St Helena Records 1699-1703

Introduction: This is the sixth 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/EAP1364-1-1-6.

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: Many pages have damaged or missing edges, which has caused the loss of text and page numbers. Some are torn, and others suffer from heavy ink bleed-through from the reverse side, making the handwriting very hard to read.

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: There are numerous gaps and inconsistencies in the page numbering. Film No. 25 shows the first clear page number, 23. On that basis the page numbering is presumed to start at film No. 3. Pages 41 and 42 are missing with a change of subject, so the volume follows the sequence 41/39, 42/40, 43/43, 44/44 and so forth. Pages 243-246 are missing, with content lost, so the sequence runs 241/241, 242/242, 243/247, 244/248 and so forth. Similarly, pages 261-274 are missing, again with content lost, so the sequence runs 255/259, 256/260, 257/275, 258/276 and so forth. Later two pages are both marked as page 333, so the sequence runs 310/332, 311/333, 312/333, 313/334 and so forth. Finally, pages 351-356 are missing with content lost, so the sequence runs 328/349, 329/350, 330/357, 331/358 and so forth to the end of the volume.

Dates: During the period covered by this volume, England and its colonies followed the Old-Style Julian calendar, under which the legal new year began on 25 March (Lady Day). The earliest date recorded in this volume is 1 August 1699 and the last date is 15 April 1703.

The Council meetings were all held during the administration of Captain Stephen Poirier (1697-1707).

AI Generated Summary

The records covered here open with a consultation held on St Helena in August 1699 and close with the parish elections held at Easter 1703. Across these four years, the small island in the South Atlantic was governed for the East India Company by Stephen Poirier, who served as Governor throughout, supported by a deputy and an ensign sitting together as a Council. The same Council functioned in turn as legislature, registry of property, court of probate, court of first instance, court of judicature with a sworn jury, and disciplinary body for soldiers, planters, sailors and slaves. The decisions made at the Fort James table, recorded in plain English by the clerk John Alexander, capture the daily texture of a tiny colonial society whose habits, hierarchies and tensions can be reconstructed in unusual detail. [Film No. 7-9]

The portrait that emerges is of a community of perhaps a few hundred white inhabitants and a similar number of enslaved Africans, set on land that was at once strategic, agriculturally marginal and prone to drought and flood. The settlement was governed by men whose authority derived from the Company in London but whose local power depended on personal standing within a population they knew by name. The themes that follow have been drawn from the consultations themselves rather than projected onto them, and where wider context is brought in - from English law and church practice, from the wars then convulsing Europe, or from the Indian Ocean trade in slaves and pirates - it is in order to clarify what the islanders themselves recorded. [Film No. 7-336]

Governance and administration

The basic organ of government was the consultation, ordinarily held at Fort James on a Tuesday but called as often as necessary. Stephen Poirier, a Huguenot, sat as Governor; Captain Thomas Bright was Deputy Governor in the early years; Thomas Goodwin, formally an engineer in 1699 and styled ensign by 1700, was the third member; the clerk John Alexander attended without a vote but signed the books and kept the registers. Almost every entry begins with this attendance roll, and almost every consequential act bears the words "ordered by the Governor and Council". The Council met as the standing executive of an island whose population was too small and too entangled to function without near-continuous supervision from above. [Film No. 9-11]

The Council acted as a registry as well as an executive. Private deeds, leases, releases and bills of sale were "entered in the books" so as to enjoy formal recognition; copies were issued on demand to anyone with an interest. The 1699 entries already show this practice in full operation, with George Corne asking that the documents relating to the Beale house in Chappell Valley be recorded for the protection of his wife Mercy and her heirs, and with the conveyance of the same house to Mary Beale formally entered. By 1702 the Company had directed the Council to maintain a separate register of all alienations and assignments of land, and John Alexander was duly appointed registrar with the customary fees, an early sign of a colonial bureaucracy putting itself on a more permanent footing. [Film No. 10-11, 247]

The relationship between the island and the directors in London ran along visible lines. Orders arrived in named ships and were treated as the foundation of local action: the orders enforced in 1699 had been brought "aboard the ship", the directive to end distillation came from a Company instruction dated 15 December 1698, and consultations and orders sent home in 1700 were dispatched in the Tavistock under Captain Matthew Mullin, sailing on 30 July of that year. Cases too sensitive or too complex to settle locally were forwarded for the Company's judgement, as in John Nickels's petition of 1700 over fifty acres in Fort James Valley. The Company's authority was exercised at a distance of two thousand leagues, but it was constantly invoked, often as the trump card in argument. [Film No. 96, 115-116, 123]

Beneath the Company sat a parish structure that worked through annual elections and oaths of office. Two churchwardens and two overseers of the highways were nominated each year by the inhabitants, confirmed by the Council, and sworn in. Outgoing officers were obliged to present accounts and have their disbursements approved before being discharged. By 1701 the parish was divided into a High and a Lower Division, each nominating its own pair of candidates, with the Council making the final selection from a slate of four. By 1703 the Council was directing that nominations be made on Easter Monday, when the inhabitants assembled in church and chose four candidates for each office, two of whom were then taken up. Local self-government, modest as it was, ran on a calendar borrowed from the English parish year. [Film No. 62-63, 67, 151, 277, 336]

The smoothness of these procedures should not obscure the rivalries within the Council itself. In May 1701 a striking confrontation took place when Captain Bright, summoned at night for refusing the Governor's orders, met Poirier on the captain's bridge at about two in the morning. Bright drew his sword, threatened to fire on the Governor, swore at him, and according to a marginal note even put the point of the sword to Poirier's breast. The episode reads like a duel without a second, and shows how thin was the line between collegiate government and personal feud in a community where the same men ate at the fort table together every evening. Thomas Goodwin signed the record but expressed reservations about one paragraph, hinting at further factional tension within the Council. [Film No. 156-157]

A still longer-running quarrel involved John Kerr, the Bachelor of Divinity sent as the Company's chaplain. As early as Christmas 1701, George Hoskison had warned the Governor that Kerr was setting people against one another and had told him in plain words that he had come to the island for the express purpose of ruining the French refugees - which is to say, Poirier himself and the Huguenot families around him. Kerr was alleged to have written letters home to the Bishop of London and elsewhere distorting the Governor's ordinary conversations into treasonable constructions, and to have accused Poirier of standing during divine service "like a proud French slave". By February 1703 Poirier had decided he was no longer bound by his earlier promise of restraint and ordered the affidavits of the Hoskisons and Goodwin to be entered on the books, while Kerr formally protested that the proceedings were irregular. The dispute remained unresolved at the close of the period, but it shows the fault line that ran through the colony between the Anglican establishment and the French Protestant interest associated with the Governor. [Film No. 320-326]

Personnel turnover was constant and partly compensated by promotion from within. Thomas Bright disappears from the records during 1701 and Thomas Goodwin succeeds him as Deputy Governor; John Foulis serves briefly as Deputy and then dies intestate in mid-1702, his estate so doubtful that his widow renounced it for fear that the debts exceeded the assets; Edward Edmunds, third in council, is taken in February 1703 and replaced by John Field, who had risen from sergeant. The Company's instructions of 1696, cited by paragraph number when Field was appointed, provided that vacancies on the Council should be filled by choosing from among the planters or soldiers, an unusual provision that gave the Council itself the power to recruit its own members from the wider male population pending London's confirmation. [Film No. 267-269, 319]

When the war of the Spanish Succession broke out the Council had to navigate the rivalry between the old East India Company and the New Company chartered in 1698. In February 1703 a letter arrived from the New Company asking that one of its men, John Chappell, be allowed to remain at St Helena to deliver private orders to its homeward ships. The Council refused to lodge Chappell on the island, but after long debate, and after opening one of the letters to confirm it contained nothing harmful to the old Company's interests, agreed to hand the letters to each New Company commander who called. The reasoning was characteristic: refusing to forward letters that might guide ships safely past the enemy would, the Council wrote, expose them to the charge of intelligence with the French. The decision shows a colonial council weighing a corporate quarrel against the national interest in wartime, and choosing, with anxious self-justification, on the side of the nation. [Film No. 252-253]

Military affairs and defence

The garrison at Fort James was small but elaborately ranked. By the end of 1699 the chief artillery establishment included a gunner, his chief mate, two second mates and a quarter gunner, with the gunner's grooms below them. When Andrew Phillips was found to be too old to continue, he was discharged and granted £20 for his maintenance for life - effectively a pension - and his place was filled by Robert Addis his chief mate, with subsequent promotions cascading through the ranks. The same pattern recurs throughout the period: when one man left, dropped dead, was sent abroad or simply requested his discharge, his post was filled at once from below, with each promotion noted in the books and the new pay rates beginning from a fixed date. [Film No. 26-27]

Beyond the main fort lay a circuit of out forts and lookout posts. Lemon Valley, Rupert's Fort, Banks, the Two Springs, the Hole Battery, Thompson Valley, Goat's Pen and the Plantation House each had a defined garrison, and in October 1701, with war expected, the Council distributed seventy-six men among them: twenty-four at the great fort, ten at the Hole Battery to throw rocks down into the valley, twelve at the Two Springs, six at Thompson Valley, seven at Banks, eleven at Goat's Pen and eight at Lemon Valley to fetch sheep for the guns. The plan was less an army than a militia, designed to inflict damage on a landing force from above through stones and small arms while the regular gunners worked the cannon at Fort James. [Film No. 152, 229]

Discipline within this small force was sustained largely by physical and reputational punishment. The wooden horse, a narrow wooden beam on which the offender was made to sit astride with weights attached to his legs, recurs throughout the records as the standard penalty for soldiers who fell asleep, deserted their posts, or behaved disgracefully off duty. When several soldiers failed to report to their posts during an alarm raised by the Thomdon in November 1699, four were sentenced to ride the wooden horse while two who could prove illness or genuine ignorance were excused. Matthew Freese was set on the horse for two hours with a musket tied to each leg in 1700; Ralph Gates, Richard Alexander and Humphrey Edwards each suffered the same punishment for breaches of guard duty during 1701 and 1702. The instrument was painful enough to function as deterrent and visible enough to function as warning, and it spared the colony the cost of long imprisonment. [Film No. 22-23, 59, 234, 318]

Sentry duty was the heart of garrison life and was strictly policed. Simon Lenox was found drunk on guard in November 1699 and fined five shillings for the poor and committed until sober; Samuel Grandy was reduced from his post to private sentinel duty for misconduct on guard; John Scriven and Joseph Fox were imprisoned for going over the fort wall after the tattoo had beaten in May 1703 and only escaped further punishment through genuine contrition. The most extreme case occurred in February 1701, when William Child drew his sword in the guard room over a request for sack and refused to accept Sergeant Dixon's authority. Child was fined five shillings for drunkenness and breach of the peace, but the case captured a recurring tension: when soldiers had drunk too much, even a senior officer's authority might prove fragile in the moment. [Film No. 23, 60, 138-139, 261]

Threats from the sea were a constant background. The November 1699 alarm raised by the Thomdon was caused not by an enemy but by a stricken English ship; the alarm of April 1701, raised by three French ships and three more taken to be Dutch, was a closer call. By July 1702 a French ship was again manoeuvring around the island, and in January 1703 yet another. On each occasion the Council examined those soldiers and freemen who had failed to reach their posts. William Marsh's plea of illness, Paul Charles's claim that he could not catch the party that had already gone, and Robert Pinnifs's claim that he had heard nothing of the alarm were all weighed individually, and Richard Alexander, who had marched to the Horse Pastures in good faith, was even held to have been unjustly imprisoned by Captain Bright when no orders reached him there. The system depended on accurate signalling and good faith on both sides. [Film No. 22-23, 150-151, 273, 313]

The most ambitious military project of the period was the construction of new fortifications at Rupert's Valley in 1702. The Council resolved to fortify the valley because, as a secondary anchorage, it gave an enemy a way to reach the road without confronting Fort James directly. Slaves were initially supplied by the planters under a promise of reimbursement, but most planters withdrew their slaves after a single week's work and bluntly refused to send more. The Council was forced to fall back on hired labour: Edward Heath was contracted at one hundred and fifty shillings to complete the work, soldiers were paid eighteen pence a day above their salary to volunteer, and slaves were paid twelve pence a day on the same terms. The episode shows how the rhythms of agriculture conditioned the rhythms of defence, and how an apparent emergency could lose its grip on planter attention as soon as the immediate panic eased. [Film No. 287, 297, 299]

Discipline extended beyond formal duty into the management of speech. When Humphrey Edwards spread a false report that the men of Banks Fort had run away during the French alarm of January 1703, several witnesses including Sergeant Maxwell, Richard Alexander and Sutton Isaac Junior swore that no one had abandoned his post. Edwards was sentenced to ride the wooden horse on three successive days for one hour at a time with weights tied to his legs and to remain in prison until his punishment was completed. Slander of fellow soldiers as cowards, the Council clearly believed, was as dangerous to the garrison as actual desertion would have been. [Film No. 317-318]

The death of King William reached the island in mid-1702 and produced a curious episode in which the Governor and the chaplain, in the presence of others, debated whether to continue praying for the dead king or for the new Queen Anne. Poirier deferred to the minister; the minister deferred to the Governor; in the end Doctor Tillotson's sermons were read while the official position was clarified. The fragment is a reminder that the war then breaking out, the Hanoverian succession lurking in the future, and the everyday observance of the Anglican liturgy at the fort were all bound up together at the edge of the empire. [Film No. 326-327]

Settlement, land and agriculture

Land on St Helena was a finite, contoured and quarrelled-over resource. The principal valleys named in the records - Chappell Valley, Sandy Bay, Lemon Valley, Powles Valley, Deep Valley, Rupert's Valley and Fort James Valley - between them carried almost the whole settlement, with isolated holdings on the ridges between. Land transactions, large and small, were entered in the Council books in some detail, with measurements in acres and parts, named neighbours on each side, and references to natural features like a marked line of rushes between Madam Beale's and Gabriel Powell's land. The 1701 grant of a 30-foot square plot to each of seven inhabitants behind Mrs Goodwin's house, with a forty-foot space left between the watercourses, shows the Council laying out a regular row of new buildings in a way intended to be both orderly and good-looking. [Film No. 11, 27, 45, 100, 197]

The Company itself owned and operated several plantations, most prominently the Hutt Plantation, which grew yams under the supervision of enslaved labourers and which produced repeated thefts to be investigated. Other Company holdings included Settlers Ground, the great wood, and grazing on the Horse Pastures. Private holdings ranged from the modest ten-acre lots typically given to soldiers and small free planters to the much larger estates of Captain Beale, the Keelings and the Madame Beale household. Land was constantly being rearranged: in October 1700 the Council exchanged ten acres with Philip Goffey, ten acres with Richard Harding involving John Greentree and James Rider, and fifteen acres with John Coles, the explicit aim being to "form a straight line" so that the Company's pasture became "a more regular and useful square". The vocabulary of straight boundaries borrowed from Restoration English estate practice was here applied to a colony of fewer than three thousand acres of cultivable land. [Film No. 23-24, 99-100]

When a settler could not meet the terms of a sale, the land could be converted to a leasehold under the Company. Thomas Dixon Junior bought the estate of Thomas Stevens but found himself unable to complete payment; in 1700 he asked instead for a lease of twenty-one years at an annual rent, and after his land was valued at sixty-one pounds the Council allowed the lease without rent in exchange for him surrendering the freehold and receiving credit for the value in the Company's books. The arrangement was consciously generous - the Company preferred continued cultivation to abandoned ground - and showed how readily the freehold ideal could be modified in practice. Similar lease-and-credit arrangements recur throughout the period. [Film No. 36-37, 40]

Land also passed by inheritance, and the records pay close attention to the rights of widows, orphans and surviving children. The will of Richard Leach, made in 1701, contained a clause specifying that if his widow remarried, the property should be divided equally between his three children, and the widow's recent marriage triggered an order for Thomas Goodwin and Samuel Wrangham to appraise and divide the estate. Such clauses operated as a brake on remarriage, since the new husband would otherwise gain control over assets that the deceased had intended for his children, and they reveal a colony in which inheritance disputes were predictable enough to be planned for in advance. [Film No. 148, 286]

Maintenance of the public infrastructure depended on compulsory labour. The order issued in April 1700 required every household, both white and black, to provide one day's labour on the highways during the year, with rates of five shillings per white person's day's work and one shilling per black person's day's work for those who did not appear; goods could be seized to cover the amount owed. The accompanying list of workmen, organised in two columns showing whites and blacks per household, recorded both the personnel of the colony and the central role of slave labour in its public works. The labour requirement was modest in volume but symbolic in reach, since it linked every household to the maintenance of the island's common space. [Film No. 77-78]

Climate and weather periodically tested this fragile arrangement. In the autumn of 1700 the planters explained that their potato crops had been hindered by continual flowering, an environmental difficulty used to argue for an extension of distillation rights. The summer of 1701 brought heavy floods that damaged several houses and washed away part of Edmond Crosley's holding, prompting the Council to record an account of his relief comprising cash, a hog, several debts and three hundred and thirty pounds of one provision item. Drought is mentioned alongside rumour in the famine prophecy case, William Mason testifying that the prediction of famine was uttered while dry weather was being discussed. The food security of the island was always close to the surface of the official record. [Film No. 96, 196, 208]

A small experiment in agricultural improvement is recorded in February 1700, when Captain Thomas Warren brought seeds from the Cape on his way home with the pardoned pirates of Madagascar. The seeds were planted on the Company's plantation, grew well and produced what the Council described as "a strong and valuable tree". The rapid growth was already being damaged by inhabitants who picked the blossoms, and the Council issued a public proclamation forbidding the practice on pain of punishment. The episode shows the Council acting deliberately to introduce new species, and shows equally that protecting them required public order. [Film No. 41]

Hogs were a continual nuisance. In April 1703 several inhabitants complained that pigs running freely in Fort James Valley caused damage, but the Council also reckoned with the fact that confining hogs during the long dry season risked their starvation. The order required all hogs to be removed from the valley within a month, and reissued an earlier regulation so that none could plead ignorance. The struggle to balance the rights of pig-keepers against the rights of cultivators continued through several earlier and later orders, and is a useful reminder that the picturesque early-modern landscape contained constant low-level conflict over what could roam where. [Film No. 258]

Supply and provisioning

The Company's store was the central economic institution of the island. From the store, soldiers, planters and their dependants drew clothing, brandy, sugar, cloth, iron and other goods on credit, with their balances tracked in the storekeeper's books. In October 1699 the Council, anxious that goods might spoil if they sat too long in storage, set explicit credit limits for each named individual: forty pounds for John Humphreys and the surgeon Hugh Patchell, fifty pounds for John Field the eldest sergeant, thirty pounds for Andrew Phillips the gunner, and so on through the establishment. The next consultation extended the system to the whole free population, with sums ranging from a minimum of two pounds two shillings for the smallest holders up to one hundred and fifty pounds for Mr George Carne and one hundred pounds for Madam Beale. The list, which included women in their own right, was effectively a wealth ranking of the colony. [Film No. 17-18]

Distillation was the most contested item of supply. Arrack made from potatoes and sugar consumed enormous quantities of fuel, and the Company's instruction of 15 December 1698 ordered the practice to be stopped because of the damage to coconut trees and other timber. Local opinion was divided: some inhabitants depended on distilling for income, others valued the protection of the wood, and successive accommodations were reached. In August 1699 a petition succeeded in delaying enforcement on grounds of the planting season, and in August 1700 the Council, under pressure from those who had already invested labour in their crops, granted a further extension to 15 January 1701 in return for a bond of ten pounds against future production. When that period expired most planters showed every sign of continuing, and the Council was forced to issue a new advertisement on 15 January 1701 with escalating fines of ten pounds for a first offence, six pounds for a second, and severe punishment for a third, extended even to those who assisted distillers. A list of inhabitants who agreed not to distil was recorded as a public token of compliance. [Film No. 7, 96, 123-124]

Visiting ships could press the island's supply system to its limits. The seamen of the Sceptre under Captain John Shinney petitioned the Council in October 1700 that their commander had not provided them with sufficient food, that they had been forced to eat hogs that did not belong to them and to fry pieces cut from cow hides in the shipyard to avoid starving. Shinney admitted that his last port had been short of provisions and promised to take on as much as possible at St Helena. The seamen returned to their ship willingly when assured that their grievance had been heard. The episode is a reminder that ships did not merely bring custom to the island; they could also arrive in such want that the local economy had to feed them or witness slow-motion mutiny. [Film No. 108-109]

The supply of metalwork was a chronic problem. In April 1703 the Council noted that locks and other fittings needed regular repair or replacement and that the iron from the mines could not always be obtained. The Company's smith was therefore forbidden to work for any free inhabitant without first obtaining the Governor's leave, and Joseph Parsons was appointed to keep a record of all work carried out and for whom. The arrangement turned a scarce skilled service into a regulated common resource and ensured that the Company was reimbursed when its smith's time was used by private clients. [Film No. 258-259]

Judiciary

The judicial machinery of the island ran along several layers. Most disputes were heard at consultation, with the Governor and his colleagues acting as a single tribunal. More serious or contested matters were referred to a jury at the next quarterly sessions or, when the case warranted it, to a Court of Judicature presided over by the Governor as judge with a sworn jury of twelve. For criminal cases of any gravity a grand jury was empanelled to determine whether a bill of indictment was a "true bill" or should be rejected as "ignoramus", and only the cases that survived this preliminary screen went to trial. The arrangement reflected English practice transplanted to the colony, with the same gradations of summary and formal jurisdiction familiar from the home counties. [Film No. 49, 125-127, 167, 178]

The Council registered wills, granted letters of administration when a man died intestate, and approved inventories of estates large and small. When Captain John Foulis died intestate in mid-1702 the Council appointed Edward Edmunds, third in council, as administrator after Foulis's widow had renounced the estate for fear that the debts exceeded the assets. The letter of administration cited the Right Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island and was sealed with the seal of the East India Company at St Helena. The procedure shows the Council exercising what in England would have been the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, drawing freely on the language of probate practice. [Film No. 9, 41, 117, 267-269]

Recognisances and bonds for good behaviour were the universal preventive instrument of the Council. When John Humphreys was suspected of meditating violence in 1699, the Council required him to be taken into custody until he provided sureties; when George Carne agreed to leave the island within four months, John Facknall and Samuel Wrangham bound themselves in one hundred pounds for his peaceable behaviour and his particular forbearance towards Thomas Goodwin; when Thomas Easton was given his liberty after his confinement for adultery, George Haskison entered a recognisance of ten pounds against any further correspondence between Easton and Sarah Sinning during the seven-year period of her husband's banishment. The amounts were calibrated to bite. They functioned both as deterrence on the principal and as a way of distributing responsibility for the principal's good conduct across his social network. [Film No. 12-13, 84, 226]

