Williams The same Captᵗ Williams told us yt he had acquainted […] […] | Captain James Williams was instructed to cruise with his ship to the windward side of St Helena. He was to give notice to any ships bound for the island of those already lying in the road. He was directed to return by 27 June 1696 so that he might proceed on his voyage back to England. The advice concluded with a recommendation of him and the Company’s affairs to God’s protection, and was subscribed by Richard Keeling, J Dorrien, Thomas Raynes, Henry French, Marmaduke Raven and James Williams, commander of His Majesty’s advice boat St John. Captain Williams further reported that he had informed the Dutch admiral of his possession of a packet intended for the Cape and that, owing to the lateness of the season, he could no longer deliver it there. The Dutch admiral, through a written order conveyed by a Dutch merchant, requested permission from the Governor and Council that the packet be opened so that its contents might be examined, as it might contain information of importance to them for their homeward voyage. With general consent, it was judged necessary that the packet be opened. It was accordingly opened in the presence of the Dutch vice admiral, a Dutch merchant and another commander. After being read, it was sent on board the Dutch admiral’s ship. Once he had examined it, the packet was returned to the Governor and Council [...] Interpretations The instruction to cruise to windward showed a deliberate communication strategy. Ships were positioned to intercept arrivals and transmit intelligence, ensuring that incoming vessels were informed of conditions before making landfall. The requirement to return by a fixed date indicated strict scheduling tied to seasonal navigation. Voyages were coordinated to align with favourable winds and the broader timetable of the Company’s fleet movements. The signing of the advice by multiple commanders demonstrated collective authority. Decisions affecting navigation and communication were endorsed jointly, reinforcing their legitimacy among Company officers. The Dutch admiral’s request to inspect the packet revealed a level of operational transparency, or at least negotiation, between rival European powers. Despite competition, information could be shared where mutual advantage was perceived. The opening of the packet by consent of the Governor and Council showed that control over correspondence rested with local authority when circumstances required. Confidentiality could be set aside for strategic reasons. The presence of Dutch officers during the opening ensured procedural legitimacy and avoided suspicion. This reflected a diplomatic approach to handling sensitive information in a contested maritime environment. Speculations The decision to allow the Dutch admiral to inspect the packet suggests that its contents were not considered highly sensitive, or that maintaining cooperative relations with the Dutch fleet was judged more valuable than strict secrecy. The requirement that Williams return by 27 June implies that his cruising mission was carefully limited to avoid jeopardising his primary objective of returning to England, balancing intelligence gathering with adherence to voyage schedules. | |
286 | Island St Helena Att a Consultation Held on Monday the 6ᵗʰ Day Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Govʳ Katherine Jeffery who in the Councill held the 4ᵗʰ It is ordered That seeing the said Kathᵃ Jeffery humbly acknowledges […] […] | A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 6 July 1696. Present were Richard Keeling and Captain Poirier. Katherine Jeffery had previously been ordered, in consultations held on 4 January 1695 and 8 January 1695, not to come near Thomas Feversdale or his house. Information had since been received that she continued to frequent his company and household. An action had therefore been entered against her for contempt of the Governor and Council’s order, to be heard at the general sessions that day. Before the court was opened, Katherine Jeffery appeared before the Governor and Council in a submissive manner. She acknowledged her fault in disobeying their strict order. She stated that she would not have gone near Thomas Feversdale or his house had he not owed her money. Kneeling, she requested that her offence be forgiven and that she be spared public trial and judgment. She promised to observe all future orders strictly. An order was issued that, in view of her humble acknowledgement and promise of obedience, her offence be pardoned on this occasion. It was further ordered that, if she should again commit the same offence and complaint and proof be made, she would receive double punishment for each such breach [...] Interpretations The earlier prohibition against Katherine Jeffery approaching Thomas Feversdale or his house showed that the Governor and Council could impose personal restrictions to regulate behaviour and prevent disputes or impropriety within the community. The charge of contempt of court indicated that disobedience of such orders was treated as a formal offence, enforceable through legal proceedings at the general sessions. Jeffery’s kneeling submission reflected an accepted form of petitioning for mercy. Public acknowledgment of fault and deference to authority could influence the outcome of proceedings. The conditional pardon demonstrated a graduated system of discipline. Leniency was granted in response to submission, but future breaches were pre-emptively penalised more severely to enforce compliance. Her explanation that money was owed to her by Feversdale suggested that financial disputes could underlie breaches of social or legal restrictions, revealing how economic obligations intersected with personal regulation. Speculations The decision to pardon Jeffery upon submission suggests that the authorities prioritised restoration of order and obedience over formal punishment, using the threat of future penalties to secure compliance. The link between her visits and an unpaid debt implies that the original restriction may have conflicted with practical efforts to recover money owed, indicating tension between enforcing social boundaries and resolving economic claims. | |
287 | Island St Helena Att a Court of Justice Held on Monday the 6ᵗʰ day of Presᵗ Richᵈ Keeling Governour Information having bin given that John Linninger a viz Orlando Bagley Senʳ foreman one 2 Then John Linninger was charged for great Blasphemy The said John Linninger replyed that he owned he had bin Then the Jury was Sworne [...] | A court of justice was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on Monday 6 July 1696. Present were Richard Keeling and Captain Dorrien. Information had been received that John Linninger, a Dutchman, had spoken blasphemous words and had attempted to take his own life by hanging himself. It was noted that he had previously been forgiven for blasphemy at the request of Mr Hanwood, the former pastor, as recorded in a consultation held on 28 August of the previous year. John Linninger was ordered to appear before the court to answer charges of serious blasphemy against God and attempted self-murder. The court was opened in the usual manner, and jurors were called. Orlando Bagley Senior was appointed foreman, with the remaining jurors listed as [...]. John Linninger was formally charged with blasphemy, denial of the deity, and attempting to take his own life. He replied that he admitted having previously been guilty of blasphemy and swearing, for which he had been brought before the Governor and Council and had been forgiven at the request of Mr Hanwood. He stated that since that time he had not offended again in the same way. The jury was then sworn [...] Interpretations The charge of blasphemy, including denial of the deity, showed that religious offences were treated as serious legal matters. Such acts were prosecuted within the formal court system and framed as offences against both divine and civil order. The inclusion of attempted self-murder alongside blasphemy indicated that suicide or its attempt was regarded not only as a moral failing but as a punishable offence under law. The reference to a prior pardon granted at the request of Mr Hanwood demonstrated the influence of clergy in legal proceedings. Religious authority could intervene to mitigate punishment, linking spiritual and judicial functions. The requirement that Linninger answer again after a previous pardon suggested that forgiveness did not remove future liability. Repeated or renewed offences could bring a person back before the court. The appointment of jurors, with Orlando Bagley Senior as foreman, showed the continued use of local inhabitants in judicial decision-making, reinforcing communal participation in the administration of justice. Speculations The revival of charges despite Linninger’s claim of reformed behaviour suggests that the reported attempt at self-harm may have been interpreted as renewed evidence of irreligious conduct, prompting authorities to reassess his earlier pardon. The combination of blasphemy and attempted self-murder in a single proceeding implies that the court viewed both actions as connected expressions of disorder, possibly treating them as part of a broader pattern of unacceptable behaviour requiring correction. | |