Trials by jury followed familiar forms but with the close contours of a small society. In the Court of Judicature held at Castle Goome on 17 October 1701, the foreman John Reid presided over a panel of twelve in an action by Jonathan Dufton against Edward Heath the blacksmith over an unfulfilled bargain to supply slave labour and a slave whose leg had been broken while at Heath's service. The jury found that Heath had deceived Dufton and ordered him to pay for the cure of the broken leg, return the slave, and pay damages and costs. In the same court Henry Calles, "mariner", won damages of one pound from John Hemmons in an action for defamation, and Walter Beloved lost an action for defamation that he himself had brought against John Wells. The Council's willingness to hear these intricate disputes between named neighbours, and the seriousness with which juries deliberated for half-hour stretches, suggests a community that took the formal protection of reputation seriously even at a distance from Westminster Hall. [Film No. 220-225]

The Council also exercised a residual moral authority that could supplement, and sometimes override, the verdict of a jury. After Peregrine Parlebion and Joyce Ashley had been acquitted by a jury of suspected adultery in early 1703, the Council kept in force its earlier order forbidding either of them to enter the company of the other, on pain of forfeiting ten pounds. When they were observed together in Ashley's house some weeks later, the Council fined Parlebion forty-five shillings to the Company and a further five shillings to the church, and Mrs Ashley fifty shillings to those who had informed against her, with the threat that any future breach would trigger the original ten-pound forfeiture in full. The case shows a Council reasserting its disciplinary remit over public morals where a jury had stopped short of a conviction, and using fines structured to reward informants as a way of crowdsourcing further enforcement. [Film No. 311-312, 322-323]

Economy, currencies, bartering and accounting

The colony operated with a mixed and sometimes confusing system of money. Sums were recorded in pounds, shillings and pence sterling, but circulating cash often meant Spanish dollars, valued at varying conversion rates, alongside half-dollars, pieces of King William's coin, "Bernatha dollars" and at one point a six-guilder piece. When the appraisers totalled the Keeling estate they did so with 1,358 and a half dollars at ten pence each, equating to four hundred and seven pounds twelve shillings and ten pence, the arithmetic of which does not quite reconcile but was preserved as written. References to "current money of the island" recur in bonds and recognisances, suggesting that local convention smoothed over the discrepancies between different coins in everyday transactions. [Film No. 113, 124, 143, 226]

Cash was scarce enough that store credit functioned as a parallel currency. Mercy Corne paid for the Beale house with fifty pounds in cash and fifty pounds in store credit; the boy who carried his fee for the death of one of his neighbours' livestock was paid two heifers; debts owed to the Company could be offset against rent due, as in the Bidot case where William Marsh's house rent was deducted from the date of debt. Bills of exchange drawn on the Company in London served the same function for larger transactions: when the supercargo of the Salisbury Galley obtained provisions from the Company in April 1700 he offered three bills of exchange totalling sixty pounds sterling payable in England, and Captain Peaceable settled a ship-debt with a similar bill of one hundred pounds. Credit, in short, ran on multiple instruments at once. [Film No. 10, 37, 64, 188]

Cattle were the standard medium of exchange in private settlements. Agreements between planters were repeatedly settled "in cattle"; the trust set up for Sarah Jennings's family used a cow and calf bought with church-collection money and held by Mr French to prevent resale; orphan estates were converted into cattle when this was thought to be more to the children's advantage; and Mary Orchard, on the point of leaving the island, sold her seventeen head to be reassigned to Governor Keeling's children. Behind these transactions was the simple fact that in a colony with little circulating coin, livestock served as both productive asset and store of value, and could be moved between accounts with relatively little friction. [Film No. 30, 55, 90, 107, 114]

Public revenue was raised through small but universal levies. In April 1700 a head money tax of six pence per person aged sixteen and over was applied to every household to repair the church, payable for two years in arrears; six years of salary owed to Edward Coulson were collected at twelve shillings per household. The list of liable persons recorded the head of each household and the number of "whites" and "blacks" in it, and allowed the churchwardens to seize and sell goods to recover unpaid amounts. A further shilling per household with slaves was levied to fund the system for pursuing runaways. The accounts that followed give one of the clearest pictures of the colony's structure: about one hundred and twenty-five "whites" and one hundred and twenty-four "blacks" liable in the parish in 1699, and a similar count in 1700. [Film No. 74-76]

The Company itself ran an account system that bound everyone in the settlement. When Robert Abbey wished to leave the island for Bombay in 1701 he was permitted to do so on giving a bond for the two pounds six shillings he owed on the Company store account book, the bond payable at Bombay; when William French was found to be in extravagant arrears, his goods were inventoried and held by his sureties Robert Addis and Thomas Dixon for two months while he tried to dispose of them; when the Company's store was broken open by Samuel Coales in 1703, the relations of the offender clubbed together to pay the resulting fine of more than twenty-one pounds. The store was the place where the Company's economic discipline met every household's daily life, and where breaches of trust had to be visibly repaired. [Film No. 38-39, 227, 254-256, 259]

Trade and shipping

The island's strategic value lay in the road, an anchorage that allowed ships outbound from England to leave the African coast and homebound ships from the East to take on water and provisions. Across the four-year period the records mention dozens of vessels, from East India Company ships such as the Armenian Merchant, the Severn, the Tavistock, the Hen, the Antrobus, the King William, the Madera, the Mozambique Merchant and many others, to merchant vessels independent of the Company such as the Salisbury Galley and the John Galley. Each arrival generated business for the Council, both routine and exceptional. [Film No. 7, 19, 22, 63, 96, 116, 158, 213-214, 236]

Convoy was the standard answer to the dangers of the South Atlantic. In May 1700 Captain Lewis Whitwell of the Sidney, whose ship was leaking and many of whose crew were ill, asked the Council to delay the departure of the Hampshire under Captain Francis Miller so that the two ships might sail together. The Council, recognising the risk to Company goods carried in either ship, ordered the delay; the wider arrangement of group sailings, prompted by fear of weather and hostile cruisers, ran like a thread through the period. [Film No. 66-67]

Interloping ships posed a different challenge. The Salisbury Galley arrived in April 1700 trading independently of the Company. Her supercargo asked for supplies under the standing rules; there was uncertainty about her tonnage, with the captain having given different figures before arrival; and the Council, after deliberation, accepted three bills of exchange in payment. The arrangement allowed the Company to maintain the appearance of monopoly while still extracting revenue from a vessel it could not entirely refuse. The lookouts at Lemon Valley under Edward Sheild were specifically tasked with preventing inhabitants and slaves from trading directly with the crews of such ships, an indication of how leaky the monopoly actually was. [Film No. 63-65]

The fragility of long-distance shipping was illustrated dramatically by Captain Thomas Warren's arrival in February 1700, in the ship William and John from Madagascar with about eighty slaves and twenty pirates pardoned by Captain Warren acting under the King's commission as commodore of the King's squadron in India. Some of these former pirates - Robert Flower, William Jackson, Ralph Chilson and John Busling - were allowed to remain on the island either because of illness or because no immediate passage to England was available. Just over a year later, in May 1701, Warren was again at St Helena, this time in the John Galley, having been plundered by a French ship in the South Atlantic and forced to put in for relief. The same officer, in the same ocean, embodied successive aspects of the period's maritime history: clemency for those who had sailed under the black flag, and victimhood at the hands of the war. [Film No. 40, 158-159]

The Council had to manage the conduct of crews on shore as well as ships at anchor. In June 1701 Mr Wyet, master of a ship in the road, came drunk to Elizabeth Long's house at night, abused her, called her a whore in front of witnesses, and was fined a pound for abuse and five shillings to the church. In July 1702 Captain Bowes, supported by other gentlemen from the road, refused to halt at the sentry challenge on the west mount, drew his sword on Sergeant Maxwell, and on being brought before the Governor took him by the arm in a manner that several witnesses thought meant a stab; only the intervention of Mr Mountague and the others prevented worse. Bowes had returned to his ship before he could be tried, and the Council referred the matter to Captain Jasper Heck, commodore in chief of His Majesty's ships then in the road. The records show repeatedly that the line between civil and naval jurisdiction had to be carefully negotiated when the offender was a sea officer. [Film No. 194-195, 273-275]

A more squalid case in October 1701 involved Captain John Coulter of the Mozambique Merchant, who declared that if the Council prevented him from receiving provisions he would still obtain water by force at one of the leeward valleys. He sent his boats out to do so, and the Council ordered Captain Hurly with twelve black slaves to oppose them, with instructions not to fire unless fired upon. The Council then sent word that he could have whatever provisions the island could supply, if he paid for them. The episode shows how thin the line between commerce and force could become when a ship's captain decided he had nothing to lose. [Film No. 214]

A particularly revealing case turned on the marriage of Mr Jethro Beadock, minister of the King William, to Sarah Bickley, the daughter of the late James Bickley, without the Governor's licence. The Governor was the orphan's guardian; an Act of Parliament required his consent. Beadock was fined twenty shillings for the poor and ordered to a month's imprisonment, but the fine was excused on grounds of his "great poverty" and his being "almost distracted". The vessel was fined a further five shillings, also excused. The case shows the Council balancing the dignity of an Act of Parliament against the practical desperation of a particular man. [Film No. 215]

Women going aboard ships without the Governor's licence were a recurring concern. The wives of George Hastings and Richard Mulling were called to account in mid-1701; Mrs Hastings pleaded only that her husband was sick. Priscilla Eden, a young woman, was excused harsher treatment but still fined a dollar. The order was meant to prevent unauthorised trade, sexual contact and disorder, but the records suggest it was honoured as much in the breach. [Film No. 191]

Slavery and coerced labour

The colony rested on enslaved labour. The household lists from 1700 record about a hundred and twenty enslaved people in the parish at any one time, almost equal in number to the free population. Some belonged to the Company; many more were the property of free planters and Company servants, and were used for cultivation, household work, and on occasion for tasks that should have been done by their owners. The records use the language of the time - "negroes", "Black men", "Black women", "blacks" - and treat slaves both as property and as agents capable of giving evidence, committing offences, suffering punishment, and on a few occasions purchasing freedom. [Film No. 75-78]

The economic mechanism of the slave trade ran through the island. Captain Thomas Warren's arrival in February 1700 with about eighty slaves from Madagascar produced an immediate domestic transaction: John Foster, a soldier, asked to purchase one of the new arrivals and was sold a slave at twenty pounds five shillings, with time given for payment. The figure was close to the twenty pounds that had bought John Long his freedom in 1694. The same calculus, on a larger scale, shaped the Council's decision in 1703 to value Free Jack at twenty-four pounds when sentencing him to renewed slavery, and to assess the executed slaves Steven and Jack Yampot together at twenty-two pounds. The price of a person, once captured into the system, was both stable and explicit. [Film No. 40, 42, 45, 303-305]

The system was held together by sustained brutality. The standard punishment for slave offences was a public whipping at the flagstaff, the same place where the Council's ordinances were promulgated. Sybo and other Company slaves were whipped at the flagstaff in 1699 alongside the white men found guilty of stealing yams from the Hutt Plantation; Tom and Roger were whipped at the halberds in 1701 for failing to confess to the theft of Grace Coulson's dollars; the slave Doll was whipped on her naked body at the flagstaff and sent back to her master after she had been gang-raped by sixty-nine men in a single night aboard the Jariah, a punishment so striking in its injustice that it deserves to be set out plainly. [Film No. 23, 53, 230-231, 278]

In April 1700 the Council formalised a system for the recapture of runaway slaves. A yearly payment of five pounds was levied on every household with slaves; named men - Edward Edmunds, James Hayward, Henry Coles, Henry Hawley, John Grove and others - were appointed to pursue fugitives; a reward of five shillings was paid for each runaway captured; and a graduated scale of brandings was instituted, with a mark made on the body for the first offence to last one year, a further mark burned on the fifth finger of the right hand for the second, and for women the cutting of the hair as well as a brand. Slaves arriving aboard ships and trying to remain on the island without permission were to be caught and punished in the same way. The system institutionalised the marking of the body as record and warning, and it shows the scale at which escape had become a problem. [Film No. 58]

The use of slave testimony in court is one of the most distinctive features of the records. When Thomas Burnham Junior was investigated for stealing yams from the Hutt Plantation in November 1699, the principal witnesses were the Company slaves Sybo and Sam, who had observed the offence at night, called for assistance, tracked the offender to his house and given evidence at the General Sessions; another slave, named only as the Mountain man, gave corroborating evidence the next morning. The whole case turned on testimony given by enslaved Africans against a free white man, and the jury, after deliberation, acquitted Burnham not because the slaves were disbelieved but because the evidence was held to be insufficiently positive. The same dependence on slave testimony recurs in the prosecution of Sutton Isaac for stealing William Marsh's goat in 1700, and in many later cases involving theft from plantations. [Film No. 23-25, 52-53, 103-104]

Slaves themselves committed offences and were tried for them. The most spectacular case occurred in October 1702, when Steven, a slave of John Coulson; Jack Yampot, a slave of Edward Heath; and Free Jack, a manumitted black man who had belonged to the late gunner Andrew Phillips, were jointly tried for repeatedly breaking open the houses of Mr Lustin, John Midge and Mr Johnson and stealing brandy and other goods. The Council had quietly arranged with the jury that, if all three were convicted, the punishment would be physical rather than capital, with Free Jack reduced again to slavery, the cost falling on the planters who had to compensate the masters of the executed men. The jury, however, after long deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty and chose death. The Council then asked the inhabitants to bear the cost of the executed men, raising twenty-two pounds by a poll of three shillings on every adult and child, white and black, in every household. The execution of Free Jack was suspended pending instructions from London, and in the meantime he was assigned to work for Edward Heath at six pounds a year for four years until his assessed value was paid. [Film No. 301-306]

A further dimension of the system is visible in the case of Robert Finch, indicted in November 1701 for buggery with Lewis, the slave boy of Mary Jewster. Lewis gave a vivid account of being held down at night and assaulted; Finch denied the offence but admitted asking the widow not to make the matter public. The grand jury, however, returned no indictment, and Finch was acquitted for want of evidence. The case is recorded with unusual precision and shows that the law could be brought to bear on sexual violence against an enslaved boy at the same time that, in practice, his testimony was set aside. [Film No. 239]

Slaves could also be drawn into the public works of the island. Slave labour built the Rupert's Valley fortifications, three Company slaves were assigned to assist Captain Hurly in resisting Captain Coulter's boat parties, slaves served as guards at Company plantations, and slaves were specifically excluded from the road-mending obligation imposed on the parish only in name, since they made up the bulk of the workforce in any case. The labour of slaves underwrote nearly every formal activity recorded in the consultations, even when their presence is invisible in the wording. [Film No. 77-78, 214, 287]

A small number of free black people are also visible in the records and reveal the complex outline of the colony's racial order. John Long, who had bought his freedom in 1694 for twenty pounds in a transaction with the late Thomas Moore, came forward in 1700 to have his manumission entered in the Council books before he left the island; his title to a twenty-acre lot at Sandy Bay Ridge was confirmed by a London declaration of his late master's relative Ephrah Moore. Mary Cleaver, "a free black woman", was indicted for bearing an illegitimate child in 1700; Mary Oliver, also free, was sentenced to be whipped at the flagstaff and transported to Bencoolen for four years' service. Henry Cales, a slave, brought a defamation action against Elizabeth Johnson in 1701 over the famine prophecy and won six pence in damages. The patchy and sometimes contradictory treatment of free black islanders shows that legal status mattered, but the colour bar always cut across it. [Film No. 45-46, 89, 106, 178-180]

Social order

The Council took a sustained and detailed interest in the management of public conduct. Drunkenness was prosecuted on a near-weekly basis, with fines typically of five shillings to ten shillings, often payable to the church or to the poor. Swearing carried separate fines, calibrated by oath: when John Humphreys swore at least ten oaths in his attack on Mrs Cobern's house in August 1699 he was fined a pound for swearing under the recent Act of Parliament. The mathematics of moral discipline ran through the entire period, with John Long fined three shillings for swearing in May 1699, William Beloved and Robert Leech each fined five shillings for breach of the peace in 1701, and a long line of similar offenders processed in similar terms. [Film No. 14, 26, 102, 130, 142]

Defamation was treated as a real injury rather than a minor irritant. When Henry Coles and Richard Ray were called "Jack Catch" - the public name of the executioner - by Thomas Harper in January 1700, Harper was committed to prison until the next day, ordered to ask their forgiveness publicly, made to promise not to use such language again, and required to pay the costs of the Council. When William Beloved's wife accused William Marsh of having lied under oath in February 1701, the Council fined the Beloveds five pounds to Marsh and one pound to the Company, and required them to pay the costs. The accusation that someone had given false testimony was treated as a particularly serious wrong because it directly attacked the integrity of the Council's own proceedings. [Film No. 35, 133]

The Council's most ambitious moral intervention came in August 1701, when it issued a long advertisement against drunkenness, swearing, sexual misconduct and gaming. Notice was given that all gatherings in any house were forbidden after the evening signal; every inhabitant was to be back at home immediately after taps; offenders were to be fined, with part of the fine going to the poor; the churchwardens and all officers were ordered to report offenders so that the Council could fine them; and the ministers were directed to advise the people in future sermons. The vocabulary of the document, with its references to God's judgement and the moral state of the island, drew on the language of contemporary English moral reform, but it was applied here to a small island where the disturbances at Mrs Coleson's house, James Grandy's house, and Mrs Bagley's house had become repeat reference points in the records. [Film No. 202-203]

Religion and education

Two churches are mentioned in the churchwardens' instructions of 1702, and one of them was repaired with the proceeds of the head money. The chaplain, John Kerr, served as the Company's Bachelor of Divinity; before him a Mr Humphrey is mentioned. Religious offences were treated alongside civil ones: William Child was pardoned for cursing the Holy Scriptures while drunk only on showing clear repentance, and James Grandy was fined for swearing oaths during the disturbance at his own house. The line between civil and religious authority was blurred at every turn: the churchwardens collected the head money, identified offenders for the Council, and reported on the conduct of households; the chaplain served at the fort table and corresponded with the Bishop of London. [Film No. 14, 28, 106, 137, 277]

Charity flowed through the church. The communion offerings collected by Henry Coles and John Nichols in 1700 were used, with the Council's permission, to buy a cow for Sarah Jennings's family, the cow and her calf to be held in trust by Mr French to prevent resale; Mr Boot the surgeon's fee for treating the burned slave William Silva was charged to the church account; the fines imposed for swearing and certain other offences were directed to the poor. The mechanism was small but consistent, and bound poor relief tightly to religious observance. [Film No. 15, 30]

Education was modest in scale but visible. The schoolmaster's allowance was set in 1700 according to the type of instruction, with separate rates for writing and arithmetic together, writing alone, and reading. When orphans were placed with guardians, the indentures often specified that they should be taught to read and write good English: Henry Francis was paid by Gabriel Powell for the upkeep of the Beale orphans on condition that he taught them the Lord's Prayer and to speak English; Robert Leach was allowed seven pounds a year to maintain his younger brother and to cause all his siblings to be taught to read and write good English; Henry Frances continued the education of the Beal orphans at twelve pounds a year. The aim was practical, but it shows that elementary literacy was an explicit ambition for orphans whose estates could pay for it. [Film No. 60, 87, 334-335]

Apprenticeship was the formal complement of schooling. Francis Leach, aged about fifteen, was bound apprentice to his brother Robert, the shoemaker, for five years in April 1703, on terms that required Robert to provide him with food, drink, washing, lodging and clothing fit for an apprentice and two suits of clothing at the end of the term, with five pounds a year allowed to Robert by the Council in consideration of his being a brother. The arrangement combined kinship, contract and trade in a single instrument and shows how skills were passed between generations within the colony. [Film No. 260]

Crime and punishment

The penalties available to the Council ranged across a recognisable early-modern spectrum. The lightest were fines, often of a few shillings, paid to the Company, the poor or the church; next came admonition, public apology or required reconciliation; then short imprisonment, sometimes with bread and water, sometimes pending sureties; then corporal punishments such as the wooden horse, riding tied neck and heels at the head of the company, and whipping at the cross or the flagstaff; then transportation, either to Bombay, Bencoolen or Fort St George, or as in the case of the Sinning marriage, banishment from the island; and at the extreme the death penalty, applied in the records only to the three slaves convicted of repeated burglary in October 1702. [Film No. 23, 39, 102, 153, 217, 303]

Whipping was a common and visibly public punishment. The "Cross" appears as a place of corporal discipline alongside the flagstaff, both situated at the centre of the settlement so that the offender, the offence and the Council's authority could be displayed together. Ralph Gates, after thefts confessed in 1701, was imprisoned until the last day and then whipped on his naked body at the cross before being dismissed; Mary Oliver was whipped at the flagstaff and transported; Doll, after her ordeal aboard the Jariah, was whipped at the flagstaff and returned to her master. The targets and the rationales of whipping were not symmetrical, and the records show how the same instrument could be used to punish a male thief, a free black woman, a slave woman who had been raped, and several others, with very different moral overtones. [Film No. 106, 153, 278]

The stocks served a related function. Edward [...] was sentenced to four hours in the stocks in irons in February 1700 if he could not pay his fine for drunkenness. The inability to pay was therefore the trigger for the most public form of punishment, which fell more heavily on the poor than on those who could meet a fine in cash. [Film No. 42]

Imprisonment in the marshal's custody at Fort James was used both as punishment and as preventive detention. Cells held men awaiting bail, men awaiting trial, and men awaiting transportation. When Thomas Easton was sentenced for adultery he was confined in the fort for many months waiting for a suitable outward-bound ship; Edward Tomlin, the chief mate of the Thomdon, was held in 1699 until another opportunity should arise to send him to England; sentenced slaves were held under guard until execution. The dependence of penal regimes on shipping schedules is one of the constant features of the records and shows how an island colony at the end of a long sea-route had to improvise around the timing of vessels. [Film No. 9, 20, 217]

The most striking single criminal episode of the period was the disturbance at James Grandy's house in Fort James Valley in early February 1701, when several men came at night, broke open the doors and windows with stones, and continued throwing stones into the house even after Thomas Box had been struck and fatally injured. The investigation, the indictment, the empanelling of a grand jury and the trial of Stephen Child the quarter-gunner and Onesiphorus Steward took up many consultations and a Court of Judicature in July, with extensive sworn testimony from the Grandy and Higham households, neighbours such as Doctor Mathews and George Hoskison, and others. The grand jury found a true bill of burglary, felony and murder, but the trial jury, after lengthy deliberation and consultation with the judge, returned not guilty on all charges, on the ground that they could not be sure where the prisoners had been at the time of the offence. The case shows how the formal apparatus of an English court could be transplanted in full but produce, in the conditions of a small society where everyone knew everyone, indeterminate verdicts. [Film No. 136-137, 167-185]

Personalities

The most prominent recurring offender of the early period was John Humphreys. Beginning in August 1699, when he threatened Matthew Barrett with violence and was bound to good behaviour, he reappears at intervals over the next year as a defendant in case after case. He came drunk to Mr Cobern's house and abused her in front of witnesses; he came drunk to Mrs Coulson's house and called the lady of the house and her daughters whores in the hearing of Eleanor Beale; he was confined to the marshal's custody, then bound, then re-confined when he persisted; he wrote letters and spoke contemptuously of the Governor; and he eventually settled an accumulating chain of complaints with Mrs Coulson before the Court of Judicature in July 1700, where he agreed not to enter her house except for lawful reason. The pattern is of a man whose appetites had become a public-order problem, and whose treatment by the Council shows the limits of what fines and admonitions could achieve. [Film No. 12-14, 28-29, 32-33, 80-83, 88]