288 | Mʳ Thomas Godwin sworne saith that on the Lordᵈ James Bruce sworne saith that abᵗ Janʳʸ and John [Sinfenigg] Confesseth that what Bruce Margarett the wife of Henʳy Manning sworne saith Jane the wife of John Mudge sworne saith | Mr Thomas Goodwin was sworn and stated that, on the Lord’s Day before the last Dutch fleet departed the island on 10 June 1696, he had heard John Linninger, as he passed through the sally port, speak blasphemous words. When someone had called to him, he had replied with words such as “God damn Christ” or similar expressions against God. James Bruce was sworn and stated that, in January and February 1696, some time after Linninger had been forgiven as previously noted, he had been at Linninger’s house, where he was then lodging. While Archer and Payne had been present, he had heard Linninger utter repeated blasphemies. These included curses against the Blessed Saviour and against those who believed in God, claiming that God could neither save nor damn nor cure him. He had challenged God to send him to hell, saying that he would feel less pain there. He had also called for the Bible to be burned, declaring that as long as the word of God remained in the house he would not be cursed, together with several other similar statements. John Linninger admitted that Bruce’s testimony was true and stated that he had said even worse. He denied, however, that he had attempted to hang himself. Margaret, wife of Henry Manning, was sworn and stated that eight days earlier she had been called as a midwife to attend Linninger’s wife in labour. On arrival, she had found Linninger drunk and soon afterwards cursing, including speaking against “three old women”. Shortly afterwards, Linninger’s slave had entered and reported that his master had attempted to hang himself. A little later Linninger had come into the room, and she had confronted him about this report. He had replied that, had he not been prevented, he would certainly have hanged himself, pointing to a pole over the fire as evidence. Jane, wife of John Mudge, was sworn and stated that she had also been called to attend Linninger’s wife in labour, and that on arrival she had found Linninger almost drunk [...] Interpretations The testimony of Thomas Goodwin placed the blasphemy in a public setting at the sally port, indicating that such offences were not confined to private spaces but could occur openly, increasing their perceived seriousness. James Bruce’s account showed repeated and explicit denial of core Christian beliefs. Such statements constituted formal blasphemy, directly challenging religious doctrine and therefore the moral and legal order upheld by the court. Linninger’s admission confirmed the substance of the charges. His acknowledgement of worse behaviour strengthened the evidential basis for conviction, reducing the need for further proof. The involvement of Archer and Payne as witnesses present during earlier incidents demonstrated that multiple observers could corroborate patterns of behaviour over time, establishing continuity of offence. Margaret Manning’s testimony connected blasphemy with drunkenness and disorder within the household. Her role as a midwife showed how domestic and medical spaces could become sites of legal evidence. The report by Linninger’s slave illustrated how enslaved individuals could act as informants in legal matters. Their observations could be used to support or initiate accusations against their masters. The statement that Linninger would have hanged himself if not prevented provided direct evidence of intent. This distinguished attempted self-murder from mere expression and elevated it to a punishable act. Speculations Linninger’s repeated blasphemous statements, combined with his expressed desire for death, suggest that his behaviour may have been interpreted by the court as a sustained pattern of disorder rather than isolated incidents, increasing the likelihood of a severe judgment. The reliance on testimony from both household members and outsiders implies that the authorities sought to establish a comprehensive picture of his conduct, indicating concern that private behaviour could have broader social and religious consequences within the settlement. | |
289 | and so Mad for he then said I am mad & will be mad John Finsering saith that he did Call for a Roape The Jury withdrew and stayed abt one houre That John Finsering was Guilty of great Bla- Upon which sentence was past by the Court That he receive Immediately 39 Lashes at the Gallows be Then the Court was adjourned untill the next | Jane, the wife of John Mudge, had continued her testimony. John Linninger wasn described as behaving wildly, declaring that he was mad and would remain so. He had blamed the women present for making him mad and had cursed his wife, his family, and everything in the house. His conduct had shifted between weeping and laughing. He had called to his wife to send candles to the fort, claiming that he would receive nutmeg in exchange. He had then asked for a rope. One wasn brought to him, which he had rejected, and another had then been provided. He had instructed one of the women to observe what he intended to do with it. She had done so and had seen him place the rope over a beam and around his neck, which had caused her to cry out, whereupon he had removed it. John Linninger had then stated in his defence that he had called for a rope, which his black servant had brought to him, intending to tie a bed cord. He had claimed that he had only jested by suggesting that he might hang himself, and had acted as if he intended to do so without any real intention. He had then removed the rope and tied the bedstead. Further questioning wasn put to him, and he had consistently given the same answer. The jury had withdrawn and remained absent for about one hour. Upon their return, they had delivered their verdict, finding John Linninger guilty of serious blasphemy but not guilty of attempting to kill himself. Sentence had then been passed by the court. He wasn ordered to receive immediately thirty-nine lashes at the gallows. He had also been ordered to be branded on the forehead with the letter “B” as a mark of a scandalous blasphemer. In addition, he wasn banished from the island for life. He had further been ordered to remain in custody until the arrival of a ship, unless he could provide sufficient bail for his good behaviour until that time. The court had then been adjourned until the next sessions. The Governor and Council had afterwards assembled at Fort James to examine Edward Everard, an Irishman, who wasn committed for several days on account of speaking seditious and [...] Interpretations The shifting behaviour described, including alternating laughter and weeping, wasn presented as evidence of disorderly conduct rather than as a mitigating condition. Claims of madness had not reduced liability but had instead been absorbed into the narrative of moral and religious offence. The jury’s partial acquittal showed that different charges wasn weighed separately. While blasphemy wasn proven through repeated testimony and confession, the attempt at self-murder had required clearer evidence of intent, which had not been established to the court’s satisfaction. The sentence of thirty-nine lashes reflected a conventional corporal punishment designed to discipline without causing death. Its immediate execution at the gallows underscored its public and exemplary function. Branding with the letter “B” on the forehead had served as a permanent and visible mark of criminal identity. This punishment had reinforced social control by ensuring that the offence remained publicly recognisable. The order of banishment demonstrated the use of expulsion as a tool of governance on St Helena. Removal from the island had eliminated a perceived threat to moral and social order within a confined community. The requirement that Linninger be held in custody until the arrival of a ship showed the island’s dependence on maritime transport for enforcing sentences of exile. Bail for good behaviour provided an interim mechanism to manage risk while awaiting removal. The swift transition from judicial proceedings to the examination of Edward Everard for seditious speech illustrated the council’s dual role in administering both criminal justice and political security. Allegations of sedition indicated concern with maintaining loyalty and preventing dissent within the settlement. Speculations The decision to convict for blasphemy but acquit on attempted self-murder suggests that the court required demonstrable intent for the latter charge. The evidence of the rope and beam had been countered by Linninger’s claim of jest, and the jury perhaps judged that the witnesses’ alarm did not prove a settled intention to die. The combination of whipping, branding, and permanent banishment appears to have been structured to address both immediate disorder and future risk. Physical punishment had imposed instant discipline, while branding ensured lasting stigma, and exile removed him entirely from the island community, which indicates a calculated effort to eliminate a repeat offender after earlier forgiveness had failed. The order that he be held until a ship arrived, unless he gave bail, shows that the court had to manage the practical constraint of isolation. Custody had prevented further disturbance, while the option of bail allowed controlled release under obligation, suggesting a flexible response shaped by the island’s dependence on irregular shipping. The inclusion of branding specifically for blasphemy implies that this offence was treated as socially dangerous beyond the individual act. The visible mark would have signalled both punishment and warning, perhaps intended to reinforce religious conformity among others in a small and closely observed settlement. | |