Mary Bagley and Matthew Freese embodied a related type. Mary Bagley's house in Fort Valley was repeatedly identified as a centre of disorder; she was warned in October 1700 not to entertain Matthew Freese the soldier, who had been a principal cause of disputes among her children; she defied the order and received him again; and in November 1700 she was ordered to leave the island on the Advice to Fort St George, while Freese was sent on the same ship to serve the Company as a soldier at Fort St George for the remainder of his term. The double removal cleared the colony of two of its most disruptive figures and points to the strategic use of the Company's wider network as a way of managing local problem inhabitants. [Film No. 102, 115]

George Carne was a more elevated kind of trouble. A man of substance, with a credit limit of one hundred and fifty pounds at the store and a place in the social hierarchy, he drew his sword on Thomas Goodwin in early 1700, swore that he had a right to wear it, accepted with reluctance a forfeiture in one hundred pounds against his good behaviour, was given leave to wear his sword again on Goodwin's consent and only then on his explicit promise to leave the island. He produced contemptuous papers about the Governor as late as November 1700 and was fined five shillings for the poor. He acted as guardian to the Beale orphans, became their father by his marriage to one of the Beale women, controlled accounts on their behalf, and eventually departed. His case shows that even the most disruptive figures of the upper layer of the colony were managed through fines, recognisances and arrangements with departing ships rather than through outright punishment. [Film No. 81-86, 111, 113]

William French, the gunner's mate, was the type of the extravagant man undone by his appetites. He owed eighteen pounds to the Company in 1700 and could not give security; the marshal seized his goods; sureties Robert Addis and Thomas Dixon agreed to hold the estate for two months while he tried to dispose of it; he was eventually dismissed from the Company's service in March 1700 for repeated negligence and drunkenness; and by 1702 his estate, valued at fifty-five pounds twelve shillings and including ten acres of land, a slave, four cows, a heifer, a bullock, three calves, goats and hogs, was held under a sixty-pound bond. The Council described him as "a very extravagant fellow"; the records bear out the description in considerable detail. [Film No. 37-39, 48, 290, 295-296]

Sutton Isaack senior and his son Sutton Isaack Junior occupied the criminal centre of the records of mid-1700. The son was caught having stolen rum, money and other goods from the house of his father Isaac Dufton, having entered through a back-door gap with the help of a stick, distributed the proceeds among Jack Yampot the slave of James Grandy and the Chagrave brothers, and consumed the rum at a series of houses across the valley. He was sentenced to be dismissed from the Company's service, kept in prison until the next mounting of the guard, and severely whipped on his naked body, with all the slaves involved likewise whipped at the flagstaff. Two months later the elder Sutton Isaack was found to be in possession of butchered goat meat hidden under his bed; the case ended in informal settlement at six pounds and two goats, which Edward Braine's sworn testimony declined to corroborate. The two cases together show how violence, theft, and informal compensation interlocked across racial and family lines. [Film No. 69-72, 103-105, 107]

Thomas Easton occupies a different category. A soldier convicted of adultery with Sarah Sinning, whose husband had been banished from the island years earlier, he was confined in the fort in September 1701 to await transportation to Bombay. Given three options at a later consultation, he chose to go to England rather than to Bombay or to wait out a seven-year period of confinement and banishment. While he was waiting, he broke open George Dweigh's chest and stole hooks, lines, brandy and tobacco; he confessed, was dismissed from the Company's service, made to run the gantlet, and ordered to work to compensate Dweigh and his other creditors before being shipped out at the first opportunity. The accumulating ironies of his story - confined for adultery, then convicted of theft while confined - are characteristic of the records' attentiveness to individual lives across time. [Film No. 206, 217-218, 226, 242]

Captain Bowes, by contrast, blew through the records in a single dramatic episode in early July 1702. Coming up the valley with a group of fellow gentlemen from the road, he refused to halt at the sentry's challenge, drew his sword, threatened to run Sergeant Maxwell through, was disarmed, struck Maxwell on the head with a cane, gave the Governor "very abusive and insolent language" and reportedly seized him by the arm in a manner that several witnesses thought presaged a stab. Bowes returned to his ship before he could be tried, and the matter was sent to the squadron commodore. The record reads like a small operatic interlude amid more daily concerns and shows how thin the membrane between civilian government and naval male violence could become. [Film No. 273-275]

Peregrine Parlebion and Joyce Ashley, the wife of Thomas Ashley, embody a different kind of long-running case. Suspected from late 1702 onwards of a sexual relationship of their own contriving, they were forbidden by the Council to enter each other's company on pain of forfeiting ten pounds. They were tried by jury in early 1703 and acquitted, but the no-contact order was kept in force on the Council's pleasure. Within weeks both were observed in Ashley's house together; the Council fined Parlebion forty-five shillings to the Company and five shillings to the church, and Mrs Ashley fifty shillings to the informers, and reaffirmed the original forfeiture. The Council's persistence, against a jury's acquittal, captures the tension between formal legality and informal moral surveillance in a small community. [Film No. 207, 307-308, 311, 322-323]

Two further individuals deserve mention. Edward Edmunds, third in council, served as administrator of John Foulis's estate, executor of Samuel Wrangham's will, and the Council's collector of customs from May 1703; his death in February 1703 occasioned the appointment of John Field as his successor and brought to a close his quiet but constant role across the period. John Kerr, the chaplain, was at the centre of the dispute over the prosecution of his own conduct; his protestations against the Governor's proceedings, his alleged design to ruin the French refugees, his accusations against John Oswald the surgeon over remarks at the fort table about King William, the Church of England and Queen Anne, and his shifting attempts to defend himself, all dominate the records of the closing months. The two men frame the period: a quiet councillor whose loss was a serious blow, and a noisy chaplain whose presence was a continual irritant. [Film No. 267-269, 319-329]

Reading the records

The "Interpretations" and "Speculations" sections appended to many entries are the work of a modern reader trying to draw out the implications of often laconic minutes. They tend to read the document as evidence of a system of administrative control - paternalist, hierarchical, attentive to property, anxious about reputation - and to use phrases like "preserved social order" or "maintained discipline" as the reflexive frame for almost any decision. Read against the rest of the record, those framings are mostly correct, but they have a habit of smoothing the edges. The Council was indeed a structured authority that recorded, valued and disciplined; it was also a body of three or four men, some of them at one another's throats, who had to manage a community of named neighbours over which they had less command than the language of the books suggests. [Film No. 7-336]

The records are correspondingly partial. They are written by the clerk in the voice of the Governor and Council, and they routinely treat the inhabitants as the objects of action rather than as actors in their own right. When Mary Bagley defies the order forbidding her to entertain Matthew Freese, when most of the planters quietly stop sending their slaves to Rupert's Valley, when the inhabitants distil arrack despite the Company's instructions and the Council's escalating fines, what is recorded is the Council's reaction; the actions themselves, and the calculations behind them, have to be reconstructed by inference. The same is more starkly true of the slaves, whose voices are heard in the records only when they are summoned as witnesses in matters that already concern free people. The recovered yams and the recovered dollars dominate where the daily lives of Sybo, Sam, Moll, Toby, Tom, Roger, Doll, Lewis, Peter and Free Jack would, with different sources, have shown a parallel world. [Film No. 23-25, 53, 102, 115, 124, 278, 299, 303]

The records are also patchy in coverage. There is a fourteen-page gap between the trial of Samuel Coales in February 1703 and the next legible entry; numerous individual passages are damaged at key moments; and several decisions are clearly continuations of earlier proceedings whose openings have been lost. Names sometimes shift their spelling between entries - Coulson and Coleson and Colson, Hemmons and Hemmon, Greentree and Grandy - and the same person can be missed if one is not alert. The picture they yield is therefore representative rather than complete: a sustained sample of the kinds of business that came before a small colonial council, framed by the limits of the surviving manuscript. [Film No. 256, 318]

For all their limits, the records carry the weight of a particular world. They show how a slave economy on a strategic island could be made to function in the language of English law, with juries empanelled by name, oaths taken on the Bible, recognisances entered in pounds and current money of the island, and the Bishop of London cited as a distant moral arbiter. They show how war between England and France pressed in on the island in waves - through pardoned pirates from Madagascar, through plundered ships from the South Atlantic, through French squadrons manoeuvring around the road, through a chaplain accusing the Governor of treasonable speech in connection with the death of King William, and through the careful protocol of admitting New Company letters during open hostilities. And they show how the structures of family, household and parish that Englishmen carried with them across the Atlantic could be redeployed in a setting where the population was small enough that almost every offence was personal. The shape of the record, with its small fines and its large reputational quarrels, its private deeds and its public proclamations, is the shape of a colony being made out of the materials it had to hand. [Film No. 7-336]

BL Image No.

Document No.

OCR Transcription

Modern Interpretation

1

EAP 1364 St Helena

Document Name and Date
ST HELENA RECORDS 1699-1701
Photographer
PETER
Date photographed
21 OCT 2021

Additional comments

2

Book cover

3

1

Distilling of arrack from Potatoe Vines
Mr Vroomfontein (Hainister) breach of peace
against Prot. 6½
taken for a liar 26
contradiction, speeches,
Births of lumber
salmon
Moore’s curious letter dated London March 4th 1796 47
Punishment of runaway Blacks 17
Pay allowed to Schoolmaster 64
Church rates two years, due amount &
to collect it 74
Kishworgo - warrant to Overseers to explain 77
Mr Carne forbidden to wear a sword 83
begs leave, to be allowed to wear it while in a petticoat 84
Verbal will allowed 93
Code prohibitory of famine 147
Churchwarden to take charge of Utensils and
furniture of old Church 153
Governor’s complaint against his council 164
Capt. Bright’s conduct of Council wears his sword
against the Governor 158
Capt. Warren’s account of his being taken by a Pirate 158
Junior Member of Council protests against a
Member of Council 165
to discuss with the Governor about forgoing a
dollar a month to be borrowed at 8 per cent 186
Boats laid at Fort, rent in Commutation, likewise
House in Chapel Valley, washed away by a flood
rent to be forgiven for building the house in the Valley 196
Governor’s advertisement about the late house to,
entirely washed away by a high to lower by a flood 206
Resolutions, & fresh water for securing the duties 214
Rev John Braddick marries a couple illegally is fined 215

4

2

Blank page

5

3

Company’s upper garden & house lot - all deav’d,
the made good by levies except from Flor’d 229
War expected - Iron Crows for rolling down Rocks
New Sessions House to be built - dimensions &c. 230
Luffkin fined for his negro carrying a burden on Sunday 231
Two causes wanting 242
Members of Council at their request allowed a dinner
at Plantation when they go to Church 257
Curious debate on a letter of the Company 256
Curious observation about Hogs - dry weather said to
extend past ¾ of the year 276
Instructions to the Church Wardens 1701 295
Price of land, Cows &c. in 1701 304

6

4

Blank page

7

5

Iſland St Helena

A[...][...] Conſultation Held in [...]
Tueſday the [...] Day of Auguſt 1699 [...]

[...]

Preſ[...]; Joſeph Co[...]
Capt [...] Bingh[...]
Thomas Goo[...]

Whereas the moſt part of the inhabitants
of the ſaid Iſland, were willing to ſubmit themſelves to
the Honoble Comp[...][...] Sent to the ſaid Iſland by
the Ship Arme[...][...] Merchant Cap[...] John Darrell Comandr
[...] and deſi[...] that ſome conſideration might be had of
the Diſtilling abo[...][...] about the Deftru[...] from Coconut and
little wood which doth now remaine growing on the ſaid
Iſland from ſtoves, might be permitted as long as poſſible the rather, as
the Governor and Councell had taken it into their power
a Petition, which they accordingly did, ſetting forth
their grievances by themſelves, that juſt before the arrival of the
ſaid Orders, being a very ſeaſonable time to plant, the
conſiderable quantity of Land ſince In[...]tion
to Diſtill, would prove great Damage and loſs
humbly deſire that theſe proceedings be ſuſpended
according to the former liberty they had formerly uſed
the Premifes aforeſaid, that having therefore
arrived, did further conſidering the ſtate
haſh petitioned in complying with the ſaid
them have requeſt, that they to Diſtill be
granted, and for more, But on the other ſide
ſome, who hath now ſigned theſe
who ſame preten[...] above

Margin Notes:
Consider touching the Distilling of
Arrack from Potatoes

A consultation was held on St Helena on Tuesday [...] August 1699. Those present included Joseph Co[...], Captain [...] Bingham, Thomas Goo[...], and others whose names were partly unreadable.

Most of the island’s inhabitants had agreed to submit to the authority of the Honourable Company, whose orders had been sent to the island aboard the ship Arme[...] Merchant, commanded by Captain John Darrell. A request was made that consideration should be given to the practice of distilling, especially in light of the damage caused by cutting down coconut trees and the limited supply of wood still growing on the island. It was argued that the use of stoves for distillation should be allowed to continue for as long as possible.

The Governor and Council took this matter into their own hands after receiving a petition from the inhabitants. The petition set out their grievances. It stated that the restrictions had been imposed just before a favourable planting season. A significant area of land had already been affected by the interruption of distilling, which threatened serious loss and damage. The inhabitants therefore asked that these restrictions should be suspended and that they should continue under the same freedoms they had previously used.

After the arrival of the Company’s orders, the situation described in the petition was considered further. The inhabitants had requested permission to continue distilling and asked for additional allowances. At the same time, some other inhabitants, who had also signed documents, raised opposing arguments, though their reasoning was only partly recorded.

Consideration was also given to the distillation of arrack made from potatoes.

Interpretations

The “Honourable Company” referred to the governing authority over St Helena. Submission to it meant formal acceptance of its legal and administrative control, including compliance with economic regulations such as restrictions on production.

Distilling involved the production of arrack, a form of alcohol. This activity consumed large amounts of fuel, which in this case came from coconut trees and other limited wood supplies. The restriction therefore functioned as an environmental and resource control measure, aimed at preserving timber needed for construction, fuel, or strategic use.

The petition showed that inhabitants could collectively present grievances to the Governor and Council. This process indicated a structured form of local consultation, but ultimate authority remained with the Company, whose orders triggered the dispute.

The timing of the restriction, just before the planting season, revealed the link between agricultural cycles and economic regulation. Interference at this point disrupted labour planning and land use, which directly affected production and survival.

The reference to opposing signatories showed that the island community was divided. Different groups probably held conflicting interests, perhaps between those dependent on distilling for income and those concerned with resource depletion or compliance with Company rules.

Speculations

The request to continue distilling “as long as possible” suggested an attempt to delay enforcement rather than reject authority outright. This probably aimed to preserve income streams while adapting gradually to new restrictions.

The emphasis on damage caused by lost planting time indicated that the inhabitants framed their argument in practical economic terms. This approach was probably intended to persuade the Council that strict enforcement would harm the island’s productivity and stability.

The mention of alternative distillation from potatoes suggested a search for substitutes that required less wood or different resources. This may have been proposed as a compromise to maintain production while reducing pressure on coconut trees and timber supplies.

8

6

Whereas Capᵗ Thomas Bright Deputy Govʳ
and Thomas Goodwin Engin[e], Deſired that they might
have ſome allowance of Liquors and Sugar monthly for
their owne Expence, being no more then others in like
Circumſtances hath bin allowed before, upon which

Arrack & Sugar
allowed to the Councill
monthly

to ſubmit themſelves to the Honoble Company as Pleaſure,
by the perſons formerly in theſe Circumſtances

That the ſaid Capᵗ Bright have his
allowance monthly the particulars hereafter mentioned from
the 2ᵈ Day of May laſt paſt, being the time when
he arrived att this Iſland Vizᵗ

To 2½ Galᵒⁿˢ of Brandy at 14 pʳ Gallᵒⁿ – 1:15:0
To 8 of Sugar att 2½ pʳ lb – 0:08:0

And alſo the ſaid Goodwin have
for his allowance monthly the particulars
hereafter mentioned Vizᵗ

To 2 Gallᵒⁿˢ Brandy at 14 pʳ Gallᵒⁿ – 1:08:0
To 7 Sugar att 12 pʳ lb – 0:07:0

Sᵐ 3:18:0

Tho: Bright
Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Arrack & Sugar
allowed to the Councill
monthly

Captain Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer, requested a monthly allowance of liquor and sugar for their own use. They stated that this matched what had been granted in the past to others in similar positions.

The Governor and Council considered the request and accepted that it followed earlier practice. It was agreed that both men would submit to the authority of the Honourable Company on the same terms as their predecessors, and that they would receive regular allowances.

Captain Thomas Bright was granted a monthly allowance from 2 May 1692, the date of his arrival on the island. This allowance included 2½ gallons of brandy at 14 per gallon, valued at £1 15s 0d, and 8 pounds of sugar at 2½ per pound, valued at £0 8s 0d.

Thomas Goodwin was granted a monthly allowance of 2 gallons of brandy at 14 per gallon, valued at £1 8s 0d, and 7 pounds of sugar at 12 per pound, valued at £0 7s 0d.

The total monthly cost of these allowances amounted to £3 18s 0d.

Interpretations

The monthly allowance of brandy and sugar functioned as part of official remuneration. Such provisions supplemented or replaced cash salary, which reflected the limited monetary economy on the island and the importance of controlled distribution of imported goods.

The approval “according to former practice” showed that administrative decisions followed precedent. This indicated a stable but informal system of entitlement, where officeholders expected benefits tied to rank rather than fixed contracts.

The dating of Bright’s allowance from 2 May 1692 showed that entitlements began from the moment of arrival and assumption of office. This linked compensation directly to service and presence on the island.

The distinction in quantities between Bright and Goodwin reflected their relative status. As Deputy Governor, Bright received a larger allocation, which reinforced hierarchy within the governing structure.

The valuation of goods in sterling terms demonstrated that even where payment was made in kind, accounts were kept in a standard monetary system. This allowed the Company to track costs and maintain financial oversight despite the use of physical goods instead of coin.

9

7

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Tueſday yᵉ
18 day of June 1699 Att Fort James

Preſ:
Ste [...] Poirier Governʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineʳ

John Hemmons Peticon made Complaint
to yᵉ Govrnᵒ and Councill that George Hodgkiſon was obliged
to give his daughter Elizaᵇᵗʰ for her Service one Heifer in Calfe
as by the Conſultation held the 18 day of June laſt doth
more appeare, which the ſaid Hodgkiſon hath denyed ſeverall
times to performe, which ſaid Elizaᵇᵗʰ is now Since yᵉ [...]
the ſaid Hemmons daughter above a year Since yᵉ [...]
this Inſtant, upon mature Conſideration it was ord
ered.

That the ſaid Hodgkiſon doe forthwith Delivʳ
unto the sᵈ Elizᵃᵇ Hemmons one Heifer In Calfe; of abᵗ two or
three weeks old and pay yᵉ Charges of Councill.

The ſaid Hodgkiſon Saith he hath not all
that has a young Calfe now but promiſed to breed him
one In two months time, which Calfe then is to be age
of two months old.

Whereas at a Court of Judicature held
day of [...] Martha Cloveſ
woman was for her miſdemeanor ordered
this Iſland, and tranſported by yᵉ firſt out [...]
that ſhould arrive here, to Bencoolen
bound to thoſe parts, we could not
Merchant who arrived yᵉ [...]
ella is performe yᵉ ſaid

Margin Notes:
John Hemmons Complaint
agᵗ George Hodgkiſon for
not paying his daughter
Elizᵃᵇᵗʰ one Heifer
wth Calfe ac=
cording to his Contract,

That G: Hodgkiſon pay
forthwith the Heifer or the
calfe according to his
promiſe---

Martha Cloveſ to
be Transported to
Bencoolen,

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 18 June 1699. Those present included Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, Thomas Goodwin, engineer, and John Hemmons.

John Hemmons submitted a complaint to the Governor and Council. He stated that George Hodgkison had been bound by agreement to give his daughter Elizabeth Hemmons one heifer in calf in return for her service. This obligation had been recorded in a consultation held on 18 June 1692. Hodgkison had repeatedly refused to fulfil the agreement. Elizabeth Hemmons had by this time served for more than one year.

After full consideration, it was ordered that George Hodgkison must immediately deliver to Elizabeth Hemmons one heifer in calf, with a calf of about two or three weeks old, and must also pay the costs of the Council.

Hodgkison stated that he did not currently have such a heifer with a young calf. He promised instead to breed one within two months, at which point the calf would be about two months old.

At the same time, reference was made to a court of judicature held on [...] concerning Martha Cloves. She had been convicted of misconduct and had been ordered to be removed from the island and transported on the first available ship bound for Bencoolen. However, when a merchant ship arrived at the island, the order could not be carried out as intended.

Interpretations

The agreement to provide a heifer in calf in exchange for Elizabeth Hemmons’s service showed that labour contracts on the island could be settled through payment in livestock rather than money. This reflected a mixed economy in which productive assets, such as cattle, functioned as both wages and capital.

The enforcement of the agreement by the Governor and Council demonstrated that local authorities acted as a court for civil disputes. Their role extended beyond governance into adjudication and enforcement of private contracts, including ordering immediate compliance and imposing costs.

The requirement that Hodgkison pay the Council’s charges indicated that the losing party in a dispute bore the administrative costs of the proceedings. This reinforced compliance and discouraged refusal to honour agreements.

The detailed specification of the heifer and calf showed that obligations were defined in practical terms. The age and condition of livestock mattered because they determined its immediate and future economic value.

The case of Martha Cloves showed that the island authorities used transportation as a punishment. Removal to Bencoolen served both as penal exile and as a means of labour redistribution within the Company’s wider territories.

The inability to carry out the transportation order when a ship arrived revealed the dependence of legal enforcement on shipping schedules. Judicial decisions could be delayed or frustrated by the limits of available transport.

Speculations

The insistence on immediate delivery of the heifer, despite Hodgkison’s claim that he lacked one, suggested that the Council aimed to enforce authority firmly and prevent further delay. This may have been intended to deter others from ignoring contractual obligations.

Hodgkison’s offer to provide a calf after two months indicated an attempt to negotiate compliance on more manageable terms. This showed a practical adjustment to resource constraints rather than outright refusal.

The failure to transport Martha Cloves when a ship arrived suggested that the vessel’s route or cargo did not align with the order. This indicated that punishment by transportation depended on opportunistic use of shipping rather than a dedicated system, which could weaken its immediate effect.

10

8

an opportunity Wee have ordered her to repaire on board
the said ship haveing agreed with Capᵗ John Darrell Com[...]
mandʳ of the said Ship, for her said transportation to [...]
so she is gone with a Bastard Child yᵉ product of her whoredom

Mʳ George Corne desired of us that he haveing
some writings Concerning the house which his wife bought
of her Brother Jonas Beale might be Entred in the Councill
books, which was granted him, and are as followeth

June yᵉ 13. 1698.