290 | [...] Dangerous words who was ordered up and Charged therewith Robt Caman Sworne saith that one Evening as the Tap[...] Richd Harding Sworne saith that he was then called Tho: Garger Sworne saith the same as the said Harding John Easton Sworne saith that one Evening Caman and Upon the whole it is ordered | Edward Everard, an Irishman who had been committed for several days on suspicion of speaking seditious and dangerous words, was brought before the Governor and Council and formally charged. In his response, he had stated that he was heavily intoxicated at the time when he was alleged to have spoken such words, and that he could not remember what had been said. He had declared that he relied on his innocence, leaving it to others to judge, and expressed hope that he had not spoken anything of the kind alleged or anything tending towards it. Robert Caman was sworn and stated that one evening, as the tap[…] had been beating, he had gone into the fort carrying a bottle of liquor to drink in the gunner’s room with several others, including Everard. During conversation concerning the marshal, Everard had spoken in a disparaging manner about authority within the garrison. He had further stated that, if pressed, he would be one of five men who could take the garrison from Captain […]. When Caman had asked how this could be done, noting that he himself might be on sentry duty, Everard had replied that he would go by the corner of the Governor’s mount. He had also claimed that he could enter the Governor’s chamber at any hour of the night. Caman had responded that such talk had gone too far. Richard Harding was sworn and stated that he had been called into the gunner’s room by Thomas Garger, the gunner’s mate, where Everard and others had been present. Conversation had taken place about Jackson murdering the late Governor, but Harding could not recall hearing any further exchange between Caman and Everard. Thomas Garger was sworn and had confirmed the same account as Richard Harding. John Easton had been sworn and stated that, on an evening when Caman and others had been in the gunner’s room with Everard, at about eleven o’clock Caman had come out and told him that Everard had boasted that he could, with five others, take the fort. Upon consideration of the whole matter, it was ordered that Edward Everard be dismissed, as no sufficient cause for complaint had been found. Interpretations The charge of “seditious and dangerous words” indicated that speech itself was treated as a potential threat to authority. The court had examined whether verbal expressions could amount to a challenge against the established order, showing how closely political loyalty was monitored. The references to the garrison, sentry duty, and access to the Governor’s chamber revealed the security structure of Fort James. Control of entry points and guard routines had been central to maintaining authority, and Everard’s alleged remarks had touched directly on vulnerabilities within that system. The setting of the gunner’s room, where soldiers gathered to drink, showed how informal social spaces could become sites of scrutiny. Testimony had relied on conversations held in such environments, suggesting that surveillance extended into ordinary communal activity. The mention of discussion about Jackson murdering the late Governor showed that past acts of violence against authority remained a point of reference. Such events had framed contemporary fears about disorder and rebellion within the settlement. The dismissal of the case demonstrated that the court required credible and consistent evidence before imposing punishment. Testimony based on second-hand reporting or uncertain recollection had been insufficient to sustain a charge of sedition. Speculations The decision to dismiss Everard despite multiple witnesses suggests that the court had weighed the reliability of evidence shaped by drink and informal conversation. His claim of intoxication, combined with the lack of direct corroboration of specific words, perhaps weakened the case enough to avoid setting a precedent of punishing ambiguous speech. The emphasis in testimony on routes into the Governor’s chamber and weak points in the fortifications indicates that the alleged remarks had been taken seriously as a potential security concern. The investigation itself may have served to test and reaffirm awareness of defensive vulnerabilities, even though no conviction followed. The reliance on what Caman later reported to Easton, rather than what Easton had directly heard, appears to have undermined the strength of the accusation. The court perhaps distinguished between boastful talk repeated after the fact and statements proven in direct hearing, choosing not to criminalise unverified claims of intent. | |
291 | The persons appointed to survey and Collect from the It is ordered That they be recorded and that their returns as Island St Helena Drove ways Road ways and foot ways appointed by A main Road way from Lemons valley Rock through Thom A Neighbourly Drove way through part of Tho: Alisons A foot way through Tho: Alisons Land up the Ridge betwixt A foot way through John Gurlings Land formerly John Soggs A Drove way from Madam Johnsons Land the lower A foot way through John Fullers Land along by his House A foot way through Tho: Bowens Land Near his House A foot way through the widows Toals through Alisons A Path way from Oven Bower over part of Thom Orlando Bagley Jur | Persons who had been appointed to survey and collect information on the private and public paths and droveways had submitted their proceedings in writing to the Governor and Council. These returns had been read and approved. It had then been ordered that they be formally recorded, and that the returns should stand thereafter as a permanent law and rule for the island in relation to those ways. On St Helena, the droveways, roadways, and footways assigned within the quarter of Orlando Bagley Junior, John Lufkin, and Samuel Taylor had been set out as follows. A main roadway was established from Lemon’s Valley Rock, passing through the land of Thomas Alison, along the head of Lemon’s Valley to Thomas Bowen’s land, then through part of his upper land to the land of John Nicholls, following the existing path. From there it had continued through part of that land to the dwelling of John Stoneswood above John Nicholls’s land, and then through Samuel Stoneswood’s land, between the land owned by Richard Leach and the land he occupied on behalf of the Company. A neighbourly droveway was designated through part of the land of Thomas Alison and part of the land of John Gurling, leading into Sandy Bay. A footway was set through Thomas Alison’s land, ascending the ridge between the lands of Gurling and Bowen to the head of Lemon’s Valley. Another footway was established through the land of John Gurling, formerly held by John Sogg, crossing over Hall Hill and continuing through Beacon’s land. A droveway was laid out from the lower part of Madam Johnson’s land to the Horse Pasture. A footway was marked through the land of John Fuller, passing by his house to the house of Sergeant Field. A footway was set through the land of Thomas Bowen near his house. A footway was established through the land of the widow Toal, continuing through Alison’s land towards Sandy Bay. A pathway was laid out from Oven Bower, crossing part of the land of Thomas Goodwin, then over Fuller’s Plains towards the Store. These arrangements was signed by Orlando Bagley Junior, John Lufkin, and Samuel Taylor. Interpretations The instruction that these surveyed routes be recorded as a “standing law and rule” showed that access routes was formally regulated by the colonial administration. Paths and droveways had not been left to custom alone but was codified as enforceable infrastructure. The distinction between “main roadways”, “droveways”, and “footways” reflected different functional uses. Roadways had supported general movement, droveways was intended for livestock, and footways had provided pedestrian access, indicating a structured approach to land use and movement. The repeated passage of routes through privately held land demonstrated that individual property rights was subject to public and communal access requirements. Landholders was required to permit transit, revealing how authority overrode private control when necessary for the island’s operation. The reference to land held “of the Company” showed the continued presence of corporate ownership under the East India Company. Some occupants, such as Richard Leach, had held or used land under Company tenure rather than outright ownership, reflecting layered property arrangements. The term “neighbourly droveway” suggested a route established for shared local use between adjacent landholders. This indicated a recognised category of semi-public access designed to support cooperation in agricultural and pastoral activity. The inclusion of named landmarks, such as Lemon’s Valley, Sandy Bay, Hall Hill, Beacon’s land, Oven Bower, and the Store, demonstrated how official routes was anchored to known geographical and administrative points. This reinforced spatial order and ensured that routes could be clearly identified and enforced. | |