Know all men by these presents that I Jonathan
Beale of Sᵗ Helena Merchant have Remised Releas’d & quit
Claimed and by these presents do for me my heirs Executoʳˢ
admʳˢ assigⁿˢ and assigⁿˢ Remise Release, and for ever quit
Claime, Unto George Corne, and Mercy Corne his wife
Executoʳˢ admʳˢ and assigns, all and all manner of actions,
suite Claime and Cryes of actions & suits, bills bonds writings
and accompts what Sue[...], Reckonings, Sume or Sumes of money
Contrav[er]sies Judgements, Executions & Demands whatsoever
which Jonas Beale Junʳ had or in my Executʳ admʳ upon
or may Claime to have from or may have to or against
the said George and Mercy Corne their heirs Executʳˢ admʳˢ
or assigns for or by Reason of any matter Cause or thing
whatsoever from the beginning of yᵉ world unto yᵉ day
of the date hereof In witness my hand this thirteenth
day of June one thousand six hundred and ninety eight

Jonathan Beale

To all Christian people To whome this present
writing Indented come shee Jonathan Beale of the Island of
Sᵗ Helena Baker Greeting in our Lord God Everlasting
Know yee me the aforesaid Jonathan Beale for and In
consideration of the Sume of One hundred pounds Current
and lawfull money of this Island of Sᵗ Helena, to me the
aforesᵈ Jonas Beale, by Mercy [...]inge wife to the late [...]
[...]inge, well and truly to be paid at or before the sealing &
Delivery hereof that is to say fifty pounds in money, and
[...] pounds in Store Credit whereof I acknowledge my[...]
[...] fully satisfied and Contented And tho P[...]
[...] heirs Execuʳˢ and Administratʳˢ to be [...]
[...] Exonerated by these presents have giv[...]
[...]eased and by these my present writing
Confirm[ed]

Margin Notes:
Sᵗ Helena

Jonathan Beale
Discharge of all
Debts &c. to
Geo: & Mercy Corne

Beales
to Mercy

An opportunity arose to carry out the earlier order for transportation. Martha Cloves was directed to go on board the ship commanded by Captain John Darrell, and arrangements were agreed with him for her passage. She was sent away accordingly, together with a child born out of wedlock.

George Corne requested that certain documents relating to a house purchased by his wife Mercy Corne from her brother Jonas Beale should be entered into the Council’s records. This request was granted, and the documents were recorded as follows.

On 13 June 1698, Jonathan Beale of St Helena, described as a merchant, formally released and gave up all claims against George Corne and Mercy Corne, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns. This release covered all forms of legal action, debts, accounts, disputes, judgments, and demands of any kind that Jonas Beale Junior had held, or that Jonathan Beale as executor or administrator could claim, from the beginning of time up to that date.

In a further document, Jonathan Beale, described as a baker of St Helena, declared that in return for £100 0s 0d in current lawful money of the island, paid by Mercy Corne, he transferred and confirmed his interest. The payment consisted of £50 0s 0d in cash and £50 0s 0d in store credit. Receipt of the full sum was acknowledged, and all claims relating to the property were released.

Interpretations

The transportation of Martha Cloves showed that penal removal depended on securing passage with a ship’s captain. The agreement with Captain John Darrell indicated that enforcement required negotiation rather than direct state control of transport.

The recording of private legal documents in the Council books demonstrated that the Council functioned as a registry for property and contractual rights. Entry into these records gave transactions formal recognition and stronger legal standing.

The release issued by Jonathan Beale operated as a comprehensive legal discharge. By extinguishing all past and potential claims, it ensured that George and Mercy Corne held the property free from challenge, which stabilised ownership and reduced the risk of future disputes.

The payment structure, split between cash and store credit, reflected the island’s mixed economy. Store credit represented goods or value held within Company-controlled supply systems, which substituted for scarce coin.

The identification of Jonathan Beale in different roles, as merchant and baker, suggested that individuals could operate across multiple economic functions. This indicated a flexible but small-scale economy where occupational boundaries were not rigid.

Speculations

The decision to send Martha Cloves on the first available ship, together with her child, suggested an intention to remove both the offender and the social consequences of her offence from the island. This may have been aimed at maintaining social order and limiting future dependency on local resources.

The formal discharge of all claims “from the beginning of the world” indicated an effort to eliminate any possible legal ambiguity. This broad wording was probably used to prevent later disputes over the property, especially where family transactions might otherwise invite challenge.

The inclusion of store credit as half the payment suggested that ready money was scarce. This arrangement may have allowed the transaction to proceed without delay, while still satisfying the seller through access to goods or Company supplies.

11

9

Conteined to the aforeſaid Mercy L[...][...] her heires &c One houſe
Standing ſix and Twenty foot long and Three above, and a s[...]
roome lying and being In Chappell Valley, it being the Houſe
that was formerly Capᵗ Beales, with the Garden Yard and all
appurtenances thereunto belonging, now it the poſſeſsion of
Eleanor Beale: To have and to hold, the aforeſaid houſe
yard and Gardens, and all things thereunto belonging or in any-
way appertaining to the aforeſaid Mercy L[...]inge her heires
and assignes for ever againſt me or my heires and assignes
or any other Claming Claiming or returning and for ever Defending
by theſe Preſents In Witneſs whereof I sett my hand this
this Twelveth Day of January, one thouſand ſix hundred Ninety
Eight

In yᵉ Pr[e]ſence of us

Baker
Jnᵒ Tucknott

Tho: Bright
Tho: Goodwin

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Thurſday
the 8ᵗʰ Day of Auguſt 1699 Att Fort James

Preſᵗ;
Step: Poirier Governour
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Enginʳ

Mary Bowman wid: by
to Governʳ & Councill her Deceˢd Huſband John [...]
will and Teſtamᵗ In order of haveing the Same appro[...]
which was accordingly done by yᵉ oaths of John [...]
Brayne and Mattˢ Barckʸ who made oath the
Produced was the ſaid Deceˢd John Bowman [...]
and that they knew of no other [...]
word or writeing

Margin Notes:
[...] the ſervice the mother of [...][...]
[...] the ſaid Rec[...][...] the three [...]
[...]the Execu[...] by them to pay [...]
for being [...] to his Sume him of [...]

John Bowmans
laſt Will and Teſta:
approved.

Memᵒ That Mʳ Broales the Mother of Jonath: Beales
and Mary Roling herin men[ti]oned shall have
the contents of this being one house & and Garden
as above during her Naturall terme of Life

George Corne

The property conveyed to Mercy [...]inge and her heirs included one house measuring twenty-six feet in length and three [...] above, together with a [...] room. The property stood in Chappell Valley and had formerly belonged to Captain Beale. It included the garden, yard, and all associated rights and appurtenances, and was then in the possession of Eleanor Beale.

Full ownership of the house, yard, and gardens, with all associated rights, was transferred to Mercy [...]inge, her heirs, and assigns forever. The grantor bound himself and his heirs to guarantee and defend this title against any future claims. This deed was signed on 12 January 1699 in the presence of John Tucknott, Thomas Bright, and Thomas Goodwin.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday 8 August 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Mary Bowman, widow of the deceased John Bowman, presented his last will and testament to the Governor and Council for approval. The will was examined and accepted after John [...] Brayne and Matthew Barckly swore under oath that the document produced was the true will of the deceased John Bowman, and that they knew of no other will or written testament made by him.

It was also recorded that Mr Broales, the mother of Jonathan Beale, together with Mary Roling mentioned in the document, was to have possession of the house and garden described above for the duration of her natural life.

Interpretations

The detailed description of the house, including its size and location in Chappell Valley, showed that property transfers relied on physical identification as well as written title. This reduced ambiguity in a setting where formal surveying may have been limited.

The clause binding the grantor and his heirs to defend the title ensured legal security for the buyer. This created a continuing obligation that extended beyond the original transaction and protected the purchaser against future disputes.

The presence of named witnesses, including Thomas Bright and Thomas Goodwin, indicated that senior officials acted to validate private transactions. Their involvement strengthened the legal standing of the deed.

The approval of John Bowman’s will by the Governor and Council demonstrated that probate functions were handled locally. The requirement for sworn testimony confirmed the authenticity of the document and prevented competing claims.

The grant of lifetime use of the property to Mr Broales showed the use of life interests within property arrangements. This allowed one party to occupy and benefit from the property during their lifetime while preserving long-term ownership for another, reflecting layered rights over the same asset.

Speculations

The retention of possession by Eleanor Beale at the time of transfer suggested that occupation and ownership did not immediately coincide. This may have allowed time for existing occupants to adjust or for prior arrangements to be honoured.

The provision granting lifetime use to Mr Broales indicated a deliberate attempt to balance family interests. This arrangement probably ensured support for an older family member while securing eventual control of the property for the purchaser or heirs.

The formal approval of the will in Council suggested concern over potential disputes. The need for sworn witnesses implied that uncertainty or competing interests may have existed, and the process aimed to prevent later challenges.

12

10

It is ordered

That the said John Bowman’s last will and Testament be [...]
and approved, by the oaths aforesaid, and a Copy Given when
Demanded. Also

That the said Mary Bowman do give a true and
Intire Inventory of her Dece[...d] husbands Estate, he haveing
desired in his sᵈ will that his little els should be Equally divided
between his wife and two Children when they Come to age, or
att the day of marriage.

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Monday yᵉ 1[...]
of augᵗ 1699 Att Fort James

Presᵗ
Step: Poirier Governʳ
Thomas Bright depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineeʳ

Whereas Mathew Barrett made Complaint
to us against one John Humphreys concerning some
Blood he had drawne out the said Mʳ John Humphreys mouth
he would have his Blood before he had done, wherefore desired
that he might Sweare the Peace against yᵉ said Humphreys
it was granted and accordingly did, whereupon

It was ordered

That the said Mʳ John Humphreys be Immediately Committed
into the marshalls Custody untill he found good Security
and Security for his good behaviour untill the next Generall Court
unless Produced two persons who Entred Into Recognizance
said Humphreys good behaviour as aforesaid

Tho: Bright
Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Mary Bowman Wife
of John Bowman Deceasᵈ
brings a true Inventory
of her Deceaˢᵈ husbands
Estate —

Mᵗ Barrett Complaint
against J Humphreys for
saying he would have
his blood before he had
done.

Richd [...]
Security
[...]

It was ordered that the last will and testament of John Bowman should be accepted and approved on the sworn evidence already given, and that a copy should be provided when requested. Mary Bowman was required to submit a full and accurate inventory of her late husband’s estate. In his will, John Bowman had directed that his remaining property should be divided equally between his wife and their two children when the children reached adulthood or married.

A consultation was then held at Fort James on Monday [...] August 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Matthew Barrett submitted a complaint against John Humphreys. He stated that Humphreys had threatened him and declared that he would have his blood before he had finished. Barrett requested permission to swear the peace against Humphreys. This request was granted, and he formally entered the complaint.

It was then ordered that John Humphreys should be taken immediately into the custody of the marshal and held there until he provided sufficient security for his good behaviour until the next General Court. Alternatively, he could be released if two persons came forward and entered into recognisance to guarantee his conduct as required.

Interpretations

The approval of John Bowman’s will by sworn testimony confirmed the Council’s role in probate. This process validated the will as legally binding and ensured that its instructions could be enforced.

The requirement for Mary Bowman to produce a full inventory of the estate enabled the authorities to supervise distribution. This ensured that the assets were identified and preserved until division between the widow and children could take place.

The instruction that the estate should be divided when the children reached adulthood or married showed that inheritance was structured around life stages. This delayed full transfer of property until dependants were considered capable of managing it.

The act of “swearing the peace” functioned as a preventive legal measure. It allowed a person under threat to seek protection before violence occurred, bringing the matter under formal authority.

The requirement for Humphreys to provide security for good behaviour, either personally or through others entering recognisance, showed how the system enforced order. Financial or reputational guarantees from third parties created pressure on the accused to comply with expected conduct.

The marshal’s custody represented the enforcement arm of the Council. Detention was used not as punishment alone but as a means to compel compliance with legal conditions.

Speculations

The immediate detention of Humphreys suggested that the threat was taken seriously and considered credible. This response may have aimed to prevent escalation into physical violence.

The option to secure release through recognisance indicated reliance on community enforcement. This arrangement probably encouraged others to monitor Humphreys, as they risked financial or reputational loss if he failed to behave.

The requirement for an inventory before division of the estate suggested concern over possible concealment or mismanagement of assets. This step probably aimed to protect the interests of the children until they could claim their shares.

13

11

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Tues
day yᵉ 15ᵗʰ Day of Auguſt 1699 Att Fort James

Preſ:
Steph: Poirier Governour
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineer & Counˡ

Whereas yeſterday Mʳ John Humphreys main[...]
was bound to be of the good behaviour, and accordingly two
Perſons Entred Into a Recognizance for yᵉ Same as by the
foregoing Consultation makes appeare, But Contrary to his
being of the good behaviour, did this morning m[...] Heareing
of ſome words concerning the ſaid Mattᵗ Barrett againſt ſaying
he would overtake and overhaule him to meet with him,
and would threaten him like a dog, which the ſaid Barrett
with ſome word of acquainted the Governʳ therewith,
whereupon the ſaid Humphreys was ſent for and Ex
amined, who Denyed what is alleadged againſt him,

Phill: Howard Servᵗ being Sworn ſaith that
he being at Mʳ Hammonds houſe on thſe foreſaid day heard
Mʳ Humphreys ſay they were talking about the ſaid
Barrett he would break that party French fellow.

Grace Cauſson widᵒ Complained againſt
ſaid Mʳ John Humphreys ſaying ſhe had ſeverall
times warned him of Coming to her houſe, being
brought a Scandall upon her and her two Girls
Perticularly laſt night, the ſaid Humphreys [...]
her houſe in a very Nasty and there a bady
Gogley as calling her old bauld d[...], and who
went to any merrymeeting but he was [...]
whereupon the ſaid Humphreys, now out of
Immediately did ſwear the Peace againſt
her yᵉ one for Daughteres to be [...]
the Capᵗ Lying on a bead and
on upon it, Drunk.

Margin Notes:
Mattᵗ Barretts
Case Concerning Mʳ
John Humphreys

Grace Cauſson
Complaint agᵗ Mʳ
John Humphreys

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 15 August 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer and councillor.

On the previous day, John Humphreys had been required to enter into a bond for good behaviour, with two persons acting as sureties, as recorded in the earlier consultation. Despite this, he was accused of misconduct the following morning. Reports reached the authorities that, after hearing remarks attributed to Matthew Barrett, Humphreys had declared that he would pursue him, confront him, and threaten him aggressively.

Matthew Barrett reported these words to the Governor. Humphreys was summoned and examined. He denied the accusations.

Phillip Howard, a servant, gave sworn evidence. He stated that, while at Mr Hammonds’s house on that day, he heard Humphreys say, during a conversation about Barrett, that he would break “that French fellow”.

Grace Causson, a widow, also brought a complaint against Humphreys. She stated that she had repeatedly warned him not to come to her house, as his presence caused scandal for her and her two daughters. She referred in particular to the previous night, when Humphreys had come to her house in a disorderly condition, used offensive language towards her, and insulted her in abusive terms. She added that he behaved improperly at social gatherings.

During the proceedings, Humphreys reacted immediately by swearing the peace against Grace Causson and her daughters.

Interpretations

The requirement for Humphreys to enter into a recognisance for good behaviour, supported by sureties, functioned as a preventive legal measure. It bound both the accused and his guarantors to maintain order, with consequences if the terms were broken.

The rapid return to alleged threatening behaviour showed that breaches of such bonds were taken seriously. The Council’s willingness to re-examine the case indicated ongoing supervision rather than a single act of enforcement.

The use of sworn testimony from Phillip Howard demonstrated the reliance on witness evidence in determining conduct. Servants could give formal evidence, which showed that legal credibility did not depend solely on rank.

Grace Causson’s complaint revealed how disorderly behaviour affected social reputation. Her concern about “scandal” showed that the authorities recognised the importance of maintaining moral and social order, especially in relation to households and unmarried daughters.

Humphreys’s act of swearing the peace against Causson and her daughters showed that this legal mechanism could be used defensively or strategically. It allowed an accused person to counter a complaint by placing others under similar legal restraint.

The repeated involvement of the Council in disputes involving Humphreys demonstrated its role as both a judicial body and an instrument of social regulation. It enforced not only formal law but also standards of behaviour within the community.

Speculations

Humphreys’s decision to swear the peace against Causson and her daughters during the proceedings suggested an attempt to deflect pressure and create mutual constraint. This may have been intended to weaken her complaint or discourage further accusations.

The reference to his conduct at gatherings and his alleged drunkenness indicated that his behaviour had become a pattern rather than an isolated incident. The Council’s continued attention to his case suggested concern that repeated disorder could disrupt wider community stability.

The emphasis on insults and public behaviour at Causson’s house suggested that reputation and household authority were at stake. The complaint may have aimed not only to stop Humphreys’s visits but also to restore the standing of the household in the eyes of the community.

14

12

Mʳ Edmunds being Sworne saith that ſhe being at

Mʳ Coberns Houſe in the fort lately Mʳ Humphreys came th[...]

being then much in drink, and abuſed the ſaid Mʳ Cobern by

Calling her old baud, and that one of her Daughters lay with

a man for Ten pounds, further calling her druncken Jade, and

that her houſe was the arrandeſt baudy houſe on yᵉ Iſland

and said hee come to yoʳ houſe in Spight of yoʳ Teeth being her

money and then Come and ſend her, and ſaid yᵉ Said Mʳ Co[...]

[...] him the ſaid doors were none hand & Pulled him in a

gave with the other further adding that yᵉ said Mʳ Humphreys

Swore severall oathes to yᵉ number of ten at least

the 15 aug

Margaret Carne widᵒ ſaith that ſhe being at yᵉ ſaid

Mʳ Coberns Houſe, the ſaid Mʳ Humphreys Came in there who was

very much in drink and they helping him of it, he kicked ſeaven

Corne amongſt ſuch a parcell of old Jades in my life, So went away

out of the houſe,

After mature & Serious Consideration

on the aforesaid business, It is ordered

That the said Mʳ John Humphreys be fined the sume

of Twenty Shillings for Swearing, and five Shillings more

for being drunk to be pᵈ yᵉ poor, which said Summe he must

pay or the said Humphreys is to goe without door untill

comes hereafter with the payment of the said Sume, and

accordingly to the act of Parliament lately sent over to

said Island,

That the said Humphreys Continue bound to yᵉ good behaviour

and his Securityes aforementioned stand to their Recognizance

That the finall desision of Mʳ Coberns Complaint be refered

to yᵉ Jury at yᵉ new Sessions, to be decided accordingly by them

if the Captʳ she be willing to Prosecute yᵉ Humphreys

the said Mʳ Coborn did not Swear

said Humphreys accordingly

Margin Notes:

Mʳ John Humphreys

fined Twenty Shillings for

Swearing and five

Shillings being

drunk, and that he

be bound to the good

behaviour.

Mrs Edmunds gave sworn evidence that she had been at Mr Cobern’s house in the fort when John Humphreys arrived in a state of heavy intoxication. He abused Mr Cobern by calling her an “old bawd” and claimed that one of her daughters had slept with a man for £10 0s 0d. He also called her a “drunken jade” and declared that her house was the most disorderly brothel on the island. He stated that he would come to her house regardless of her wishes, and used further threatening language. During this incident, he forced his way at the door and behaved violently. He swore at least ten oaths during the encounter.

Margaret Carne, widow, also gave evidence. She stated that she was present at Mr Cobern’s house when Humphreys arrived very drunk. While being assisted, he behaved aggressively, used insulting language, and then left the house.

After careful consideration of the matter, it was ordered that John Humphreys should be fined £1 0s 0d for swearing and £0 5s 0d for drunkenness. These sums were to be paid to the poor. If he failed to pay, he was to remain in custody until payment was made, in accordance with a recent Act of Parliament sent to the island.

It was further ordered that Humphreys should remain bound to good behaviour, and that his sureties should continue to stand to their recognisance.

The final decision on Mr Cobern’s complaint was deferred to a jury at the next sessions, where it would be determined if she chose to proceed with prosecution.

Mr Cobern did not swear against Humphreys at this stage.

Interpretations

The fines for swearing and drunkenness showed that moral offences were regulated through monetary penalties. Payment to the poor indicated that such fines also served a redistributive function within the community.

The reference to an Act of Parliament demonstrated that metropolitan law was applied on the island. This linked local enforcement to broader English legal standards and provided formal authority for punishment.

The requirement that Humphreys remain bound to good behaviour, with sureties still liable, showed that prior legal obligations continued despite new offences. This reinforced ongoing supervision rather than treating each incident in isolation.

The decision to refer the main complaint to a jury at the next sessions indicated a two-stage legal process. Immediate disorder was addressed by the Council, while more serious or contested matters were reserved for formal trial by jury.

The fact that Mr Cobern did not swear against Humphreys at this stage suggested that prosecution depended on the complainant’s active participation. Without formal sworn accusation, the case could not proceed to full trial.

The detailed witness testimony, including descriptions of language, conduct, and intoxication, showed that verbal abuse and reputation were taken seriously as matters of public order, especially where they affected households and women.

Speculations

The imposition of fines rather than harsher punishment suggested that the Council aimed to correct behaviour without escalating the situation. This may have reflected a balance between discipline and the practical need to maintain a functioning community.

The allocation of fines to the poor indicated that punishment also served a social purpose. This may have helped justify enforcement by linking it to communal benefit.

The referral of the case to a jury only if Mr Cobern chose to prosecute suggested reluctance to pursue the matter without her commitment. This may have been intended to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings or to respect her control over the complaint.

The continued reliance on sureties implied concern that Humphreys might reoffend. Keeping guarantors bound to him ensured that others had a direct interest in restraining his behaviour.

15

13

Margery Hayes widᵒ made Complaint to us agᵗ
Mʳ French, hereas yesterday In the Evening, she Invited the said Mʳ French
and his wife to her house to Dinner, and after a Bottle of wine were [...]
and In Returning of it Came to [...] drunk to take away
her Candles that was too lighted and a Table from before them,
and Carryed it out of the house, and then Broke her Son in law
being then in a struggle together, for striving against yᵉ French
he when he filed and Roberts over held them by him, being
one of the said Frenches Companions Should this be [...]
being both Examined Could not deny yᵉ said Complaint
wherefore

It was ordered

That the said Mʳ French be kept in Prison two days
and be fined five shillings for being drunk, Also that the P Robert
Rovan be likewise fined his dayes at the Expence of yᵉ Guard
two hours, and Pay five shillings for being drunk

Whereas Will: Silva a Black boy being very much
burned by falling Into a fire when he had fitts, the Governor
ordered Mʳ Boot Chirurgion to take him under Cure and
he Should be Satisfied for trouble and medicines, which he
made demand accordingly, and asked five pounds, which
was Considered and thought but reasonable wherefore

It was ordered

That the said Bigot should have £5: 0: 0 for yᵉ Same
aforesaid, and Charged to the Church Accᵗ

Mʳ Thomas Goodwin, Made his Second Request to
Officers the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ Plantations &c as being [...]
Thomas’s Commission nominated Servᵗ yᵉ said Thomas Goodwin
is willing to [...] that he throughout all his [...]
for our said matters Benefit, wherefore he lived with
family there is now being very [...] in
tion busyness.