292 | Island St Helena A Rest of maine Drift way and Neighbourly Drift way & From Horse Ridge through the Meade of mr Lufkins A foot path out of the Peake Gutt through part of John A maine Drift way through the Peake Gutt between Sam A maine Drift way from John Coles Land in the Bay & A Neighbourly Drift way through part of Tho: Dixons A foot path through part of Tho: Allisons Land and A foot path from Wakefields Land through mr Shilsons by A Drift way out of Sandy Bay by Everleys Plantation to A Neighbourly Drift way from John Everleys through A Neighbourly Drift way from Pownells valley Ridge John Nicholls An acco of the ways etc that are stablished by us Hen: Gyles A Richard Harding the sd foot way and Drift way | A further set of main droveways, neighbourly droveways, and footpaths on St Helena was surveyed by John Nicholls, John Goodwin, and Richard Leach. A route was established from Horse Ridge through the meadow of Mr Lufkin’s land to Peak Gut. A footpath was set out from Peak Gut through part of the land of John Nicholls and the land of Fretchel. A main droveway was laid through Peak Gut, running between the lands of Samuel Strampham and James Easting, then above Bolton’s land, through the upper part of Bonnell’s land, out of Sandy Bay, and up to the main ridge. Another main droveway was marked from the land of John Cole in the Bay, passing through the land of Peter Williams to the head of Lemon’s Valley. A neighbourly droveway was designated through part of the lands of Thomas Dixon and John Goodwin, extending to the land formerly held by Wakefield. A footpath was set through part of the land of Thomas Alison, then through the lands of Thomas Dixon and John Goodwin, and onwards through the land formerly belonging to James Fretchel, leading to the main ridge. A further footpath was established from Wakefield’s land, passing through the land of Mr Shilson by his house, across his meadow, and continuing to Thomas Furkon’s. A droveway was laid out from Sandy Bay by Everley’s plantation, passing through part of Maxwell’s land and continuing to the main ridge. A neighbourly droveway was marked from the land of John Everley through Griffin’s land. Another neighbourly droveway was set from Pownell’s Valley Ridge through Longrow Down and Green Hill by Hayes. These routes was signed by John Nicholls, John Goodwin, and Richard Leach. An additional account of ways was established by Henry Gyles, John Colgrave, and Griffin Will. A roadway and footpath for the use of the neighbourhood was designated from Sergeant Dixon’s, across Harper Plain Ridge to the head of the Governor’s Grove. It had then continued over to Feudally Ridge, passing through the land of Mr Goodwin, across one corner of Mr Lister Browne’s land, then through Cole’s ground, and onward to Lemon’s Valley Rock, and from there towards Sandy Bay. Interpretations The repeated surveying and recording of routes by named individuals showed that responsibility for infrastructure was delegated to local appointees. These men had acted as agents of the Governor and Council, translating central authority into practical arrangements on the ground. The term “main droveway” indicated routes intended for the organised movement of livestock across the island. Their connection between valleys, ridges, and bays showed an integrated system supporting pastoral and agricultural activity. “Neighbourly droveways” reflected semi-public access shared between adjoining landholders. These routes had facilitated cooperation while still passing through privately held land, illustrating a layered system of rights that balanced individual occupation with collective need. The consistent passage of routes through named properties, including those of Mr Lufkin, Mr Shilson, Mr Goodwin, and others, demonstrated that landholding did not confer absolute control over access. The authority of the Council had imposed regulated movement across such lands. References to land “formerly” belonging to individuals such as Wakefield and James Fretchel indicated changes in possession over time. This suggested an active system of transfer, inheritance, or reassignment, reflecting the fluid nature of property on the island. The designation of routes specifically for access to the fort and church showed that movement was organised to support both governance and religious observance. This revealed how infrastructure had been aligned with the administrative and social priorities of the settlement. | |
293 | And likewise from the head of the Govrs Ground into the Compa One foot path for Tho: Goodwin to ride Church from A foot way for Serjt Dixon or any else that lives that One foot way from Harpers Plaine by the God under Mr Morris is to have a foot way through Dixons Grove Mr Church Mr Berrian most have a foot way to the Church Mr Dixon a foot way to Church over the Corner of mr A foot path for Sandy Bay people to goe to the Church Mr Gorman and mr Bodley most have a foot path to the John Bowman the same way | A further route was established from the head of the Governor’s ground into the Company pasture towards Mr Seaford’s land, and then up to the main way leading to the head of Lemon’s Valley. A footpath was assigned for Thomas Goodwin to ride to church from his house, passing by Boorer’s house and joining the church way near Mr Seaford’s. A footway was designated for Sergeant Dixon, and for any others living in that direction, leading up to Lemon’s Valley Rock by Mr Goodwin’s land, as had formerly been used. Another footway was set from Harper’s Plain, passing beneath the waterfall, then ascending along the same path through the pasture and up through Feudally land to the Company plantation. Mr Morris was granted a footway through Dixon’s Grove, as had existed previously, descending to the fort, along with a church way through Dixon’s ground, being the same route that led to Plantation House. Mr Church and Mr Berrian was assigned a footway to the church through Harper’s Plain, passing by the Governor’s land and continuing up to the church. Mr Jessey was granted a droveway to the fort, following the same route used by Mr Thomas Goodwin and Mr Dixon up to Mr Seaford’s, and continuing along that way. He had also been assigned a footway to the church through the Company pasture, through Feudally plantation, through the Governor’s land formerly belonging to John Pownell, then to Plantation House, and onward to the church. Mr Dixon was assigned a footway to the church over the corner of Mr Degorvey’s land, ascending the hillside across land formerly held by John Young, then to the Company ditch, and from there continuing to the church. A footpath was designated for the people of Sandy Bay to go to church. This route had passed through Mr Bagley’s land, then through Mr Edmund’s land, again through Mr Bagley’s land, then by the habitation of John Bowman, through Lufkin’s ground formerly Sewster’s, then up to the Company pasture land, and finally to the church. Mr Gorman and Mr Bodley was granted a footpath to the church through Mr Lufkin’s land and Mr Edmund’s land, formerly Sewster’s, connecting to the Sandy Bay church way. John Bowman was assigned the same route. Mr Lufkin was required to pass through his own land to join the Sandy Bay church way, and from there proceed to the church. Interpretations The repeated allocation of specific footpaths “to the church” showed that access to religious worship was formally regulated. Attendance was facilitated through designated routes, indicating that participation in church life was treated as an organised and expected element of settlement order. The routing of paths through multiple private holdings, including those of Mr Bagley, Mr Edmund, Mr Lufkin, and others, demonstrated that landowners was obliged to allow passage. This reflected a system in which private property was subordinated to communal and administrative needs. The reference to “Company pasture”, “Company ditch”, and “Company plantation” showed the continued central role of corporate land under the East India Company. These areas had functioned as shared or controlled resources within the wider system of land use. The mention of land “formerly” belonging to individuals such as John Pownell, Sewster, and John Young indicated ongoing transfers of possession. This suggested that land tenure had been fluid, with administrative recognition of past and present ownership forming part of how routes were defined. The distinction between routes for riding, walking, and driving livestock illustrated a structured hierarchy of movement. Different types of access was tailored to particular uses, showing deliberate planning in the organisation of the island’s transport network. The requirement that individuals such as Mr Jessey and Mr Dixon follow established shared routes rather than creating independent access points indicated an effort to concentrate movement along recognised lines. This would have reduced conflict over land use and allowed easier supervision of movement across the island. | |
294 | Mr Edmunds and mr Strangham most have a foot way to Church Mr Rich most have a foot way to Church up between Mr Edmunds & Strangham must have a Drift way, mr A foot way for any Body from Marshes Ridge through Mr Edmunds and mr Strangham most have a foot George Hoskin is to have a Drift way through Mr Vernon most have a Drift way through mr Bodley | Mr Edmunds and Mr Strangham had been granted a footway to the church, running by the head of the ground formerly held by Sewster, then along to Company Hill, into the church ground, and so to the church. Mr Rich was assigned a footway to the church, passing between his pasture and the land formerly belonging to Mr Sewster, and then joining the Sandy Bay path to the church. Mr Edmunds and Mr Strangham had also been granted a droveway. Mr Edmunds was required to pass through Mr Strangham’s pasture, after which both had been required to drive through [...] and break the wall of Mr Rich’s ground, formerly Stretton’s. The route had then continued past that house, into the established path, along land formerly Sewster’s, then along the bottom of Mr Vernon’s land, into Hoskin’s ground, and along by the corner of Mr Lufkin’s wall, continuing through Hoskin’s ground. Mr Edmunds had then been required to pass through the lower part of John Bowman’s land, proceed up to Mr Bagley’s pasture, and then to the Cabbage Tree ground with his cattle, using a competent driver. Mr Strangham was required to pass through the lower part of Mr Bowman’s land, then along into Company ground formerly Bale’s, through Stacey’s ground, continuing into Company land, and then through Mr Sewster’s land to his own. A footway was established for general use from Marshes Ridge, passing through the lands of Garrum, Mr Coleford, Mr Beale, and Alexander Bodley, then up to Hoskin’s, through his plantation, through Bowman’s land, and then to Company ground formerly Taylor’s and Lufkin’s, and onward to the main ridge. Mr Edmunds and Mr Strangham was granted another footway from Sandy Bay Ridge above Mr Bagley’s land, passing through the lands of Bagley, Hoskin, Vernon, Rich, Edmunds, and Strangham, and continuing to the fort for their use and for others in that area. George Hoskin was assigned a droveway through Mr Bagley’s land and Mr Edmunds’s land, then up to Sandy Bay Ridge, and onward to the land he occupied under the Company. Mr Vernon was granted a droveway through Mr Bodley’s land, leading up to his own ground, formerly held by Mr Hooker. Interpretations The requirement that Mr Edmunds and Mr Strangham “break the wall” of Mr Rich’s ground showed that existing physical boundaries could be overridden by official order. This demonstrated that surveyed access rights had taken precedence over established enclosures, reflecting the authority of the Council to reshape property boundaries in practice. The detailed routing of droveways for cattle, including the instruction to use “a good driver”, indicated concern with controlling livestock movement. This suggests that unmanaged driving of animals posed risks to crops, land, or order, and required regulated handling. The repeated reference to land “formerly” held by others, such as Sewster, Stretton, Bale, Taylor, and Hooker, showed a layered history of land tenure. Routes was defined with reference to both past and present ownership, ensuring continuity of recognition despite changes in possession. The provision of shared footways “for any body” demonstrated that some routes had been designated as broadly public rather than limited to specific individuals. This reflected a structured hierarchy of access, balancing private rights with communal movement. The connection of routes to key locations such as the church, fort, Sandy Bay Ridge, and Company land revealed an integrated network serving governance, religion, and economic activity. Movement was channelled along defined paths to maintain order and coordination across the island. The distinction between land occupied “of the Company” and privately held land showed that some individuals, such as George Hoskin, had held land under Company tenure. This indicated a system in which occupation and use could be granted without full ownership, reinforcing the Company’s overarching control of land distribution. Speculations The explicit order that Mr Edmunds and Mr Strangham break the wall of Mr Rich’s ground suggests that an existing enclosure had obstructed a necessary route. The Council appears to have chosen direct physical alteration rather than rerouting, which indicates that maintaining a specific line of access was more important than preserving existing property boundaries. The detailed division of routes between Mr Edmunds and Mr Strangham, especially after passing through shared points such as Bowman’s land, suggests an effort to prevent conflict or congestion. By assigning separate onward paths, the Council perhaps aimed to manage the movement of cattle and reduce disputes between neighbouring users. The instruction that cattle be driven with “a good driver” implies prior problems with uncontrolled livestock movement. This requirement appears to have been introduced to prevent damage to enclosed land or crops along these newly enforced routes. The repeated use of land formerly held by others, particularly Sewster’s and Bale’s, in defining current routes suggests that these areas had become key transit corridors over time. The Council may have formalised long-standing informal usage rather than creating entirely new paths, thereby stabilising established patterns of movement. The provision of a general footway from Marshes Ridge through multiple holdings indicates a need to connect dispersed properties to the main ridge. This arrangement appears to have addressed the practical difficulty of movement across fragmented terrain, ensuring that isolated inhabitants retained reliable access to central routes and resources. | |
295 | Mr Bodley to have a foot way round about his ground Hoskin most have a foot way up to mr Lufkin Mr Rich most have a Drift way for his Cattle There must be a foot way along the maine Ridge Mr Long most have a Drift way to his ground that Mr Bodley most have a foot way from his House through Mr Hoskinson must have a Drift way from his ground A Drift way for Sandy Bay people up to the Ridge Mr Coleson most have a Drift way to her Cabbage Tree One foot way to Fort between the Honble Compa Dwelling | Mr Bodley was granted a footway around his ground, formerly held by Mr Sewster, connecting to the Sandy Bay footway leading to the fort. Hoskin was assigned a footway up to Mr Lufkin’s ground, continuing to the bridge that came from the Sandy Bay church way, then up to the ridge formerly belonging to Mr Seaford, and from there proceeding as required. Mr Rich was granted a droveway for his cattle to reach his ground beneath Sandy Bay Ridge, passing along by John Long’s land, which was lately Mr Moore’s, with the requirement that the cattle be accompanied by a competent driver. A footway was established along the main ridge from the head of Lemon’s Valley. Mr Long was granted a droveway to his ground, formerly Mr Moore’s, passing through Allen’s land and then to his own. He was also assigned a footway to the fort through Mr Bealy’s land, and a footway to the church passing by Mr Edmunds’s land, formerly Jay’s, and then up to the church ground. Mr Bodley was granted another footway from his house through land formerly belonging to Boyer and then along to land formerly held by Lunny. Mr Hoskinson was assigned a droveway from his ground up to Mr Seaford’s, and from there down to the droveway leading to land formerly belonging to Mr Deganny. A droveway was designated for the people of Sandy Bay, leading up to the ridge, then down to Mr Fish’s land, continuing through John Long’s land and through Allen’s land, then up to Red Hill between Mr Bealy’s land, formerly John Dixell’s, and land formerly belonging to Tom Gates, now in the possession of Mr Bagley. It then continued to Garden House and along into Mr Coleson’s plantation, and from there