Which premisses the
Saying he thought he could not for this
a more [...] ordering the

Margin Notes:
Margery Hayes
agᵗ Mʳ French breaking her candles
&c

Drunkard

Capt French fined
five Shillˢ and be kept
Prison four dayes
and Thomas Robert
two hours and
pay five shillˢ

William Silva a Black boy
was much burned by falling
into yᵉ fire and that
Mʳ Bigot should
have 5l for his pains.

Mʳ Tho: Goodwin
made his 2d Request
for himself & goods
the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ
Plantations &c

Govr denyes yᵉ said
Mʳ Goodwins Request

Margery Hayes, widow, complained against Mr French. She stated that on the previous evening she had invited Mr French and his wife to dine at her house. After they had shared a bottle of wine, Mr French became drunk. He removed candles that were already lit and took a table from before them, carrying it out of the house. During the disturbance, he struck her son-in-law while they struggled, and Thomas Robert, one of French’s companions, assisted him. When examined, both men were unable to deny the complaint.

It was ordered that Mr French should be kept in prison for two days and fined £0 5s 0d for drunkenness. Thomas Robert was also fined £0 5s 0d for drunkenness and was required to spend two hours in custody at the expense of the guard.

William Silva, described as a Black boy, had been badly burned after falling into a fire during a fit. The Governor ordered Mr Boot, a surgeon, to treat him. The surgeon later requested payment for his work and medicines and asked for £5 0s 0d. This sum was considered reasonable. It was ordered that he should be paid £5 0s 0d and that the cost should be charged to the church account.

Thomas Goodwin submitted a second request concerning his position and goods in relation to the Honourable Company’s plantations. He stated that he was willing to continue serving for the Company’s benefit but referred to the demands placed upon him and his household. After consideration, the Governor refused his request.

Interpretations

The complaint by Margery Hayes showed that disorderly conduct in private homes fell under the authority of the Governor and Council. Hospitality did not shield guests from punishment if their behaviour disturbed order or caused damage.

The combination of imprisonment and fines for drunkenness demonstrated a layered approach to discipline. Short confinement imposed immediate restraint, while monetary penalties reinforced accountability.

The involvement of Thomas Robert as a companion who assisted in the disturbance showed that responsibility extended beyond the principal offender. Associates could also be punished for their role in disorder.

The treatment of William Silva revealed that medical care for dependants could be authorised by the Governor and funded through communal resources. Charging the cost to the church account indicated that welfare functions were partly managed through ecclesiastical funds.

The description of William Silva as a “Black boy” indicated a subordinate social status. His care being ordered and paid for by the authorities showed both oversight and control over vulnerable individuals within the island’s labour system.

The surgeon’s fee being assessed and approved by the Council demonstrated administrative control over professional charges. Payment required official sanction, which regulated expenses within the settlement.

Thomas Goodwin’s request concerning his service and goods suggested that Company officers could petition for adjustments to their conditions. The Governor’s refusal showed that such requests were subject to central authority and could be denied despite continued service.

Speculations

The punishment of Mr French and his companion suggested that the Council aimed to maintain strict behavioural standards within the small community. Visible discipline may have been intended to deter similar incidents.

The decision to fund William Silva’s treatment from the church account indicated that no private party accepted responsibility for his care. This may have reflected uncertainty over ownership or obligation, leading the authorities to intervene directly.

Thomas Goodwin’s second request being refused suggested ongoing dissatisfaction with his circumstances. The refusal may have been intended to prevent setting a precedent for further claims by other officers.

16

14

Capᵗ Bright Deputy Governor opinion was, now he had
further Insight in the matter, that the said Mʳ Goodwin should
have the possession of the said Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ Plantation &c
[...] as being a man most Capable of that business,

Governour further saith tis true that Mʳ Goodwin hath
desired before yᵉ Same thing, But tis true also that after the
Governʳ and Capᵗ Bright had told him they thought for Some
reasons it was not probable, the Compᵃˢ would have him and
his family live at the Plantation, haveing on the other hand
much business at the Store, of which time he seemed to be
Satisfyed, but now it comes to further order from yᵉ Compᵃˢ
and desired the Governᵒ to acquaint yᵉ Compᵃˢ of it, by his
prericuler letter not willing it should be mentioned in yᵉ Gen[...]
[...] by the Governᵒ therefore the Governᵒ Conceiving
[...] at so sudden an alteration of mind difficulty however
[...] to write a Clear Information from said matter.

Jonathan Heyham Freeplanter petitioned us that in Fryday
night last a boisterous wind had Blowne downe his house
and being a very poore man haveing a family to maintaine
Humbly desired that we would grant him a Brief to get
money Sheet and all the Cariable Benevolence of
[...] Commission and meanes belonging to us, whereupon
and also of the Condition and demande, that he might have yᵉ
grant reared his house againe, which was granted him
Immediately.

Samᵐ Wrangham freeplanter Petitioned us that
his mother in law Mary Jenkins who had formerly Servd Mʳ
for 30 Acres of Land and a house which she had made and built
upon the said Land for there use also, for which he desired
Satisfaction, and that yᵉ Rent for yᵉ same might be repayed back
againe as other persons in his said mother in law [...]
hath received.

It is ordered

That the said Wranghams Petition be forwarded to the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃˢ but may possess yᵉ said Land in yᵉ mean time and the
said Rent to be paid back againe according to his demand.

Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Capᵗ Bright
Depᵗy Govᵒʳ
intends yᵉ Mʳ Goodwin
should have yᵉ Possess[ion]
of yᵉ Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃˢ Plantation &c

Not probable the
Compᵃˢ would have
Mʳ Goodwin and
his family live at
the Plantation &c.

Jonᵃ Heyham Petition
that he would
grant him a Breife
to get his house buil[t]
downe by yᵉ wind
he being a very poor
man Could not build
it again &c.

Samᵐ Wrangham
desires that he
Possesse yᵉ 30
acres of Land she once
rented on [...][...] How
a[...] &c.

Captain Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, stated that after further consideration he believed Thomas Goodwin should be given possession of the Honourable Company’s plantation, as he was the most capable person to manage it.

The Governor replied that Goodwin had previously made the same request. At that time, both the Governor and Captain Bright had told him that it was unlikely the Company would allow him and his family to live at the plantation, since he had significant duties at the store. Goodwin had appeared satisfied with that decision. However, he had now renewed his request following further instructions from the Company and had asked the Governor to report the matter directly in a separate letter rather than include it in the general correspondence. The Governor expressed concern at this sudden change of position but agreed to provide a clear account of the matter in writing.

Jonathan Heyham, a free planter, submitted a petition stating that a violent wind on the previous Friday night had destroyed his house. He explained that he was very poor and had a family to support. He asked for permission to raise money through charitable contributions to rebuild his house. After consideration, this request was granted, and he was authorised to collect support and rebuild.

Samuel Wrangham, also a free planter, submitted a petition concerning his mother-in-law, Mary Jenkins. She had previously served Mr [...] and had rented 30 acres of land and a house that she had built on that land for their use. Wrangham requested compensation and asked that the rent she had paid should be returned, as had been done in similar cases. It was ordered that his petition should be forwarded to the Honourable Company. In the meantime, he was permitted to retain possession of the land, and the rent was to be repaid according to his request.

Interpretations

The discussion over control of the Company’s plantation showed that key productive assets remained under central authority. Decisions about who managed them balanced individual capability against broader administrative needs, such as Goodwin’s duties at the store.

The Governor’s insistence on reporting the matter separately indicated a distinction between general correspondence and private or sensitive communication with the Company. This reflected controlled channels of information and the management of internal disagreements.

The petition by Jonathan Heyham revealed a system of licensed charitable collection. A “brief” allowed an individual to solicit contributions legally, which showed that relief for disaster could be organised through public subscription rather than direct state funding.

The classification of Heyham and Wrangham as free planters indicated their status as independent settlers who held or worked land under Company authority. Their ability to petition demonstrated recognised rights within the administrative system.

Wrangham’s claim for repayment of rent and continued possession of land showed that tenancy arrangements could be revised or contested. The forwarding of the case to the Company indicated that final authority over land tenure rested beyond the island, even while temporary decisions could be made locally.

The repayment of rent “as in other cases” suggested an emerging pattern of administrative precedent in handling such claims, which contributed to consistency in governance.

Speculations

Captain Bright’s support for Goodwin’s control of the plantation suggested a reassessment of priorities. This may have reflected a need for more effective management of agricultural production, possibly due to changing demands or shortages.

The Governor’s hesitation over Goodwin’s renewed request indicated concern about disrupting existing duties at the store. This suggested that labour and expertise were limited, requiring careful allocation between competing needs.

The granting of a brief to Heyham implied that immediate rebuilding could not be funded directly by the authorities. Allowing him to gather charitable support may have been a practical solution to avoid burdening official resources.

The decision to let Wrangham retain possession of the land while awaiting the Company’s decision suggested a temporary compromise. This probably prevented disruption to cultivation while the formal claim was reviewed.

17

15

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Thurſday
The 3ᵈ day of Octᵒᵇʳ 1699 att Fort James.

Pres:
Step: Poirier Governour
Thomas Bright depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Enigneʳ

Whereas Sometime Since, The Store Keeper
deſired orders about the Sending of the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ
Hores and goods viz [...] whether or [...] he might [...]ale
The Inferior officers Servᵗs and planters And that our maſters
Goods might not be Damniſfied by Long lying in the
Stores, which upon Mature and Serious Consideration

It is ordered according to the best of our
Knowledge That Every body hereafter Mentioned be [...]
no further then their [...] the perticular and Respective
Sumes adjoyning to Each perſons Name [...]

Mʳ John Humphreys premisses 40:00:0
Hugh Patchell Surgeon 40:00:0
John Alexander [...] 50:00:0
Andrew Phillips Gunner 30:00:0
John Feild Eldest Serjᵗ 50:00:0
James Hyetbury
Joʳ Ou[...]
Thomas Dixon
Matthew Bazett Blacksmi[th] Aphi[st]
Robert Addis Gunners Mate
Thomas Gargen C[...]
John Mills Corpor[...]
James Grandu [...]
L[...] m[...]
[...]

Margin Notes:
Directions how
far Every officer
Soldʳ and planter
might be Creditted
in the Store.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday 3 October 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Some time earlier, the storekeeper had asked for instructions about issuing the Honourable Company’s horses and goods. He sought guidance on whether these could be supplied to inferior officers, servants, and planters, and expressed concern that the Company’s goods might be damaged if they remained too long in storage.

After careful consideration, it was ordered that specific limits should be set on how far each person could be supplied on credit. Each individual named was assigned a fixed sum, beyond which no further goods were to be issued on credit.

The following limits were set:

Mr John Humphreys — £40 0s 0d
Hugh Patchell, surgeon — £40 0s 0d
John Alexander [...] — £50 0s 0d
Andrew Phillips, gunner — £30 0s 0d
John Field, eldest sergeant — £50 0s 0d
James Hyetbury — [...]
Jo[...] Ou[...] — [...]
Thomas Dixon — [...]
Matthew Bazett, blacksmith [...] — [...]
Robert Addis, gunner’s mate — [...]
Thomas Gargen, c[...] — [...]
John Mills, corporal — [...]
James Grandu[...] — [...]
L[...] m[...] — [...]

Interpretations

The store functioned as the central point of distribution for the Company’s goods. Control over issuing supplies ensured that resources were managed carefully and not wasted or spoiled.

The setting of credit limits for each individual showed a structured system of controlled consumption. This allowed officers, servants, and planters to obtain goods while preventing excessive debt or misuse of Company property.

The variation in sums assigned to each person reflected differences in rank, responsibility, and expected need. Higher-ranking individuals or those with greater duties received larger allowances.

The inclusion of tradesmen such as a surgeon, blacksmith, and gunner indicated that essential services were supported through access to goods on credit. This ensured that key functions on the island could continue without interruption.

The concern about goods deteriorating in storage revealed practical challenges in supply management. Issuing goods on credit helped circulate stock and maintain its value rather than allowing it to spoil.

The formal recording of these limits in Council decisions showed that financial control was exercised centrally. The system linked economic activity directly to administrative oversight.

Speculations

The decision to impose fixed credit limits suggested concern over rising debts or uncontrolled distribution of goods. This measure may have been introduced to stabilise the island’s economy and maintain accountability.

The emphasis on preventing damage to stored goods indicated that supply levels may have exceeded immediate demand. Allowing controlled credit could have been a way to move surplus stock into use without losing value.

The inclusion of a wide range of individuals, from officers to tradesmen, suggested that the system aimed to integrate the whole settlement into a regulated supply network. This may have strengthened dependence on the Company while ensuring basic needs were met.

18

16

Bartrand Audoward 10:0:0
Willm French 15:0:0
Richard Allen 2:2:0
Peter Alexander 20:0:0
Thomas Aſhby 2:2:0
John Barker 2:2:0
James Booker 2:2:0
Orlando Bagley Senʳ 20:0:0
Anthony Barkland 2:2:0
Thomas Birch 2:2:0
Thomas Browne 2:2:0
John Browne 2:2:0
John Coles 20:0:0
Thomas Coles 10:0:0
Wm Coles 2:2:0
Wm Child 2:2:0
Hymen Cole 2:2:0
Anne Coles 10:0:0
John Deferantaine 40:0:0
Anthony Derhoud 2:2:0
Wm Dutton 10:0:0
Henry Debelieu 2:2:0
John Dutton 10:0:0
George Drough 2:2:0
Richard Downing 2:2:0
John Eaſter 2:2:0
Richᵈ Evans 2:2:0
James Fairhope 20:0:0
Joſeph Garling 2:2:0
John Harnes 10:0:0
Henry Hare 2:2:0
Mattᵗ Fleece 2:2:0
John Gurdlick 2:2:0
Francis Gallyer 2:2:0
Ralph Gates 2:2:0
John Hemmon 30:0:0
John Heneſon 2:2:0
Mattᵗ Heyham 6:0:0
Wm Jerviſ 2:2:0
Thomas Harper 2:2:0
[...] Addis 2:2:0
Hayſe Junʳ 2:2:0
[...] 2:2:0
[...] 2:2:0

John Jeſſey 2:2:0
Simon Lenox 2:2:0
Jacob Leach 2:2:0
Phillip Seyquart 2:2:0
Peter Melling 2:2:0
John Madge 20:0:0
Jonᵃ Millard 2:2:0
Jacob Miller 2:2:0
John Merchant 2:2:0
Robert Owen 2:2:0
Gabriell Powell 15:0:0
Richard Ray 2:2:0
[...] Henshed 10:0:0
Charles Steward 10:0:0
Jacob Shaskey 2:2:0
Benjamin Seals 10:0:0
Wm Seals 8:0:0
Joſeph Trapp 2:2:0
Thomas Usher 2:2:0
Peter Williams 10:0:0
Simon Whalley 2:2:0
Joan Wild 30:0:0
James Wilſon 2:2:0
Henry Webby 2:2:0
John Young 2:2:0
Tho: Addis plantʳ 30:0:0
Mary Bowman 30:0:0
Thomas Boe 20:0:0
Tho: Burnham Junʳ 8:0:0
Tho: Burnham Junʳ 5:0:0
Orlando Bagley Junʳ 30:0:0
Edward Brome 20:0:0
John Bagley 20:0:0
Edward Bagley 10:0:0
Mary Bagley 30:0:0
Mᵈᵐ Beale 100:0:0
Wm Blot 30:0:0
Margᵗ Beale 20:0:0
Wm Bevan 30:0:0
Mʳ Geo: Carne 150:0:0
Grace Coulson 50:0:0
Margᵗ Hegreve 50:0:0

The consultation continued with the setting of credit limits at the Company’s store for the following individuals. Each person was permitted to receive goods on credit up to the sum recorded beside their name, and no further.

Bartrand Audoward — £10 0s 0d
William French — £15 0s 0d
Richard Allen — £2 2s 0d
Peter Alexander — £20 0s 0d
Thomas Ashby — £2 2s 0d
John Barker — £2 2s 0d
James Booker — £2 2s 0d
Orlando Bagley Senior — £20 0s 0d
Anthony Barkland — £2 2s 0d
Thomas Birch — £2 2s 0d
Thomas Browne — £2 2s 0d
John Browne — £2 2s 0d
John Coles — £20 0s 0d
Thomas Coles — £10 0s 0d
William Coles — £2 2s 0d
William Child — £2 2s 0d
Hymen Cole — £2 2s 0d
Anne Coles — £10 0s 0d
John Deferantaine — £40 0s 0d
Anthony Derhoud — £2 2s 0d
William Dutton — £10 0s 0d
Henry Debelieu — £2 2s 0d
John Dutton — £10 0s 0d
George Drough — £2 2s 0d
Richard Downing — £2 2s 0d
John Easter — £2 2s 0d
Richard Evans — £2 2s 0d
James Fairhope — £20 0s 0d
Joseph Garling — £2 2s 0d
John Harnes — £10 0s 0d
Henry Hare — £2 2s 0d
Matthew Fleece — £2 2s 0d
John Gurdlick — £2 2s 0d
Francis Gallyer — £2 2s 0d
Ralph Gates — £2 2s 0d
John Hemmon — £30 0s 0d
John Heneson — £2 2s 0d
Matthew Heyham — £6 0s 0d
William Jervis — £2 2s 0d
Thomas Harper — £2 2s 0d
[...] Addis — £2 2s 0d
Hayse Junior — £2 2s 0d
[...] — £2 2s 0d
[...] — £2 2s 0d
John Jessey — £2 2s 0d
Simon Lenox — £2 2s 0d
Jacob Leach — £2 2s 0d
Phillip Seyquart — £2 2s 0d
Peter Melling — £2 2s 0d
John Madge — £20 0s 0d
Jonathan Millard — £2 2s 0d
Jacob Miller — £2 2s 0d
John Merchant — £2 2s 0d
Robert Owen — £2 2s 0d
Gabriel Powell — £15 0s 0d
Richard Ray — £2 2s 0d
[...] Henshed — £10 0s 0d
Charles Steward — £10 0s 0d
Jacob Shaskey — £2 2s 0d
Benjamin Seals — £10 0s 0d
William Seals — £8 0s 0d
Joseph Trapp — £2 2s 0d
Thomas Usher — £2 2s 0d
Peter Williams — £10 0s 0d
Simon Whalley — £2 2s 0d
Joan Wild — £30 0s 0d
James Wilson — £2 2s 0d
Henry Webby — £2 2s 0d
John Young — £2 2s 0d
Thomas Addis, planter — £30 0s 0d
Mary Bowman — £30 0s 0d
Thomas Boe — £20 0s 0d
Thomas Burnham Junior — £8 0s 0d
Thomas Burnham Junior — £5 0s 0d
Orlando Bagley Junior — £30 0s 0d
Edward Brome — £20 0s 0d
John Bagley — £20 0s 0d
Edward Bagley — £10 0s 0d
Mary Bagley — £30 0s 0d
Madam Beale — £100 0s 0d
William Blot — £30 0s 0d
Margaret Beale — £20 0s 0d
William Bevan — £30 0s 0d
Mr George Carne — £150 0s 0d
Grace Coulson — £50 0s 0d
Margaret Hegreve — £50 0s 0d

Interpretations

The uniform lower limit of £2 2s 0d for many individuals suggested a standard minimum level of credit, possibly intended to ensure basic access to goods while limiting risk to the Company.

Higher credit limits for certain individuals, such as Mr George Carne at £150 0s 0d and Madam Beale at £100 0s 0d, reflected their greater economic standing or responsibility. This indicated a clear hierarchy in wealth, trust, and influence within the settlement.

The inclusion of women, such as Anne Coles, Joan Wild, Mary Bowman, Mary Bagley, Madam Beale, Grace Coulson, and Margaret Hegreve, showed that women could hold recognised economic roles and access credit in their own names.

The repetition of Thomas Burnham Junior with two separate sums suggested either multiple accounts or distinct entitlements, indicating flexibility in how credit arrangements were recorded.

The presence of both officers and planters within the same credit system showed that the Company’s store operated as a central economic institution, linking all levels of society through controlled access to goods.

The wide range of credit values demonstrated differentiated trust and capacity. Larger allowances probably corresponded to individuals engaged in trade, supply, or management, while smaller sums limited exposure for those with fewer resources or responsibilities.

19

17

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on [...]
the 13 day of October 1699 Att Fort James

Pres:
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright depᵗy Governoʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineʳ & Counˡ

Whereas by the Divine Providence of God the good
Ship Thomdon arrived here Safely, but haveing lost most
of her officers and Commander of the said ship was dead, and
Mʳ Henry Houlbrooke tooke his place as being Commanding the
said Ship, and did also make it his road to this Island, Insomuch
that before and after yᵉ death of the said Mʳ Henry Houlbrooke much
disputes and controversies did arise amongst the ships Company
concerning the good Government of the said ship, as did more fully
appeare by a Petition subscribed by Seven Mariners and Seamen
unto us, and other papers relating the Condition of the said Ship,
also the said Houlbrooke before his death, which haveing been Considered
the reasons, but to be of great moment in Respect of our
Honourable Concerns, wherefore that we might comply as near
to aforesaid order we have thought fit and accordingly

orderd

That Capᵗ Rand Russ Commander of the good Ship
Thomdon now in the road be desired to Joyne in a Councill
to Consider together what means might be taken to serve
the said Ship Thomdon that she might be Conveyed to her said
owners in Safety

Consultation Continued in yᵉ afternoon, Vizᵗ

Pres:
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Deputy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineʳ
Capᵗ Rand Geo Comander of yᵉ Ship
Thomas Assistan[t]

Whereas severall officers belonging to yᵉ said Ship
Thomdon now Riding in the road Presented to yᵉ Hon[...]

Margin Notes:
The Comander of
the Ship Thomdon
being Dead the Ships
Company desired yᵉ
Govr & Coun: to put
in another Comand
they being dissatisfied
with Edmund Tomlin
late Chief Mate &c

A consultation was held at Fort James on [...] 13 October 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer and councillor.

By what was described as the providence of God, the ship Thomdon arrived safely at the island. However, most of her officers had been lost, and her commander had died. Henry Houlbrooke had taken command of the vessel, but he also died soon after. Before and after his death, serious disputes and disagreements arose among the ship’s company over the management and discipline of the vessel. These conflicts were set out in a petition submitted to the Governor and Council by seven mariners and seamen, along with other documents describing the ship’s condition.

These matters were considered important because they affected the interests of the Honourable Company. In response, it was ordered that Captain Rand Russ, commander of the ship Thomdon then lying in the road, should be asked to join the Council. Together, they were to consider how best to secure the ship and ensure that she could be returned safely to her owners.

The consultation continued later that afternoon. Present were the same officials, together with Captain Rand Geo, commander of the ship, and Thomas [...], assistant.

Several officers belonging to the ship Thomdon, then anchored in the road, presented further representations to the Governor and Council. They expressed dissatisfaction with Edmund Tomlin, the former chief mate, and requested that another person should be appointed to command the ship.

Interpretations

The reference to the ship lying “in the road” indicated that it was anchored offshore rather than docked in a harbour. This reflected the island’s limited port facilities and the reliance on anchorage for visiting vessels.

The deaths of successive commanders created a breakdown in authority on board. This left the ship without stable leadership, which threatened discipline, navigation, and the safety of cargo and crew.