to the fort. Mr Coleson was granted a droveway to her Cabbage Tree ground, passing by Garrum’s land. She was required to proceed along the head of his plantation, through the church way, over the ditch, and through Garrum’s pasture to her plantation. A footway was established to the fort between the Honourable Company’s dwelling house and the Blacks’ house, then along the outside of the wall, continuing to the flagstaff, and from there to the fort. Interpretations The repeated requirement that cattle be driven with “a good driver” indicated ongoing concern with controlling livestock movement. This suggests that damage to land or conflict between landholders had previously arisen from unmanaged driving, requiring explicit regulation. The designation of routes “formerly” belonging to named individuals such as Mr Moore, Jay, Boyer, Lunny, and Tom Gates showed that path systems were layered onto a changing pattern of landholding. Routes were stabilised despite shifts in possession, preserving continuity of access. The reference to the Honourable Company’s dwelling house and the Blacks’ house revealed a spatial hierarchy within the settlement. Distinct zones were recognised for Company officials and for enslaved or unfree labourers, with regulated movement passing between them. The establishment of a continuous footway along the main ridge indicated an effort to create a primary route linking multiple districts. This facilitated communication and oversight across the island’s elevated terrain. The routing of Sandy Bay inhabitants through multiple named properties to reach the fort showed that collective access was organised across privately held land. This reflects a system in which communal movement needs overrode individual control of land boundaries. Speculations The creation of a continuous footway along the main ridge from Lemon’s Valley head suggests an attempt to establish a reliable arterial route across difficult terrain. This appears to address the problem of fragmented local paths by imposing a unifying line of movement for communication and oversight. The complex droveway assigned to Sandy Bay inhabitants, passing through numerous holdings before reaching the fort, indicates that no direct route was available. The Council perhaps chose to formalise a long, composite path rather than negotiate multiple separate access points, thereby ensuring a single recognised corridor. The requirement that Mr Coleson pass through Garrum’s plantation and over a ditch suggests that natural or artificial obstacles impeded access to the Cabbage Tree ground. The specified route appears to have been designed to overcome these barriers without creating entirely new passages. The routing of a footway between the Company’s dwelling house and the Blacks’ house, and along the outer wall to the flagstaff, implies controlled circulation within a sensitive administrative and labour zone. This path was perhaps intended to regulate movement in an area where security and supervision were particularly important. | |
296 | Mr Taylor must have a Drift way and a foot way Through Mr Taylors foot way to the Fort and mr Buxtons ground & Buxtons Drift way must be Through Garrums Pasture A Church way from mr John Bowmans Through mr Risin Frith must have a foot way to Church from Buxton must have a foot way downe Taylors Ridge If your Worship and Councell Thinks fit as we Henry Crake | Mr Taylor was granted a droveway and a footway through Garrum’s pasture ground, running along the head of his plantation, through the church way bars to Buxton’s pasture, and about three rods above his house. Buxton was required to set aside a passage for Taylor to reach his plantation. Taylor’s cattle were to be driven up to King’s land and then over the head of Buxton’s ground. Taylor’s footway to the church ran by Long Church way to Mr Edmunds’s ground. From Shutte Ridge, a droveway was set by Taylor’s land, then by the Longs, down through Jay’s ground, and on to Plantation House. Mr Taylor was also granted a footway to the fort through Mr Buxton’s ground, and a further footway to Two Gunns Ridge, passing up through Mr Coleson’s ground, formerly Sergeant Bonnell’s. This route was to serve any inhabitants of that area and extended onward towards Prosperity to Lufkin’s for those belonging to that valley. Buxton’s droveway was set through Garrum’s pasture ground, then through the James Rides where Taylor’s route entered, along the head of his plantation, and out of Garrum’s pasture at the lower part of his ground by Taylor’s wall, continuing along the way that led to the fort. A church way was established from Mr John Bowman’s land through Mr Marsh’s ground, Barrum, Mr Coleson’s land, and Mr Beale’s land, then up and down by Leach’s land, continuing to the Company ditch, and from there to the church. Risin Frith was granted a footway to the church from his house, leading up to the Old Hut, then to the ridge above Mr Marsh’s house, and from there down into the old way that led to the previously described ground. Buxton was granted a footway down Taylor’s Ridge to Garden Old House, and from there through Mr Coleson’s land to the fort. It was proposed by Henry Crake, John Colgrave, and Risin Frill, who were sworn, that all church ways should be made at least four feet wide, especially on hillsides and within plantations, and that gates or bars should be installed so that they could be opened or shut as required. Interpretations The requirement that Buxton “set aside” part of his land for Taylor’s access showed that landholders could be compelled to allocate portions of their property for the use of others. This reflected the authority of the Council to enforce shared access where necessary for agriculture and settlement function. The instruction that church ways be made at least four feet wide indicated an attempt to standardise infrastructure. This suggests that earlier paths may have been too narrow or obstructed, prompting formal regulation to ensure consistent and usable access. The provision for gates or bars along these routes showed a balance between movement and enclosure. While passage was guaranteed, land could still be controlled and secured, reflecting an effort to manage both access and protection of cultivated ground. The repeated linking of droveways to plantations, ridges, and the fort demonstrated an integrated system connecting agricultural production with administrative and defensive centres. Movement of both people and livestock was structured to support the island’s economic and governing needs. The extension of certain routes for “any that live that way” indicated that some paths were intended as shared public infrastructure rather than private rights of way. This reveals a layered system of access combining individual entitlement with communal provision. Speculations The obligation placed on Buxton to provide access for Taylor suggests that a dispute or obstruction had arisen between neighbouring landholders. The Council’s intervention appears to have resolved this by imposing a defined route rather than leaving the matter to private negotiation. The detailed routing of Taylor’s cattle over specific adjoining lands indicates that uncontrolled grazing or movement had previously caused problems. The prescribed path appears designed to channel livestock along predictable lines and prevent damage to surrounding plantations. The proposal to widen church ways and install gates suggests that existing routes had become insufficient for regular use, particularly in difficult terrain. This appears to have been a response to increased movement, perhaps due to population growth or greater enforcement of church attendance. The creation of routes serving “any that live that way” towards Prosperity and Lufkin’s valley indicates a need to integrate more remote or developing areas into the island’s main network. This suggests an expanding pattern of settlement requiring formalised access to central locations such as the church and fort. | |
297 | Island St Helena An acco of Booth Private & publique foot & A maine Drift way from orchard grove below Simons John Hemen must have a Drift way from his Land in Deep A Drift way from John Scotts Land to the maine Thomas Coles Drift way from his ground to the maine Road Thomas Allys is to have a Drift way from his ground Directly Allys Coles the same Mary Smith and mary Leach are to have a Drift way just John Mudge must have a Drift way through Suffrings John Finsering & John Higham their Drift way to the Matt: Basett most have a Drift way to the maine Benj: Seales Drift way to the maine Drift way Serjt Hurling Drift way from his House is up the Francis Redger the same from his Cabbage Tree ground | An account had been made on St Helena of both private and public footways and droveways, surveyed and appointed by Samuel Rider, Thomas Spallow, and John Everleese. A main droveway was established from Orchard Grove below Simons House in Deep Valley. It ran by Thomas Cole’s land to a stone marked with a “W”, then continued below Thomas Ally’s house, across Deep Valley Plain, and over the hill above Mr John Gale’s house in Present Valley. It then passed to Hatch’s Valley between the lands of Everleese and Higham, ascended the hill to Quiney, continued between the lands of Quiney and Hayes, and then crossed Housen’s Plain. John Hemen was granted a droveway from his land in Deep Valley to the main droveway below Thomas Cole’s land, and from there to the main road. A droveway from John Scott’s land to the main droveway was set between the lands of Thomas Cole and Thomas Ally. Thomas Cole’s droveway from his ground to the main road ran through his own land to the main droveway. Thomas Ally was granted a droveway from his ground directly to the main droveway. Allys Cole was granted the same. Mary Smith and Mary Leach were granted a droveway just above the wall on the upper side of Mary Smith’s plantation next to Seales, leading to the main droveway. John Mudge was granted a droveway through Suffring’s land next to Colgrave, leading to the main droveway. John Linninger and John Higham were granted a droveway directly from their own land to the main road. Matthew Basett was granted a droveway to the main droveway at the head of Higham’s ground. Benjamin Seales’s droveway from his ground to the main droveway ran between John Mudge’s Cabbage Tree land and Matthew Basett’s land. Sergeant Hurling was granted a droveway from his house up the hill to Quiney Wall and from there to the main droveway. Francis Redger was granted the same from his Cabbage Tree ground. Interpretations The identification of a “maine Drift way” linking multiple valleys, plains, and ridges showed the existence of a primary transport route for livestock and goods. This indicates a coordinated system connecting dispersed agricultural areas into a single network. The use of fixed markers, such as the stone marked with a “W”, demonstrated how boundaries and routes were physically identified on the ground. Such markers would have supported enforcement and reduced disputes over the correct line of passage. The repeated granting of direct droveways from individual holdings to the main route showed that access to this central network was treated as essential. Each landholder was integrated into the system, ensuring that produce and livestock could be moved efficiently. The reference to “Cabbage Tree land” indicated designated plots associated with particular types of cultivation or identifiable landmarks. These served as recognised reference points in defining routes. The distinction between private and public ways in the survey showed that access rights were formally categorised. Some routes were reserved for specific individuals, while others formed part of the wider infrastructure of the island. The consistent involvement of named surveyors, including Samuel Rider, Thomas Spallow, and John Everleese, showed that the creation and regulation of routes had been carried out through delegated authority, ensuring that local knowledge informed official decisions. Speculations The creation of a continuous main droveway across multiple valleys suggests that earlier movement had been fragmented or inefficient. The survey appears to have imposed a unified route to improve the movement of livestock and goods across the island. The careful routing of individual droveways to connect with the main route indicates that isolated holdings had required formal access. This suggests that disputes or practical difficulties in reaching markets, storage, or shipping points had prompted systematic intervention. The reliance on visible markers such as a stone marked with a “W” implies that boundary or route ambiguity had previously caused confusion. The introduction of such markers appears intended to fix the route clearly and prevent future disagreement. The repeated reference to land boundaries, including walls and named neighbouring properties, suggests that enclosure and subdivision had already become well established. The survey appears to have worked within these constraints, adjusting access rather than removing boundaries altogether. | |
298 | Mr Colgrave most have the same Drift way to ye A Drift way from Colliers Land is above Simons wheaten The same for Simon Whalley & James Draper Sutton Shacks Drift way to the maine Road is up the hill Wm Hayes Drift way is up the Huts Hill into John Gorralls Drift way is up the Huts Hill Risin Frill Drift way to the maine Drift way is John Colgrave most have a Drift way from his John Hemon, Edwd Browne and Tho: Burnham most have Henry Coles must have a Private Drift way from John Mudge must have a neighbourly Drift way to Serjt Furling must have a private Drift way to Matt Basett most have a private Drift way to his Francis Redger most have a private Drift way from Sutton Isaack must have a private Drift way from his | Mr Colgrave was granted the same droveway to the main droveway as he then used, and the same was allowed for Mr Granger. A droveway from Collier’s land was set above Simon’s wheaten ground and James Draper’s land, leading to the main road. The same route was granted for Simon Whalley and James Draper. Sutton Shack was granted a droveway to the main road running up the hill above his house. William Hayes was assigned a droveway up Hutts Hill to the main road. John Gorrall was granted a droveway up Hutts Hill to the main droveway. Risin Frill was assigned a droveway to the main droveway running down from his house to Worrall’s land, and then along the same route as Worrall. John Colgrave was granted a droveway from his Cabbage Tree ground to the main or public droveway between the lands of Risin Frill and Gorrall, and then along the same route as Worrall and Frill. John Hemon, Edward Browne, and Thomas Burnham were granted a droveway running below Burnham’s ground and along Hutts House to the public droveway. Henry Coles was granted a private droveway from his land to his Cabbage Tree ground, running up the valley below Mary Smith’s house and then to his ground. John Mudge was granted a neighbourly droveway to his Cabbage Tree ground through Linninger’s land, turning about the lands of Higham and Basett to reach his own ground. Sergeant Furling was granted a private droveway to the woody ridge between the lands of Benjamin Seales and John Mudge’s Cabbage Tree ground, if Mudge permitted passage through his land, and if not, he was to use the route he currently followed. Matthew Basett was granted a private droveway to his Foster’s Coales ground, running above Higham’s land. Francis Redger was granted a private droveway from the woody ridge to his Cabbage Tree ground, running above Quiney Wall. The same route was granted for John Colgrave to reach his Cabbage Tree ground. Sutton Isaack was granted a private droveway from his land to the Great Wood, passing through a corner of James Draper’s ground. Interpretations The repeated distinction between “public”, “neighbourly”, and “private” droveways showed a clearly tiered system of access rights. Public routes formed the main network, neighbourly routes allowed shared local passage, and private routes served individual holdings. The allowance that Mr Colgrave and Mr Granger continue to use existing routes “as now he goes” indicated that established customary usage had been formally recognised. This suggests that the survey often confirmed rather than replaced prior patterns of movement. The conditional clause requiring Sergeant Furling to obtain John Mudge’s permission before passing through his land demonstrated that not all access rights overrode private control. In some cases, negotiation or consent remained necessary, reflecting limits on administrative authority. The repeated reference to “Cabbage Tree ground” showed the importance of these plots within the agricultural system. Specific routes had been secured to ensure access to them, indicating their economic value. The naming of features such as Hutts Hill, the woody ridge, and the Great Wood showed how natural landmarks structured the routing of movement. These features provided practical corridors and reference points within the surveyed network. Speculations The preservation of existing routes for individuals such as Mr Colgrave and Mr Granger suggests that the survey aimed to reduce disruption. Rather than impose entirely new paths, the Council appears to have stabilised established usage to avoid conflict or inconvenience. The conditional access granted to Sergeant Furling implies a potential dispute or sensitivity over John Mudge’s land. The alternative of reverting to an existing route suggests that agreement had not been fully secured, and the Council allowed flexibility to prevent escalation. The detailed provision of private droveways to Cabbage Tree grounds indicates that these plots may have been located in less accessible or more marginal terrain. The need for defined routes suggests that without formal access, their use could have been impractical. The routing of paths through corners of land, such as James Draper’s ground, suggests an effort to minimise intrusion while still providing access. This appears to reflect a compromise between efficiency of movement and preservation of cultivated or enclosed areas. | |