The petition by mariners showed that crew members could formally appeal to local authorities when internal command failed. This demonstrated that the Governor and Council exercised jurisdiction over visiting ships in cases affecting order and Company interests.

The involvement of Captain Rand Russ and his participation in Council deliberations indicated that experienced naval or merchant officers were consulted in resolving maritime disputes. This added practical expertise to administrative decision-making.

The dissatisfaction with Edmund Tomlin, the chief mate, suggested that rank alone did not guarantee acceptance as commander. Authority depended on both formal position and the confidence of the crew.

The Council’s intervention in the ship’s command showed that maritime governance could extend onto land. The authorities acted to stabilise the situation in order to protect trade, property, and the Company’s reputation.

Speculations

The repeated deaths of senior officers probably created uncertainty and fear among the crew. The disputes described may have arisen from competing claims to command or distrust of those who assumed authority.

The request to appoint a new commander suggested that the crew sought external arbitration to resolve internal conflict. This may have been intended to prevent mutiny or further disorder.

The decision to involve another ship’s captain in the deliberations indicated concern about making an informed and credible judgment. This approach may have been aimed at ensuring that any decision would be accepted by the crew and recognised as legitimate.

The emphasis on returning the ship safely to its owners suggested that the cargo and vessel represented significant value. Protecting this investment was probably the primary motive behind the Council’s intervention.

20

18

her Cargo, and did the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ East India Compᵃˢ
boate, by the ill Carriage and behaviour of Edmᵈ Tomlin, cheife
mate belonging to the said Ship, as by the severall depositions
Articles against him doth more largly appeare, which was all Sworne
to by the persons hereunto subscribed

The said Tomlin being Examined denyes his Accusation

After mature & serious Consideration Taken
on the matter aforesaid.

It was ordered

That the said Edward Tomlin, be not permitted to goe home
for England In the said Ship Thomdon, being proved upon severall
good undeniable and Dangerous reasons from the said Ship officers
by severall the officers of the said Ship, therefore the said Tomlin
to be Immediately committed to Prison, untill an opportunity p[...]
of going for England, and to pay Charges of Councill

Margery Hayles who had a Licence for the Retayleing
Strong Liquors, made Complaint to us that on Saturday last
in the evening Matthew Freeze did Come to her house in the Town
and called for a bottle of Punche, whereupon she immediately made him
a bottle of punche and had pute said it was not good and would have
yᵉ bottle, who did and spill yᵉ Punche, calling her old baud and
other swearing words at yᵉ same time, whereupon
said Deconnick who Cant but acknowledge his fault, upon wᶜʰ
yᵉ said Marg: Hayles denied the Govʳ to Excuse Mʳ Freeze for
abuseing her and only desired satisfaction for yᵉ bottle he had
and for yᵉ Punche, therefore

It is ordered

That the said Freeze be fined one shilling for swearing and
Cause another bottle for yᵉ said Margᵗ Hayles in lieu of yᵉ
broke and pay for yᵉ punche he spilt, and Charges of Justice and
be by yᵉ Mʳ Hayles Request dismist wᵗʰ only a Check for abuseing her

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Edmᵈ Tomlin Comitted
to loose Prison & not
Suffered to goe home
yᵉ Ship Thomdon

Margery Hayles
complaint agᵗ Mathew
Freeze for breaking
her Punch boule and
abuseing her &c.

The said Freeze to give
yᵉ said Margery Hayles
another punch boule
and pay her for severall
[...]

Further evidence was presented concerning the conduct of Edward Tomlin, chief mate of the ship Thomdon. Depositions and formal articles set out accusations that his behaviour had been improper and harmful to the ship, her cargo, and the Honourable East India Company’s interests. These statements were sworn by several officers of the vessel.

Tomlin was examined and denied the accusations. After full consideration, it was ordered that he should not be allowed to return to England aboard the ship Thomdon. The decision was based on multiple serious and well-supported reasons given by the ship’s officers. He was to be committed immediately to prison and held there until another opportunity arose for him to travel to England. He was also required to pay the costs of the Council.

Margery Hayes, who held a licence to sell strong liquor by retail, submitted a complaint against Matthew Freeze. She stated that on the previous Saturday evening he had come to her house in the town and asked for a bottle of punch. She prepared it at once, but he declared it unsatisfactory, demanded the bottle, and then spilled the drink. He insulted her and used abusive language.

Freeze was examined and admitted his fault. Margery Hayes stated that she did not seek further punishment but asked only for compensation for the broken bottle and the lost punch.

It was ordered that Matthew Freeze should be fined £0 1s 0d for swearing, provide another bottle to replace the one broken, pay for the punch he had spilled, and cover the costs of the proceedings. At the request of Margery Hayes, he was then dismissed with a formal warning for his abusive behaviour.

Interpretations

The decision to prevent Tomlin from returning on the same ship showed that the Council exercised authority over maritime personnel when their conduct threatened the safety of a vessel or its cargo. Detention ensured that he could not resume a position of influence during the voyage.

The reliance on sworn depositions from multiple officers indicated that collective testimony carried significant weight in disciplinary decisions. This strengthened the legitimacy of the ruling and reduced the risk of personal dispute being treated as sufficient evidence.

The requirement that Tomlin remain in custody until another passage became available showed how punishment was shaped by practical constraints. The island’s isolation meant that detention often depended on the timing of ships.

Margery Hayes’s licence to sell strong liquor demonstrated that retail trade in alcohol was regulated by official permission. This placed such activity under the supervision of the authorities.

The resolution of Freeze’s case combined a formal penalty with restitution. Compensation for damage and loss took priority once the complainant expressed satisfaction, showing that minor offences could be settled through repair rather than extended punishment.

The imposition of a fine specifically for swearing reflected moral regulation within the legal system. Verbal conduct, especially when abusive, was treated as an offence alongside physical damage.

Speculations

The refusal to allow Tomlin to sail on the Thomdon suggested that the Council feared further disruption or danger if he remained on board. This may have been intended to stabilise authority among the crew before departure.

The admission of fault by Freeze and the limited penalty imposed implied that the Council sought a quick resolution. This may have been designed to avoid escalation in a case where the harm was material but not severe.

Margery Hayes’s decision to seek compensation rather than punishment suggested a practical approach. Recovering her losses may have been more important to her than pursuing a harsher penalty.

21

19

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Monday
The 16ᵗʰ day of Octᵇʳ 1699 Att Fort James.

Preſ:
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governoʳ
Thomas Goodwin Enginʳ &
Capᵗ Tho: Gee Comandʳ of the Ship Thom[don]

In perſuance of the Conſultation and agreement taken on
Fryday laſt the Governour and Councill with Capᵗ Gee and Capᵗ
George Yeoman went on board to informe and see yᵉ said Capᵗ
Yeoman Cheife Comandʳ of the ship Thomdon, and finding Capᵗ
Robinson having one Thomas Barre party on board yᵉ said Ship, and
pretended that the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ would not Certainly give orders to
the Governʳ and Councill of Sᵗ Helena, to Place officers on board any
alteration in any Ship whatsoever, for give his word of Comand after he
hath given us as is mentioned in yᵉ said Consultation Whereupon
for our owne ease and Consider the matter againe, not haveing
seen, and only taking the Compᵃˢ Concerns in Consideration, Ship
being so weak and destitute of officers, we had Resolved to go on
and also to run Rather the Hazard of being Censured then the Ship
Should want security, So that End he have Confirmed the Robinson
on board, that the said Capᵗ Yeoman make a Quality Command
the said ship and Convey her safe home, But the sᵈ Robinson
Revealing his Humble Petition to us againe, wherein he
begs Leave that he might be kept in his birthright Concerning
because that all the ships Compᵃs with great Esteem for him
and that we have nothing to prove against him but that he is an
honest man,

It is ordered

That he the said Robinson be placed Cheife Commander
of the said ship according to his Request

And also that Mʳ Francis Bowers late Second mate of the ship
Thomas be placed as Cheife mate in yᵉ Ship Thomdon, and yᵉ
Mʳ John Werder as Second man, who belonged to yᵉ Thomdon,
and it is further ordered and agreed that the sᵈ Capt Robinson
Keep Comand with the said Thomas Capᵗ Gee Commander, from
this Island to England,

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Edward Robinson
to be Comander in
Cheife of the Ship
Thomdon &c

Mʳ Frances Bowers
2ᵈ Mate of the Ship
Thom: to be Cheife
Mate of yᵉ Ship Thom
don &c

A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 16 October 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, Thomas Goodwin, engineer, and Captain Thomas Gee, commander of the ship Thomdon.

Following the earlier consultation and agreement made on the previous Friday, the Governor and Council, together with Captain Gee and Captain George Yeoman, went on board the ship to inspect the situation and determine command. Captain Yeoman had been considered for chief command of the vessel. However, Captain Robinson was found on board with Thomas Barre and argued that the Honourable Company would not authorise the Governor and Council to alter the command of a ship once it had been established.

Despite this objection, the Governor and Council considered the weakened state of the ship and the lack of officers. They decided that the Company’s interests required immediate action. They preferred to risk criticism rather than allow the ship to remain insecure. Their aim was to ensure that the vessel could be safely navigated and returned to England.

Captain Robinson then submitted a further petition. He asked to be confirmed in command, stating that the ship’s company held him in high regard and that there was no evidence against his character. He presented himself as a capable and honest man.

After consideration, it was ordered that Edward Robinson should be appointed chief commander of the ship Thomdon in accordance with his request.

It was further ordered that Francis Bowers, formerly second mate of the ship Thomas, should be appointed chief mate of the Thomdon, and that John Werder, who had belonged to the Thomdon, should serve as second mate.

It was also agreed that Captain Robinson should retain command in cooperation with Captain Thomas Gee during the voyage from the island to England.

Interpretations

The intervention by the Governor and Council in appointing officers showed that local authority could override normal maritime hierarchy in exceptional circumstances. This occurred when the safety of a vessel and its cargo was at risk.

The concern over whether the Company authorised such вмешல் reflected tension between local discretion and central authority. The officials acted pragmatically, prioritising immediate security over strict adherence to procedure.

The appointment of Robinson as commander based partly on the confidence of the crew indicated that effective authority depended on acceptance as well as formal rank. Crew support was treated as an important factor in maintaining order.

The restructuring of the officer hierarchy, including the appointment of Bowers and Werder, showed that experienced personnel could be reassigned across ships to stabilise command. This demonstrated flexibility in managing maritime labour.

The arrangement for Robinson to command alongside Captain Gee suggested a shared or supervised command structure. This provided oversight and reduced the risk of failure during the voyage.

The repeated involvement of the Council in the ship’s affairs showed that maritime governance extended into local administration when Company property and trade were endangered.

Speculations

The decision to confirm Robinson despite earlier objections suggested that his position had become the most practical solution. Removing him may have caused further conflict or instability among the crew.

The willingness to risk criticism from the Company indicated that the situation was considered urgent. The authorities may have believed that failure to act would result in greater loss or danger.

The shared command with Captain Gee implied a lack of full confidence in any single officer. This arrangement may have been intended to balance authority and provide mutual oversight during the voyage.

The reliance on officers drawn from another ship suggested that the Thomdon could not be adequately staffed from its own crew. This may have reflected the scale of losses suffered before arrival at the island.

22

20

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on
Tueſday the 21ᵗ Day of November 1699
Att Fort James

Preſᵗ;
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineer

Mʳ Thomas Goodwin & James Ri[...]
of the laſt will and Teſtament of Katherine [...]
[...] deceaſed delivered to us now yᵉ will of yᵉ ſaid deceaſed
laſt will and Teſtament, and their having like approved, [...]
[...] according Same to the oath of George Carne and [...]
Boe, who made oath that the sᵈ will now produced
was the ſaid Katherin Jeendales laſt will and Teſtament and
they know of no other by her made Either in word or writeing

It is ordered

That the sᵈ will be read and approved of, and a Copy
from under [...]

When the Alarme was made for the Ship Thomdon
Capᵗ Henry Yemma[n] Commander, Severall Soldʳs out of round
James there duty in neglecting of Repaireing to their
Severall Posts, Francis Orlando Bagely Thomas Harpen Thomas
Beale, Francis Gallyon, Gabriell Cornell, and Charles Steward.
who were Tuesday Summoned to appeare before us and were
Examined accordingly

Orlando Bagley saith he did not Surely know, whether it
was Quaked, and liveing so far from yᵉ Island Fort was the
Cause of his neglecting to Repaire to his post.

Thoˢ Harper saith he went a fiſhing that morning yᵉ Alarme
was made, before day and did not heare it, which Francis
Easthorpe in whose house he lived affirmed to be true

Margin Notes:
Katherine Jeendale’s will
last Will and Testam[ent]
proved

The sᵈ will read &c
approved of.

Severall Souldiers named
three dayes in not
Repaireing to their
Post upon Allarm

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 21 November 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Thomas Goodwin and James Ri[...] presented the last will and testament of Katherine Jeendale, deceased. The will was examined and proved on the sworn testimony of George Carne and [...] Boe, who confirmed that the document produced was her true last will and that they knew of no other made by her, either spoken or written. It was ordered that the will should be read and approved, and that a copy should be issued when required.

An alarm had recently been raised concerning the ship Thomdon, commanded by Captain Henry Yeman. During this alarm, several soldiers failed to report to their assigned posts. Those named were Francis Orlando Bagley, Thomas Harper, Thomas Beale, Francis Gallyon, Gabriel Cornell, and Charles Steward. They were summoned to appear and were examined.

Orlando Bagley stated that he had not been certain whether the alarm was genuine and explained that he lived at a distance from the fort, which caused his failure to attend.

Thomas Harper stated that he had gone out fishing before daybreak on the morning of the alarm and had not heard it. This account was confirmed by Francis Easthorpe, at whose house he lived.

Interpretations

The proving of Katherine Jeendale’s will showed that the Council continued to act as a probate authority. Validation required sworn testimony to confirm authenticity and prevent competing claims.

The issuing of copies of approved wills indicated that written documentation was essential for enforcing inheritance and property rights. This ensured that executors and beneficiaries could rely on recognised records.

The alarm connected to the ship Thomdon demonstrated the island’s defensive readiness. Soldiers were expected to respond immediately, which reflected the strategic importance of maritime threats.

The failure of named soldiers to report to their posts showed that military discipline was subject to formal review. Absence during an alarm was treated as a serious matter requiring explanation.

Bagley’s statement that he was unsure whether the alarm was genuine suggested that signals may not always have been clear or consistently recognised. Distance from the fort also affected response time and reliability.

Harper’s defence, supported by a witness, showed that absence could be excused if credible evidence was provided. Testimony from household members carried weight in assessing responsibility.

The summoning and examination of multiple soldiers indicated a structured process of accountability within the island’s defence system.

Speculations

The questioning of whether the alarm was genuine suggested that false or uncertain signals may have occurred. This could have reduced confidence in the system and delayed responses.

Harper’s early departure for fishing before the alarm indicated that routine economic activity continued alongside military obligations. This may have created tension between daily work and readiness requirements.

The need to summon several soldiers for absence suggested that the alarm may not have been widely heard or clearly understood. This could have exposed weaknesses in communication across the settlement.

23

21

Francis Gallyon Saith he was so grieved in yᵉ Gutts, that
he was not able to goe which was affirmed to be true by his
Landlord.

Tho: Coles Saith he was buſy at worke at his houſe
and did not heare the Alarme,

Gab: Cornell and Charles Steward Saith they did not
heare the Alarme for the Shipping,

It is ordered

That Orlando Bagley Thomas Beale Gabriell Cornell & Charles
Steward do all Ride the wooden Horse for the neglect and Sam[e]
be punished for yᵉ future to be more carefull of their Duty And
that Thomas Harper and Francis Gallyon be Excused this time,

Simon Lenox being drunk in yᵉ Guard was find
five shillings to yᵉ use of the poore, and Committed to prison
untill sober, and kept there that warning being enough to be punished
to Prison and pay five shillings he ought aforesᵈ

Whereas the Governoʳ haveing an Information
by one of the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ blacks Liveing at the Hutt,
That some persons hath been Steeleing away Stily in yᵉ night
time out of the said Hutt Plantation, and sold to two men [...]
called the said negroes Sybo but Thomas Burnham Junʳ
that stole from the hutt out Henry Coles house for which
warrant sending to the said Hutt Plantation, whereupon
the Governor ordered Same Chaste and some others there
to search for some adversaries in yᵉ night with guns &c
and Sam two of the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Companys Blacks, which they
did, and on Saturday night last being yᵉ 19ᵗʰ Instant, Sam [...]
discovered the track of ten white persons into said Hutt [...]
which following to first time by vertue of a warrant, and
did see Examination following

The said Thomas Burnham being Examined
denyes the fact saying he know nothing of it.

Then
Sam one of the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ blacks called Sybo
being Examined Saith, he being ordered to bring

Margin Notes:
Orlando Bagley, Thomˢ
Beale, Gabˡ Cornell &
Char: Stew: etc all Ride
wooden Horse for
neglecting their Duty.

Simon Lenox & Wᵐ
Wellman each fined
five shillˢ for being
Drunk on yᵉ Guard.

Thomˢ Burnham
Junʳ Accused for
Stealeing yᵉ Sam; &
else the Steeledes
Carry a[way] Hoot
Hutt St[one]s &c.

Francis Gallyon stated that he had been suffering severe pain in his stomach and was unable to go to his post. This was confirmed by his landlord. Thomas Coles stated that he had been working at his house and had not heard the alarm. Gabriel Cornell and Charles Steward both stated that they had not heard the alarm from the shipping.

It was ordered that Orlando Bagley, Thomas Beale, Gabriel Cornell, and Charles Steward should be punished by riding the wooden horse for neglecting their duty, as a warning to ensure greater care in the future. Thomas Harper and Francis Gallyon were excused on this occasion.

Simon Lenox was found drunk while on guard. He was fined £0 5s 0d for the benefit of the poor and committed to prison until sober, with this punishment considered sufficient warning.

The Governor then reported information received from one of the Honourable Company’s Black workers living at the Hutt plantation. It was alleged that certain persons had been secretly stealing goods at night from the plantation and selling them. Two of the Company’s Black workers, one named Sybo, identified Thomas Burnham Junior as one of those involved, stating that he had taken items from the plantation and from Henry Coles’s house.

A warrant was issued to investigate the matter. The Governor ordered a search to be carried out at night, with armed men. During this operation, two of the Company’s Black workers assisted. On Saturday 19 November 1699, they discovered tracks showing that about ten white persons had entered the Hutt plantation. The search was conducted under warrant, and further examination followed.

Thomas Burnham Junior was examined and denied the accusation, stating that he knew nothing of the matter.

One of the Company’s Black workers, named Sybo, was then examined and began to give evidence.

Interpretations

The punishment of riding the wooden horse was a physical disciplinary measure used within military contexts. It served as a public and painful deterrent, reinforcing obedience and readiness among soldiers.

The distinction between those punished and those excused showed that the Council evaluated individual circumstances. Illness and corroborated absence could mitigate punishment, while uncertainty or failure to respond without sufficient cause led to sanction.

The fine imposed on Simon Lenox for drunkenness while on guard demonstrated strict enforcement of discipline in positions of responsibility. Guard duty required sobriety, and failure in this role was treated as a threat to security.

The reference to the Company’s Black workers indicated their role within the plantation system as labourers under Company control. Their involvement in reporting theft showed that they could act as informants within the administrative structure.

The issuing of a warrant and the organised night search showed a formal process of investigation. The use of armed parties indicated that theft from Company property was treated as a serious offence requiring coordinated enforcement.

The identification of “ten white persons” entering the plantation suggested organised activity rather than isolated theft. This indicated a broader problem affecting Company resources.

The examination of both the accused and witnesses demonstrated a structured legal process. Testimony from Company workers, including Black labourers, was taken into account in establishing facts.

Speculations

The use of armed night searches suggested that the authorities suspected repeated or organised theft. This may have been intended to deter further incursions and to demonstrate control over Company property.

The involvement of Company workers in tracking and identifying suspects indicated reliance on those familiar with the plantation environment. Their participation may have increased the effectiveness of the search.

The denial by Thomas Burnham Junior suggested either an attempt to avoid punishment or uncertainty in the evidence against him. The reliance on witness testimony indicated that the case would depend on credibility and corroboration.

The punishment of soldiers for failing to respond to the alarm, alongside the investigation of theft, showed heightened concern for security. These events together may have reflected anxiety about disorder or vulnerability within the settlement.

24

22

Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Companyes Plantation att the Hutt, on
Sunday night last about Nine a Clock, he saw Thomas
Burnham Junʳ a Cutting up Some Yams out of yᵉ said
Plantation, whereupon went a little way further, that
Place where he was, and Called Samuel De [...]urne who
was then at his house which is not far from yᵉ Hutt
to come and Catch the said Burnham, he being a Slave
thought it would not be to good Effect, if he were to
take yᵉ Burnham himselfe, and after the said called
the sᵈ Mountaine he went back againe to yᵉ Place where
he saw yᵉ said Burnham first, and there see him putting
the yams In his bagg, thinking he would go run out
yᵉ said Plantation before yᵉ sᵈ Mountaine Come, went
towards him yᵉ Burnham, which he presently seized
and Run away as fast as he Could towards yᵉ said house,
that is to Lived In and following him over the Same him
Jump over yᵉ great Hutt by yᵉ said Hote, and Saith further
that yᵉ said Tho: Burnham had a white Colt Cotton.

Samᵈ Des[...]raie being Sworn Saith that on
Sunday night last about Nine a Clock Sam Called to
him at his now or one, before he had Immediately went
but his house being some Distance from yᵉ Hutt, Could
not come time enough, before yᵉ said Burnham was gon
but Horne as he Came yᵉ said Sam told him that he had
Seen Thoˢ Burnham Just before a Cutting up Yams out
of yᵉ Hutts Plantation being sure twas he, knowing
Followed him Just to his House, and Saw him Jump over
there Pail, whereupon he went Into yᵉ said House, and
asked him of stealing yᵉ Yams, demanding him why he
would do soe, who Replyed he had no need to steale Yams,
for he had and knew a piece before, and which they
Saw Plantation. Also to yᵉ said Burnham, he Stammered &
Shaked so much that he could hardly Speak, and Saw his
Shoes wett and durty, further Saith that yᵉ next
morning he and Samuel Yams Searched yᵉ Burnham
Plantations there where he liveth Into yᵉ said Plantation
to yᵉ place where yᵉ said Sam saith him appearing
of Yames, and also takeing upon one Yams afterwards
two Yams, same yᵉ halfe and found two Raw yames
and keshes in yᵉ way, which were the said Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
[...]

Further evidence was given concerning the theft from the Honourable Company’s plantation at the Hutt.

One of the Company’s Black workers stated on oath that on Sunday night at about nine o’clock he saw Thomas Burnham Junior digging up yams from the plantation. He moved away briefly and called Samuel De[...]urne, who lived nearby, to assist in apprehending him. He explained that, as a slave, he believed it would not be effective for him to attempt the arrest alone. When he returned to the spot, he saw Burnham placing the yams into a bag. Fearing that Burnham would escape before help arrived, he approached him. Burnham immediately broke away and ran towards his house. The witness pursued him and saw him jump over the enclosure near the Hutt. He also noted that Burnham wore a white cotton garment.

Samuel Des[...]raie then gave sworn evidence. He stated that on the same Sunday night, at about nine o’clock, he was called to assist but could not arrive in time because of the distance from his house to the plantation. When he arrived, he was told that Burnham had been seen digging up yams. He followed the track to Burnham’s house and saw him jump over the fence. He entered the house and confronted him about stealing the yams. Burnham denied the accusation, stating that he had no need to steal as he had yams of his own. However, the witness observed that Burnham appeared shaken, spoke with difficulty, and had wet and dirty shoes.

The following morning, Samuel and another man searched the area around Burnham’s dwelling and the plantation. They found disturbed ground where yams had been removed, as well as two raw yams and other remains along the path, which were identified as coming from the Company’s plantation.

Interpretations

The testimony showed that plantation produce such as yams was treated as Company property. Removing it without permission constituted theft and was subject to formal investigation and punishment.

The statement by the Black worker that he hesitated to apprehend Burnham alone because he was a slave revealed the social hierarchy governing enforcement. Authority to act against a white man was constrained, even when witnessing a crime.

The use of sworn depositions from multiple witnesses indicated a structured evidentiary process. Corroboration through independent testimony strengthened the case against the accused.

The physical evidence, including disturbed soil, recovered yams, and traces along the path, showed that material proof was used alongside testimony. This combined approach increased the reliability of the investigation.

The pursuit of Burnham to his house and immediate confrontation demonstrated active enforcement beyond formal settings. Suspects could be challenged directly and then brought into the legal process.

The description of Burnham’s behaviour, including visible agitation and physical signs such as wet and dirty shoes, was treated as supporting evidence. Observations of conduct played a role in assessing credibility.

The involvement of multiple individuals in searching and identifying evidence showed coordinated action under authority, reflecting organised oversight of Company resources.

Speculations

The hesitation of the initial witness to act alone suggested fear of reprisal or lack of authority. This may have delayed apprehension and allowed Burnham to escape immediate capture.

The tracking of Burnham from the plantation to his house indicated that the theft was recent and closely observed. This may have increased confidence in the accusation and reduced the likelihood of mistaken identity.

Burnham’s visible distress when confronted suggested that he may have been caught off guard. This reaction could have been interpreted as guilt, reinforcing the case against him.

The recovery of yams along the route suggested that the goods were hastily carried and partially dropped. This may indicate that Burnham fled quickly under pressure, rather than acting with preparation or concealment.

25

23

Yames, he is sure, and he further saith that said
Burnham that pulled them up out yᵉ sᵈ Hutts Plantation

Paul Charles being Sworne saith that he was
att the Mountaine house, when the said Black Sam
Called him, who went over to the said Hutt Plantation, and
when he Come home againe he asked him whether they had
seen any Body Stealing of the yames, the said Mountaine said
he did not see any body, but Sam told him, whereupon they
to him yᵉ said see Thomas Burnham said he had stood
Plantation a Cutting up of yames, and followed him [...]
to the house further told him he and Sam had bin in yᵉ house
and asked the sᵈ Burnham why he stole yams, who Denyed
it, but stammered and shooke so that he could hardly speake
George Andrew the next morning this deponent with yᵉ said
Mountaine and Sam, went and search the said Burnham
from said house Into yᵉ said Plantation, and found two fresh
yams, if the said Burnham had stole them, and found
Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ yames & likewiſe in yᵉ way, further saith that the
Mountaine wife told them that she sᵈ Burnham had come
the sᵈ Mountaine sᵈ come went Into yᵉ house.

John Hemmon Saith that the said Tho: Burnham
come to his house on Tuesday Evening to borrow a [...]
and that he was to [...] come from [...]orton Munday
morning for a Seaman on board yᵉ Ship Mary Me[...]the
the Roade

Upon Serious & mature
Consideration

It is ordered

That the said Tho: Burnham Junʳ be Committed to Close
Prison, there to Continue untill yᵉ next Generall Sessions, yᵉ
the said Tho: Burnham be desired by yᵉ Jury or off[...]
Bayley for his appearance att yᵉ Sessions, where he did and
accordingly was accepted of

Further sworn evidence confirmed the accusation against Thomas Burnham Junior. The earlier witness stated that he was certain the yams taken had come from the Honourable Company’s plantation and that Burnham had pulled them up himself.

Paul Charles gave evidence that he had been at the Mountain house when the Black worker Sam called him. He went to the Hutt plantation and later asked whether anyone had been seen stealing yams. The Mountain man replied that he had not seen anyone, but Sam stated that he had seen Burnham digging up yams and had followed him to his house. Paul Charles was told that they had entered the house and confronted Burnham, who denied the theft but was visibly shaken and struggled to speak.

George Andrew stated that on the following morning he, together with the Mountain man and Sam, searched the area from Burnham’s house back to the plantation. They found two fresh yams and further remains along the path, identified as belonging to the Honourable Company’s plantation. He added that the Mountain man’s wife reported that Burnham had come into the house.

John Hemmon stated that Burnham had come to his house on Tuesday evening to borrow [...]. He added that Burnham was due to leave for [...] on Monday morning to serve as a seaman aboard the ship Mary Me[...]the, then lying in the road.

After full consideration, it was ordered that Thomas Burnham Junior should be committed to close prison and held there until the next General Sessions. Bail was then accepted to secure his appearance at that court, and he was released under that condition.

Interpretations

The repeated and consistent witness testimony showed a strong evidential case built on multiple accounts. This reinforced the Council’s reliance on corroboration in reaching decisions.

The identification of the stolen yams as Company property confirmed that produce from plantations was treated as a protected resource. Theft from such sources was regarded as a serious offence affecting Company interests.

The involvement of several witnesses, including Company labourers and settlers, demonstrated a collaborative system of detection and reporting. This extended enforcement beyond formal officials into the wider community.

The order to commit Burnham to close prison indicated a stricter form of custody, used where the offence was considered serious or where there was risk of flight.

The acceptance of bail showed that the legal process allowed conditional release before trial. The accused could remain at liberty if security was given for appearance at the next General Sessions.

The reference to Burnham’s intended departure as a seaman highlighted a practical concern. Movement by ship could enable escape, which made detention or bail necessary to ensure he faced trial.

Speculations

The decision to imprison Burnham before granting bail suggested concern that he might flee, especially given his planned departure by sea. This may have prompted swift action to secure his presence.

The detailed tracking of his movements from plantation to house indicated that the theft was closely observed. This may have left little room for denial, despite his refusal to admit the act.

The involvement of multiple witnesses, including those connected to the plantation and nearby households, suggested that the theft occurred in a monitored environment. This may reflect heightened vigilance due to earlier reports of repeated thefts.

The granting of bail after initial imprisonment indicated a balance between enforcement and practicality. The authorities may have sought to secure his appearance without maintaining long-term custody before trial.

26

24

John Long free Planter being heard to sweare severall
oaths was brought to fort James, who could not but ack
nowledge his Crime, It is ordered

That the said John Long be fined three shillings for
Swearing to yᵉ Church use

John Heweſon Soldʳ being quartered att Ruperts Fort
acquainted Governʳ That he had found a parcell of Gunpowder
under a Rock, a little distance from yᵉ Fort, but did
not put his partners, Boſes three with him, who drew
the great Guns at yᵉ said Fort, one Reason was, because yᵉ
powder was in a pʳ of his bed Tickling, which they had found
before vizᵗ James Wilson Will: Hayse Junʳ and John Browne
Soldiers, who being Examined, saith that when yᵉ Ship James
was in the Road, the Great Guns belonging to her drove
from Drapers Lodge towards Ruperts and Richᵈ Allen
and Henry Hollis Soldʳ being there there who yᵉ Guns mate
gave them some powder, who put it under a Rock and
forget yᵉ Place where they put it, which is yᵉ same
powder, being very fusty and bad Country powder, and also
severall persons Testified yᵉ same saying yᵉ sᵈ Allen and
Hollis the sect powder off yᵉ said Gunners Mate,

Wherefore It is ordered

That the said four soldiers James Wilson John Browne
be discharged and acquitted of yᵉ same laid to their Charge, and
also that the said Heweſon be Disband with a severe Check
and pay Charges of Councill, appearing to us nothing out
malice to have his fellows did thereby Punished.

Whereas Andrew Phillips Gunner being Aged
great age and so old that he is uncapable of doing the Rᵗ
Honoᵇˡᵉ Company any manner of service, we have thought fit
to discharge him from that Care, allowing him 20 poun[ds]
for his maintenance so long as he lives, And have Committed
that Charge which was in his Custody to Robert Addis his Cheife
mate, allowing him Gunners Salary for yᵉ same, and also have
ordered that Wm French Gunner and Thomas Harris
Shift to move together as second mate, and whereas being
still in want of a greater Gunner, we have appointed

Margin Notes:
John Long fined
for swearing

John Hewson made
a false Accusation
agᵗ James Wilson
Wᵐ Hayse and John
Browne, for Accuseing
them that they had
stolen some Powder
and had hid it under
a Rock at Ruperts.

Andrᵈ Phillips Gunnr
discharged and Robᵗ
Addis made Gunnʳ &c
Tho: Gargen to be his
cheif Mate & Wᵐ
French to be 2ᵈ Mate
and Jno: Harris Soldʳ to
be Quarter Gunner.

John Long, a free planter, was brought to Fort James after he was heard swearing several oaths. He admitted the offence. It was ordered that he should be fined £0 3s 0d, to be paid for the use of the church.

John Heweson, a soldier stationed at Rupert’s Fort, reported to the Governor that he had found a quantity of gunpowder hidden under a rock near the fort. He stated that he had not informed his fellow soldiers, James Wilson, William Hayse Junior, and John Browne, who were responsible for handling the great guns, because the powder had been found in a bed tick.

These men were examined. They stated that when the ship James lay in the road, its great guns had been moved from Draper’s Lodge towards Rupert’s. During that time, Richard Allen and Henry Hollis, both soldiers present there, had received some powder from the gunner’s mate. They had placed it under a rock and later forgotten its location. The powder found was identified as the same, described as stale and of poor quality. Several witnesses confirmed that Allen and Hollis had received the powder from the gunner’s mate.

It was ordered that James Wilson, William Hayse Junior, and John Browne should be discharged and cleared of the accusation. John Heweson was reprimanded for making a false accusation and was required to pay the costs of the Council. His actions were judged to have arisen from malice.

Andrew Phillips, the gunner, was found to be too old to continue in service and incapable of performing his duties. He was discharged from his post and granted £20 0s 0d for his maintenance for the rest of his life. Responsibility for the position was transferred to Robert Addis, his chief mate, who was to receive the gunner’s salary. William French, gunner’s mate, and Thomas Harris were assigned to serve together as second mates. Thomas Gargen was appointed as chief mate, and John Harris, a soldier, was appointed as quarter gunner.

Interpretations

The fine imposed on John Long for swearing showed continued enforcement of moral conduct, with penalties directed to the church. This linked discipline to communal and religious structures.

The investigation into the hidden gunpowder demonstrated the importance of controlling military supplies. Gunpowder was a sensitive resource, and its unexplained presence triggered formal inquiry.

The clearing of the accused soldiers showed that the Council relied on corroborated testimony and material evidence. False accusations were taken seriously and could result in penalties against the accuser.

The reprimand and costs imposed on Heweson indicated that misuse of the complaint process was itself punishable. This helped maintain trust in the system and discouraged malicious reporting.

The retirement of Andrew Phillips on grounds of age showed that service obligations were recognised as limited by capacity. The grant of £20 0s 0d functioned as a pension, ensuring maintenance after discharge.

The reassignment of duties among Robert Addis, Thomas Gargen, William French, and John Harris demonstrated structured succession within military roles. Promotion from within, such as Addis moving from mate to gunner, ensured continuity of expertise.

The appointment of a quarter gunner from among the soldiers indicated flexibility in staffing essential roles. This allowed the system to adapt to shortages while maintaining operational capability.

Speculations

The discovery of forgotten gunpowder suggested lapses in control during earlier movements of artillery. This may have raised concerns about the security of military stores.

Heweson’s accusation, judged to arise from malice, indicated possible personal conflict among soldiers. The formal reprimand may have aimed to prevent further disputes from undermining discipline.

The decision to grant Phillips a pension rather than simply dismiss him suggested recognition of long service. This may have encouraged loyalty among other personnel by demonstrating that service would be acknowledged.

The reorganisation of the gunner’s role and supporting positions suggested an effort to strengthen artillery management. This may have been prompted by concerns over readiness or the recent discovery of neglected supplies.

27

25

John Harris Soldʳ to be Quarter Gunner, whoſe Salary is to
Commence from Thurſday next Enſuing.

William Murrish free Planter Deſired that he might
have yᵉ following writeing Recorded in yᵉ Councill books
which was Granted him.

This Indenture made yᵉ one and twentieth day of
November one thouſand Six hundred ninety nine and in yᵉ
year of the Reigne of our Soveraigne Lord James by the Grace of
God of England Scotland France and Ireland King Defendʳ of
the faith &c Between Elizabeth Starling wife of William Starling
of Harmonies and Richard Param of ſaid Iſland Planter [...]
of Wittneſſeth that she the said Elizabeth Starling for and in
conſideration of the Sume of five Pounds to her in hand paid [...]
the Enfealing and Delivery of theſe preſents by him the said Richᵈ
Param whereof whereof she doth acknowledge her Selfe fully Satisfied
paid and Received and for divers more good causes do freely
acquitt Remise and Discharge the said Richᵈ Param his heirs
Executʳˢ Admʳˢ and assigⁿˢ hath given Granted bargained
and sold and by these presents doth fully freely and absolutely Grant
bargain sell Alien Deliver unto the said Richard Param all
[...] of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Acres lying
situated and being on the head of Chappell Valley Butting and bounded
[...] West to the said Param’s owne Land the same more
or Less with all and Singular th’ appurtenances thereunto belonging
To have & to hold the said Ten Acres of Land to him the said
Richard Param his heirs Executors Admʳˢ and assigⁿˢ from day
of the date hereof unto yᵉ full End and Terme of Twenty nine years
Ensuing and the said Elizabeth Starling for her Selfe her heirs
Executʳˢ Admʳˢ and assigⁿˢ doth Covenant promise and Grant to
and with the said Richᵈ Param, and his said Richᵈ Param
his heirs Executors Admʳˢ and assigⁿˢ shall and may peaceably
and Quietly have hold occupy possess and enjoy the said Ten Acres of
Land without any manner of trouble and Denial whatsoever
or Contradiction of the said Elizabeth Starling her heirs Executors Admʳˢ or assigⁿˢ
or of any other Person whatsoever by her or their procurement
In Witness whereof the sᵈ Eliz: Starling hath hereunto sett her
hand and Seale the day and year above Written.

Eliz: Starling

Margin Notes:
An Indenture of
Ten Acres of Land
Leased Elizabeth
Starling Weel and
Rich: Param

Sealed Signed & Delivʳᵈ
In the presence of us
Tutton Leach
John Fryce
Willm Clifton

John Harris, a soldier, was appointed as quarter gunner, with his salary to begin on the following Thursday.

William Murrish, a free planter, requested that a written agreement should be entered into the Council records. This request was granted, and the document was recorded.

On 21 November 1699, an indenture was made between Elizabeth Starling, wife of William Starling of Harmonies, and Richard Param, a planter on the island. In return for £5 0s 0d paid to her in full, Elizabeth Starling acknowledged receipt and confirmed satisfaction with the payment. She released and discharged Richard Param and his heirs from all claims relating to the transaction.

She granted and transferred to Richard Param a parcel of land estimated at 10 acres, situated at the head of Chappell Valley and bounded on the west by Param’s own land, with all rights and appurtenances attached.

The land was to be held by Richard Param, his heirs and assigns, for a term of 29 years from the date of the agreement. Elizabeth Starling bound herself and her successors to allow Param and his successors to occupy and enjoy the land peacefully and without interference or claim from her or any other person acting on her behalf.

The agreement was signed and sealed by Elizabeth Starling on the date stated, in the presence of Tutton Leach, John Fryce, and William Clifton.

Interpretations

The recording of the indenture in the Council books showed that the Council acted as a formal registry for land transactions. This gave legal recognition and protection to private agreements.

The grant of land for a fixed term of 29 years indicated a leasehold arrangement rather than outright ownership. Such terms provided security of tenure while retaining ultimate control over land within the settlement.

The payment of £5 0s 0d reflected the value placed on land use rights rather than permanent ownership. This suggested a controlled land system in which access could be bought for defined periods.

The covenant guaranteeing peaceful possession protected the tenant against interference. This clause ensured that the lessee could use the land without dispute, reinforcing stability in landholding arrangements.

The involvement of named witnesses confirmed the validity of the agreement. Witnessing was essential for enforcing contracts and resolving any later disputes.

The participation of Elizabeth Starling, acting in her own right in the transaction, showed that women could hold and transfer land interests within the legal framework of the island.

The appointment of John Harris as quarter gunner demonstrated continued adjustment of military roles. Assigning a soldier to this position showed flexibility in filling technical posts within the defence structure.

28

26

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on
Tueſday the 5ᵗʰ Day of December 1699 att
Fort James.

Preſ:
Step: Poirier Govʳ
Thomas Bright depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineʳ

Henry Coles Church warden and for this present year
Constable of this Island Informed the Governoʳ & Councill
the following Declaration

That Mʳ John Humphreys had
of the said Island had spoken some Contemptious words
against the said Governʳ said Island,

The said Coles further declares that when Mʳ Browne
formerly was confined Priso[ner] he told him that the said Mʳ
Humphreys told him that Capᵗ Bright gave him notice that
the Governoʳ had wrote to the Bishop of London against him and
m [...] discreditor, the said Humphreys therefore gave him
to hope that he would not signe any letter against him, for that
Capᵗ Bright said he had rather loose his hand then do so and
said he was sure that Mʳ Goodwin would not signe any thing against
him, the said Humphreys further said that he did not know who he
who had signed himself against him no more then a bit[.]

Mʳ John Humphreys Saith that he & Capᵗ Bright had
some discourse about malicious the said paper that went not signed
and Bright time against me for Relieveing but he doe not think
my friend then do any such thing, and the hope Mʳ Goodwin
would not neither without giving him notice of it, saying he had
his pen sword make at said Bend of yᵉ [...] which the said
Capᵗ Bright answered not a word.

Mʳ Peter being Sworne Saith that Mʳ John Humphreys
Came into her House and Told her, that Capᵗ Bright had bin
att his House and told him that the Governoʳ had wrote against
him, but said Stop you will not write against me, meaning the said
Capᵗ Bright, who Replyed no not I and also Mʳ Goodwin, I know he
has writt then the said Humphreys said he did not care what the
wrote himselfe, being but a single person, and believed the Gov[ernor]
would make but such a noise as the Governoʳ would, and saith
She heard something disposest about it, but what She Cannot
Remember

Margin Notes:
Henry Coles In
formation agᵗ Mʳ
John Humphreys.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 5 December 1699. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Henry Coles, churchwarden and constable for that year, informed the Governor and Council that John Humphreys had spoken contemptuous words against the Governor.

Coles further stated that when Mr Browne had previously been confined as a prisoner, he had told him that Humphreys claimed Captain Bright had informed him that the Governor had written to the Bishop of London against him. Humphreys was said to have expressed hope that Bright would not sign any letter against him, and to have said that Bright would rather lose his hand than do so. He also stated that he believed Thomas Goodwin would not sign anything against him. Humphreys further claimed that he did not know who had signed against him.

John Humphreys responded that he had discussed with Captain Bright a malicious paper that had circulated unsigned. He stated that he believed Bright would not act against him without warning him, and that he also believed Goodwin would not do so. He added that Bright had not replied when these matters were raised.

A witness, Mrs Peter, gave sworn evidence that Humphreys had come to her house and told her that Captain Bright had informed him that the Governor had written against him. She stated that Humphreys had said to Bright that he would not write against him, to which Bright had replied that he would not, and that Goodwin had also written. Humphreys then said that he did not care what the Governor wrote, as he was only one man, and suggested that the Governor’s actions would have limited effect. She added that she had heard further discussion on the matter but could not recall the details.

Interpretations

The role of Henry Coles as both churchwarden and constable showed the overlap of civil and ecclesiastical authority. This dual position placed him at the centre of both moral oversight and legal enforcement.

The accusation of speaking contemptuous words against the Governor indicated that verbal criticism of authority could be treated as an offence. Respect for office was enforced as part of maintaining order.

The reference to letters sent to the Bishop of London showed a connection between the island’s administration and higher ecclesiastical authority. Complaints or reports could be escalated beyond the island, affecting reputation and position.

The discussion of unsigned papers suggested the circulation of informal or covert accusations. This reflected tension within the governing circle and the use of written communication to influence authority.

The reliance on reported speech, including statements passed through intermediaries, showed that evidence could include indirect testimony. This increased the scope of investigation but also introduced uncertainty.

The examination of Humphreys alongside witness testimony demonstrated a process of inquiry rather than immediate judgment. The Council gathered statements before determining any action.

The involvement of senior figures such as Captain Bright and Thomas Goodwin in the discussion showed that disputes could extend into the highest levels of administration, affecting relationships within the governing body.

Speculations

The emphasis on whether Bright or Goodwin would sign letters against Humphreys suggested concern about alliances within the Council. Humphreys may have been attempting to gauge or influence support among leading officials.

The reference to a “malicious paper” indicated the presence of factional conflict. This may have involved competing interests or personal disputes within the settlement’s leadership.

Humphreys’s statement that he did not care what the Governor wrote suggested a challenge to authority. This may have been intended to diminish the Governor’s influence or to assert independence.

The involvement of multiple witnesses recounting conversations suggested that rumours and private discussions were circulating widely. This may have contributed to instability or mistrust within the community.

29

27

Brigg the wife of Henry Brigg being Sworne Saith
she being not long since at Mʳ Colesons house and haveing had
discourse about writeing she said to Mʳ Coleson if she had had
that paper, meaning the said writing against yᵉ Capᵗ
Bright, which yᵉ Governor he would not [...] Signed
it, said Mʳ Coleson is it Leeson or replyed Mʳ Coleson so told you
Mʳ Coleson that Mʳ Poirier had told her Husband that Capᵗ
Bright would not [...] that Capᵗ Bright had him have a space
of time left for the Governoʳ had yᵉ words wrote against him

The said Mʳ Coleson denyed that said Humphreys and she
the same before, and that the said Humphreys said to Capᵗ Bright
hopes you will not signe any thing against me, no said he, I
rather loose my right hand and as for Mʳ Goodwin I am
sure he wont, then the said Humphreys aforesaid Did
believe what the Governoʳ himselfe.