299 | A maine publique path from Hemons to House to Tho: Allis Church way must be along the maine Ridge Thomas Coales must have a private Path way along the Thomas Allys must have a private path way from his Henry Coales private foot way to John Mudges below his John Mudge to have a private way along the valley to Henry Coales must have a private way to his Cabbage Serjt Gurling must have a neighbourly path from his to Fraise Pledger must have a path from his House the A neighbourly path from Colliers Land by Simon Whalley Risin | A main public pathway was established from Hemon’s house to Hutts Plain. It ran through Hemon’s land in Deep Valley, then through the land of John Pooley and Henry Cole’s Cabbage Tree land, continuing through Mary Leach’s land by her house. It then crossed a corner of Mary Smith’s land next to Leach’s, went over the hill through Benjamin Seales’s land, and passed by Sergeant Gurling’s house. From there it ascended the hill to Quiney’s wall, continued through his land by Godally waterfall, now part of his ground, then through Worrall’s land by his house, and through the enclosed Company Hutts ground, finally reaching Hutts Plain. Thomas Ally’s church way was set along the main ridge. Thomas Cole was granted a private pathway along the main ridge near his house. Thomas Ally was granted a private pathway from his land to Henry Cole’s Cabbage Tree land, passing through it and continuing to the main road by Mary Leach’s house. Henry Cole was granted a private footway to John Mudge’s land, running below Mudge’s wall and over Red Hill to his ground. John Mudge was granted a private way along the valley to John Linninger’s house. Linninger was granted a path to Higham’s land, and Higham was granted a footpath between his ground and Matthew Basett’s land, continuing up to Benjamin Seales’s land. The same route was granted for Matthew Basett. Henry Cole was granted another private way to his Cabbage Tree ground, running up the valley by Mary Smith’s house. Sergeant Gurling was granted a neighbourly path from his land to the woody ridge, passing through Mudge’s Cabbage Tree ground. Francis Pledger was granted the same. Francis Pledger was granted a path from his house to the woody ridge and then to the fort. This route ran around the hill towards James Grand’s land, passed by his house, then crossed over the hill and descended through Hayes’s land above his house, continued to Hutts Plain, and then joined the main roadway. The same route was granted for Colgrave and Grandy. A neighbourly path was established from Collier’s land by Simon Whalley’s and James Draper’s houses, continuing to Sutton Isaack’s and Hayes’s houses, then up the valley to Worrall’s land, and from there through his land to Risin Frill. The same route was granted for Simon Whalley, James Draper, and any others living in that area. Interpretations The designation of a “maine publique path” demonstrated the creation of a principal pedestrian route linking multiple settlements and landscapes. This indicates a deliberate effort to ensure reliable communication across the island beyond livestock movement alone. The passage of this route through numerous named properties, including those of Hemon, Pooley, Cole, Leach, Smith, Seales, Gurling, Quiney, and Worrall, showed that public access had been imposed across private holdings. This reflects the authority of the Council to prioritise communal movement over individual land control. The inclusion of the enclosed Company Hutts ground within the route revealed that even Company-managed enclosed land remained subject to regulated passage. This suggests that corporate property did not exempt areas from the island-wide access system. The repeated allocation of “private” and “neighbourly” paths alongside the main public path illustrated a layered infrastructure. Movement had been structured according to scale and purpose, ranging from individual access to shared local routes and island-wide connections. The linking of paths to houses, valleys, ridges, and landmarks such as Godally waterfall and Hutts Plain showed that routes had been closely tied to both habitation and natural geography. This ensured that pathways followed practical and recognisable lines across the terrain. Speculations The establishment of a continuous public path from Hemon’s house to Hutts Plain suggests that earlier pedestrian movement had been fragmented or indirect. The Council appears to have created a unified route to improve accessibility between dispersed settlements. The routing of this path through enclosed Company ground indicates that alternative routes may have been impractical or unavailable. The decision to include this area suggests that efficiency of movement was prioritised over maintaining enclosure boundaries intact. The duplication of routes for multiple individuals, such as granting the same path to Pledger, Colgrave, and Grandy, suggests an attempt to standardise movement rather than allow parallel or competing paths. This likely reduced disputes and concentrated traffic along recognised corridors. The provision of neighbourly paths connecting clusters of households implies that local interaction and cooperation required formal support. These routes appear designed to facilitate everyday movement between neighbouring properties without reliance on longer public paths. | |
300 | Risin Frill must have a neighbourly path to Hemens House Mr Colgrave must have a neighbourly path way from There must be a way from Colliers ground by Whalley and James Rider Poirier J Goodwin | Risin Frill was granted a neighbourly path to Hemen’s house. Within Hemen’s ground, Burnham, Hemen, and Edward Brayen were each granted neighbourly paths to pass between one another’s houses through their respective lands. Mr Colgrave was granted a neighbourly pathway from his Cabbage Tree ground, running between the lands of Risin Frill and Hemen, and continuing to Hutts Plain. All neighbours in that area were required to pass over the hill by Marsh’s house. A way was established from Collier’s land by the houses of Whalley and James Draper, passing through Draper’s land, then through the lands of Sutton Isaack, Hayes, and Quiney by Quiney’s house, and through Colgrave’s Cabbage Tree land, continuing up to the main ridge. These arrangements were recorded by James Rider, Thomas Swallow, John Everleese, Poirier, and J Goodwin. Interpretations The provision that Burnham, Hemen, and Edward Brayen have mutual neighbourly paths through each other’s land showed a system of reciprocal access. This indicates that movement between adjacent households was formally recognised and enforced as a shared right rather than left to informal agreement. The instruction that all neighbours “are to goe over the Hill over marshes House” demonstrated that specific routes could be mandated for collective use. This suggests an effort to standardise movement and prevent the proliferation of multiple competing paths across the same terrain. The continued reference to Cabbage Tree grounds as key points in routing showed their importance within the agricultural landscape. Access to these plots was consistently secured, indicating their role in subsistence or production. The designation of a continuous route from Collier’s land to the main ridge, passing through numerous holdings, illustrated the integration of smaller local paths into the wider island network. This reinforced connectivity between outlying areas and central routes. The inclusion of multiple surveyors’ names at the conclusion of the account indicated collective responsibility for the accuracy and authority of the survey. This suggests that such arrangements were formalised through a process of joint verification. Speculations The requirement that Burnham, Hemen, and Edward Brayen pass through each other’s lands suggests that their holdings were closely interlocked, making independent access impractical. The Council appears to have resolved this by enforcing shared passage to prevent isolation or dispute. The instruction that all neighbours use a single route over Marsh’s house implies that alternative paths had either caused conflict or damage to land. The imposed route appears intended to concentrate traffic and reduce interference with cultivated areas. The long route from Collier’s land through multiple properties to the main ridge suggests that no direct access existed for that cluster of inhabitants. The Council likely formalised this extended path to ensure reliable connection to the island’s principal routes. The repetition of neighbourly paths in this section indicates that local-level movement required as much regulation as major routes. This suggests that everyday interaction between nearby households had generated enough friction or necessity to require formal intervention. | |
301 | Blank page | ||
302 | Blank page | ||
303 | Book cover | ||
304 | Dimensions (height × width × depth) (cm) No. written pages: No. blank pages: Spine and cover Inside pages Time taken to photograph (hours) Additional comments |