Elizabeth Borwick being Sworne Saith
Humphreys Came in to her mothers house at yᵉ Fort and
told her that Capᵗ Bright had bin just before at his House and
told him the Governoʳ had or would make against him, To
which Mʳ said Humphreys said I hope you will not nor no
said Capᵗ Bright and would rather that yᵉ Governor would no
Then Mʳ Said Humphreys replyed he did not believe that the
Governor write against him being but a single person
And thought he should make as much Inscription as
the Governor now made

Mary Cliſson Saith to the Same Effect as
mentioned before hath already Deposed

Upon mature Consideration

It is ordered

That the said Mʳ John Humphreys be Excuſed for this
offence (promiſeing to be Reformed) But if he ſhall any more on
such like Enormitys he is to be Deported Immediately
off the Iſland and ſent home againe to Engᵈ
by the firſt opportunity.

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Mʳ John Humphreys
accused for like
offence.

Further sworn testimony was taken concerning the conduct of John Humphreys.

Brigg, the wife of Henry Brigg, stated that she had recently been at Mr Coleson’s house and that a discussion had taken place about a written paper concerning Captain Bright. She said that Mr Coleson told her that the Governor had written words against Captain Bright and that Bright would not sign anything against Humphreys. She added that Humphreys had expressed confidence that Bright would refuse to act against him and had said that he would rather lose his right hand than sign such a paper. Humphreys had also stated that he believed Thomas Goodwin would not sign anything against him and that he trusted this more than anything said by the Governor.

Elizabeth Borwick gave sworn evidence that Humphreys had come to her mother’s house at the fort and said that Captain Bright had just been at his house and had told him that the Governor had written or intended to write against him. Humphreys said that he hoped Bright would not act against him, and that Bright had replied he would not. Humphreys added that he did not believe the Governor’s actions would have much effect, as he was only one person.

Mary Clisson confirmed that her account agreed with the earlier testimony.

After full consideration, it was ordered that John Humphreys should be excused for this offence on condition that he reformed his behaviour. He was warned that if he committed any similar offence again, he would be deported from the island and sent back to England at the first available opportunity.

Interpretations

The repeated testimony from multiple witnesses showed that spoken statements, even when relayed through others, could form the basis of formal proceedings. Reputation and reported speech were treated as matters of public concern.

The accusation of speaking contemptuously about the Governor indicated that authority was protected not only through actions but through control of speech. Public respect for leadership was enforced as part of governance.

The reference to deportation as a potential punishment demonstrated a severe disciplinary measure. Removal from the island functioned as both punishment and a means of maintaining order within a small and controlled community.

The conditional pardon granted to Humphreys showed that the Council exercised discretion. Behaviour could be corrected through warning rather than immediate punishment, but with clear consequences for repetition.

The involvement of several households in the spread of these statements indicated that private conversations could quickly become matters of public record. This reflected the close-knit nature of the settlement and the importance of social surveillance.

The discussion of written accusations and signatures showed that formal complaints could carry significant weight. Whether individuals agreed to sign such documents affected alliances and trust within the governing structure.

Speculations

The decision to excuse Humphreys while issuing a strong warning suggested that the Council sought to contain the dispute without escalating it. This may have been intended to prevent further division among leading figures.

The emphasis on whether Captain Bright and Thomas Goodwin would support or oppose Humphreys indicated concern over internal loyalties. Humphreys may have been attempting to reinforce personal alliances to protect himself.

The threat of deportation implied that the authorities considered his behaviour serious but not yet beyond remedy. This approach allowed for correction while reserving stronger action if needed.

The repeated circulation of statements about letters and accusations suggested ongoing tension within the administration. This may have reflected deeper disagreements or rivalries that had not yet been formally resolved.

30

28

Whereas the Small armes belonging to the Garrison being
much out of Repaire, and deficient both in number & furniture
Necessary to have a person appointed to see yᵗ they be mended
fixed and kept in good order, and accordingly wee Proposed to Wᵐ
Child said matter, who would take that Charge and Care upon him
who Readily offered his willingness thereto. Whereupon

It is ordered

That the said Wᵐ Child do take the said small armes in
his Care and Custody, and keep them fixed and kept in good order
for which he is hereby allowed twelve Shillings p Month besides his
Gunners Salary.

Henry Coales and John Nichols Church Wardens having
Collected a small Sume of money att the Receiving yᵉ Holy
Communion and other times, Requested that they might
buy a Cow to Supply yᵉ wants of Sarah Jennings & her family
which was granted them, and accordingly

ordered

That to prevent yᵉ selling of yᵉ said Cow and Calf againe
she be given to the Children by Mᵗ French warden in trust
them at Check of Councill

Paul Charles Soldʳ Petitioned us, That wee would be pleased to Sell him
that Ten Acres of Land free Land which wee bought of Richard Griffen
with some part of yams & potatoes Considering that the sᵈ Paul Charles
hath Served the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Severall years in Labouring about
their Vineyards, and that he greatly wants Land for to maintaine his
Plantation. We have granted him his request; he paying to yᵉ Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃ in their book of Credit one £ and five Shillings Current money
for said Land and Yams.

Margin Notes:
Wᵐ Child to looke
after yᵉ Smale Arms
&c.

Henry Coales & Jnᵒ
Nichols Churchwar-
dens to buy a Cow for
Sarah Jennings & her
Family

Ten acres of Land
Sold to Paul Charles
for Seventy pounds.

The small arms belonging to the garrison were found to be in poor repair and lacking necessary equipment. It was decided that a responsible person should be appointed to maintain and oversee them. William Child was asked to take on this duty and agreed. It was ordered that he should have custody of the small arms, ensure they were repaired and kept in good condition, and receive an additional allowance of £0 12s 0d per month alongside his gunner’s salary.

Henry Coles and John Nichols, acting as churchwardens, reported that they had collected a small sum of money from offerings taken at the Holy Communion and at other times. They requested permission to use these funds to purchase a cow to support Sarah Jennings and her family. This request was granted. It was ordered that the cow and its calf should be secured to prevent resale and held in trust by Mr French, a warden, for the benefit of the children, subject to oversight by the Council.

Paul Charles, a soldier, submitted a petition requesting the purchase of ten acres of land previously acquired from Richard Griffen, together with some yams and potatoes. He stated that he had served the Honourable Company for several years, working in the vineyards, and that he needed land to maintain his plantation. His request was granted. He was required to pay £1 5s 0d in current money to the Company’s credit account for the land and produce.

Interpretations

The appointment of William Child to oversee small arms showed the need for organised maintenance of military equipment. Regular upkeep ensured readiness and reflected concern for the island’s defence capability.

The additional monthly payment indicated that specialised responsibilities were recognised and compensated. This showed how technical duties could supplement existing roles within the garrison.

The use of church-collected funds to support Sarah Jennings’s family demonstrated a structured system of poor relief. Contributions gathered through religious observance were redirected to assist those in need.

The decision to place the cow and calf in trust revealed an effort to protect charitable assets from misuse. Council oversight ensured that the benefit remained with the intended recipients rather than being sold or diverted.

The sale of land to Paul Charles showed that land distribution could reward service to the Company. Labour, particularly in vineyards, was recognised as grounds for gaining access to productive land.

The requirement that payment be made into the Company’s credit system indicated that transactions were recorded within an organised financial framework. This linked private landholding to central accounting.

The inclusion of crops such as yams and potatoes in the sale showed that land value included both its capacity and its existing produce. This reflected the practical importance of immediate subsistence alongside long-term cultivation.

Speculations

The emphasis on rePoirierg small arms suggested concern about the state of the island’s defences. This may have been prompted by recent alarms or perceived threats.

The creation of a trust arrangement for the cow indicated awareness that charitable gifts could be quickly lost if not controlled. This measure may have been intended to ensure lasting support for the family.

The relatively low payment required from Paul Charles compared to the apparent value of the land suggested that his service influenced the terms. This may have been a deliberate incentive to retain skilled labour within the settlement.

The involvement of the Council in both welfare provision and land allocation showed a broad administrative role. This may reflect the need for close management in a small and resource-limited community.

31

29

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Mon
day the 1ˢᵗ Day of January 1699/00 Att Fort
James.

Preſ:
Step: Poirier Governʳ
Thomas Bright depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineʳ

Peter Williams Soldʳ made his Humble Re
queſt to Governoʳ & Councill, that they would be pleaſed to
grant him his Son aged abᵗ 15 years, who is in the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃ Service.

It is ordered

That the said Peter Williams his Requeſt be granted his
Son Serving yᵉ Compᵃ from this Day next Enſuing.

Francis Sutton Frank free Planter made Requeſt
that we would be pleaſed to entertain his Son aged abᵗ
15 years old, in the said Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs Service as Soldʳ

It is ordered

That the said Francis Requeſt be Granted as afore

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Peter Williams Re-
queſted that his Son
might be Entertained
in yᵉ Compᵃˢ Service,
his Requeſt granted.

Sutton Flack Requeſ-
ted that his Son might
be Entertained in yᵉ Compᵃˢ
Service,
his Requeſt granted.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 1 January 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Peter Williams, a soldier, requested that his son, aged about 15 years and then in the service of the Honourable Company, should be released to him. It was ordered that this request should be granted, and that his son should leave the Company’s service from that day.

Francis Sutton Frank, a free planter, requested that his son, aged about 15 years, should be taken into the Honourable Company’s service as a soldier. It was ordered that this request should also be granted.

Interpretations

The ability to release a youth from Company service at the request of a parent showed that labour arrangements involving minors could be adjusted by authority. Service was not always fixed and could be ended by formal petition.

The acceptance of another youth into service at the same time showed a controlled system of recruitment. Entry into Company service required approval by the Governor and Council.

The similar ages of both youths indicated that adolescence was a common point of entry into military or labour service. Young people formed part of the island’s workforce and defence structure.

The contrast between one youth leaving and another entering service reflected a regulated circulation of labour. The Council managed both retention and recruitment to meet the needs of the settlement.

The classification of one petitioner as a soldier and the other as a free planter showed that different social groups could access the system. Both military personnel and civilian settlers could place their children into or withdraw them from Company service.

Speculations

The granting of Peter Williams’s request to withdraw his son suggested that family needs may have taken precedence over Company labour requirements in this case. This may indicate flexibility in labour control when justified.

The immediate acceptance of Francis Sutton Frank’s son into service may have balanced the loss of one worker. This could reflect an effort to maintain stable numbers within the Company’s workforce.

The close timing of both decisions suggested that labour supply was actively managed. The Council may have used such petitions to adjust manpower without formal recruitment drives.

32

30

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on
Tueſday the 16 day of Janʳʸ 1699/00 att
Fort James.

Presᵗ
Step: Poirier Governʳ
Thomas Bright depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineʳ

Whereas Elizabeth Boſtock made Complaint to the
Governʳ and Councill, That Mʳ John Humphreys coming from
home to her Mothers Houſe att the Fort, and said to her, your
mother and I have had a fallen out, and hath forwarded me
comeing to her Houſe, wherefore Before you to her made your mother
to come as She formerly did, who told him she would
not, then he said to her, you are Indebted to me some money
and She come to the house as muchly under pretence of demanding
it, Then yᵉ said Boſtock replied I owe you nothing upon which
the said Humphreys called this Deponent very Groſſely, Calling
her severall names, and said would make her an orde[...]
on yᵉ Island, and would make her be whipt off and publickely
Ringe in her mothers Houſe and brought back Simon Winkfield yᵉ
she was Indebted to him, and said she would not be P[...]d out
of five pound, and there being Some Strangers there that belong
to yᵉ Ship then in yᵉ Road said he Came purposely to make
her askew her money then and they haveing some words he yᵉ
sᵈ Humphreys Struck yᵉ said Mʳ Boſtock calling her Bitchhodge
and such like abusive names/

The said Mʳ John Humphreys doth acknowledge that he
called the said Eliz: Boſtock Girl, and that he Struck her one blow
but as for the Reſt of her Declaration he oweth Deny/

Carry Rockster Chirurgeon of the good Ship Ruſſell
Saith he being att yᵉ Said Mʳ Boſtocks mothers Houſe, the
said Mʳ Humphreys came there, and heard them have Some
words he did not Take notice what about, But heard
yᵉ said Humphreys Call yᵉ said Mʳ Boſtock Girl & Bitch, and
gave him, Struck her one blow

Margin Notes:
Elizᵗʰ Boſtock Complᵗ
agᵗ Mʳ John Humphreys
Matter left to be
decided by the Jury
next Quarter Sessions.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 16 January 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

Elizabeth Bostock submitted a complaint against John Humphreys. She stated that he came from his house to her mother’s house at the fort and told her that he had quarrelled with her mother and had been prevented from visiting. He pressed her to persuade her mother to receive him again, but she refused. He then claimed that she owed him money and used this as a reason to come to the house. She denied any debt.

She stated that Humphreys then insulted her with abusive language and threatened to have her publicly punished and expelled from the island. He also said he would have her punished and publicly exposed in her mother’s house. In the presence of strangers from a ship then lying in the road, he claimed that she owed him money and that he had come to demand it. During the dispute, he struck her and called her offensive names.

John Humphreys admitted that he had called Elizabeth Bostock a “girl” and that he had struck her once, but denied the remainder of her accusations.

Carry Rockster, surgeon of the ship Russell, gave evidence that he was present at the house. He stated that he heard an argument, though he did not know its cause, and that he heard Humphreys call Bostock “girl” and “bitch”, and saw him strike her once.

After consideration, it was decided that the matter should be referred to a jury at the next Quarter Sessions for final judgment.

Interpretations

The complaint showed that disputes involving verbal abuse and physical assault were treated as serious matters requiring formal inquiry. Violence, even a single blow, brought the case under legal scrutiny.

The involvement of strangers from a ship indicated that behaviour in front of outsiders was particularly sensitive. Public disorder could affect the reputation of the settlement and its authority.

The partial admission by Humphreys demonstrated that confession could be limited and selective. The Council weighed both admission and denial alongside witness testimony.

The referral of the case to the Quarter Sessions showed that more serious or contested cases were decided by a jury rather than solely by the Council. This reflected a layered judicial system.

The testimony of the ship’s surgeon showed that visiting personnel could serve as witnesses. This expanded the pool of credible observers beyond the resident population.

The accusation that Humphreys threatened public punishment revealed how authority could be invoked in personal disputes. Claims of influence or power were used to intimidate others.

Speculations

The escalation from verbal dispute to physical assault suggested a breakdown in personal relations. The presence of an unresolved debt claim may have contributed to the conflict.

The decision to refer the case to a jury indicated that the Council sought a more formal and impartial resolution. This may have been due to the seriousness of the accusation or the conflicting accounts.

Humphreys’s partial admission may have been an attempt to acknowledge minor fault while denying more damaging allegations. This could have been intended to limit potential punishment.

The emphasis on threats of public punishment suggested that reputation and social standing were central to the dispute. The conflict may have involved not only money but also personal honour and authority.

33

31

Margarett Colgrave widᵒ Saith that Mʳ Humphreys
had severall times desired her to speake to Mʳ Coleson to be
friends with him and to let him come to her house as formerly
he did, for he could never be att Rest untill such time as he was
Reconciled with her and her family, and that he would be as a father
to the aforesaid Eliz: Bostock for she was Ruined and dare not
shew her face in England because her Husband had catcht her abed
with Capᵗ And sometime since the said Humphreys asked
the said Colgrave whether she had spoke to yᵉ said Mʳ Coleson
and the Daughter Bostock about what he had told her before
who told him she had, and yᵉ said Mʳ Coleson answer was that
he must never Expect to Come to her House Then yᵉ sᵈ Humphreys
said that some of the Capᵗs of the Island had told him about the
said Capᵗ Benjamin Bed with Elizᵗʰ Bostock

Elizabeth Long Saith that she haveing some buisness with
Mʳ Coleson, went to her House, att which time yᵉ said Mʳ Humphreys
was att her House, and desired her to Carry a letter to Mʳ Coleson
To Inform her that he designed to go down in the Road Suppose
on Friday next following, and on Thursday last went there againe
and Carryed another letter yᵉ said Eliz: Bostock which she would
not Receive, So carryed it back againe to Mʳ Humphreys and
Told him That yᵉ said Eliz: Bostock Refused to Receive his letter
which Put him in a Passion, and said he would make her
obedient./

Grace Coleson Saith to the same purpose as yᵉ abovesaid
Mary Colgrave hath in yᵉ latter part of the Declaration

After mature Consideration having
bin Taken on the whole matter

It is ordered

That the final Decition of the said Buisness be refered
untill yᵉ next Genᵉll Sessions to be decided by the Jury./

The said Humphreys declared that yᵉ sᵈ Mʳ Coleson hath
sold him severall Bowles of Punch, which she could
not deny, whereupon

It is ordered,

Margin Notes:
Mʳ Humphreys infor-
mation agᵗ Mʳ Coleson
for selling Punch with
out Lycence.

Margaret Colgrave, widow, gave evidence that John Humphreys had on several occasions asked her to speak to Mrs Coleson on his behalf so that he might be reconciled with her and again be allowed to visit her house. He stated that he could not be at ease until he had been restored to favour with her and her family. He also said that he would act as a father to Elizabeth Bostock, claiming that she had been ruined and could not show her face in England because her husband had discovered her in bed with a captain. He further stated that he had been told by several captains on the island that Captain Benjamin had been involved with Elizabeth Bostock.

Colgrave stated that when she relayed his request, Mrs Coleson replied that Humphreys should not expect to return to her house.

Elizabeth Long stated that she had visited Mrs Coleson on business and found Humphreys there. He asked her to carry a letter to Mrs Coleson, informing her that he intended to go down to the road on the following Friday. She later carried another letter addressed to Elizabeth Bostock, but Bostock refused to accept it. Long returned the letter to Humphreys and informed him of the refusal. He reacted angrily and declared that he would force her to comply.

Grace Coleson confirmed the latter part of Margaret Colgrave’s account.

After full consideration, it was ordered that the final decision in the matter should be deferred to the next General Sessions, where it would be decided by a jury.

Humphreys then stated that Mrs Coleson had sold him several bowls of punch. She did not deny this.

It was ordered that this matter should also be considered.

Interpretations

The repeated attempts by Humphreys to gain access to Mrs Coleson’s household showed the importance of controlled entry to domestic spaces. Permission to visit was tied to reputation and social standing.

The allegations concerning Elizabeth Bostock’s conduct revealed how personal reputation could be used as a weapon in disputes. Claims of sexual misconduct had serious social consequences, particularly for women.

The use of intermediaries to carry messages and letters showed that communication between parties could be mediated by others. Refusal to accept a letter was itself a deliberate act of resistance within the dispute.

The decision to defer the case to the General Sessions indicated that the matter involved serious allegations and conflicting testimony. A jury trial provided a more formal and authoritative resolution.

The admission that Mrs Coleson had sold punch introduced a separate offence. The retail of alcohol required a licence, and unauthorised sales were subject to regulation.

The Council’s willingness to consider this new issue within the same proceedings showed how disputes could expand to include additional violations uncovered during examination.

Speculations

Humphreys’s persistence in seeking reconciliation suggested that access to the household held practical or social importance for him. This may have involved personal relationships or influence within the community.

The circulation of allegations about Bostock’s reputation indicated that the dispute extended beyond a simple quarrel. It may have been used to undermine her standing and justify exclusion.

The refusal to accept letters showed that Bostock and her household sought to cut off communication. This may have been intended to prevent further confrontation or pressure.

The emergence of the accusation about selling punch without a licence suggested that Humphreys attempted to counter the complaint by exposing a fault in his opponent. This may have been a strategic move to weaken her position in the dispute.

34

32

That the ſaid Grace Coulson be fined the Sume of fourty Shill:
to the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ for Retayleing Punch without a
Lycence

William Blot Chirurgeon Preſented
to Governʳ and Councill his Petition Setting forth therein
That William Marsh of the ſaid Iſland free Planter having
a Son who had a very Sore Defiled him to taken his Son
under cure, who accordingly did, and abᵗ a fortnight ago
Demanded of the ſaid Marsh Some Satisfaction for his medicines
that he had uſed, and Trouble which the ſaid Marsh Deny’d to do,
Therefore humbly deſired that we would cauſe the ſᵈ Marsh
to make him Satisfaction accordingly

The ſaid Marsh was called and asked why he did not make
the ſaid Blot Satisfaction for what he had done to his Son [...]
who Replied that he thought the ſaid Blot had had Enough
already, But after much Debate, the ſaid Marsh deſired and
Blot deſired that the Chirurgeon of the Ship now in yᵉ Road
with Hugh Yamlett Chirurgeon of the Garriſon, might View
the boys Legg, and be Judges to ſee what true opinion of it
and what the ſaid Blot deſerved for his Trouble & medicines,

Wherefore It was ordered

That the ſaid two Chirurgeons do Immediately view yᵉ
Marshes Sons Legg, and when Sworne to give true and faithfull
their opinions to us, and what the ſaid Blot should be
allowed by the ſaid Marsh, who accordingly Delivered their
opinions, and their hands in writeing, that the ſaid Marsh
should Satisfy the ſaid Blot for the medicines Expended about
his Sons Legg and for other Trouble and Expences, The Sume of
Six Pounds besides what he hath already Recved of the
ſᵈ Marsh, whereupon

It was also ordered

That the ſaid Marsh Pay and Satisfy the ſaid
Will: Blot, yᵉ abovesᵈ Sume of Six pounds & Charges of
Councill

Margin Notes:
Mʳ Coleson fined
fourty Shillˢ for selling
Punch without lycence

Wᵐ Bidot Complaines
of Wᵐ Marsh for
not paying him for
curing his Sons Legg.

Wᵐ Marsh to pay Wᵐ
Bidot £6 & yᵉ Charges of
Councill

It was ordered that Grace Coulson should be fined £2 0s 0d to the Honourable Company for selling punch without a licence.

William Blot, surgeon, submitted a petition stating that William Marsh, a free planter, had asked him to treat his son, who suffered from a severe condition. Blot had provided treatment and later requested payment for his medicines and labour. Marsh refused to pay, stating that he believed Blot had already received sufficient compensation.

Both parties were called before the Governor and Council. After discussion, it was agreed that the matter should be assessed by independent judgment. The surgeon of the ship then in the road, together with Hugh Yamlett, surgeon of the garrison, were appointed to examine the boy’s leg. They were sworn to give an honest and accurate opinion.

The two surgeons inspected the injury and submitted their written judgment. They determined that William Marsh should pay William Blot £6 0s 0d for the medicines used and the labour involved, in addition to any amount already received.

It was therefore ordered that William Marsh should pay the sum of £6 0s 0d to William Blot, together with the costs of the Council.

Interpretations

The fine imposed on Grace Coulson showed that the sale of alcohol was strictly regulated. Retail without a licence was treated as an offence against Company authority, with penalties payable directly to it.

The dispute between Blot and Marsh demonstrated that medical services were provided on a fee basis. Payment was expected for both medicines and professional labour, even within a small and closely connected community.

The refusal by Marsh to pay indicated that fees were not fixed in advance and could become a matter of dispute. This required intervention by the Council to establish a fair valuation.

The appointment of two surgeons to assess the case showed reliance on expert opinion. Professional judgment was used to determine appropriate compensation, rather than leaving the matter solely to administrative decision.

The requirement that the surgeons give their opinion under oath reinforced the formal nature of the process. Their assessment carried legal weight and guided the Council’s ruling.

The order to pay both the assessed sum and the Council’s charges placed the financial burden on the losing party. This discouraged refusal to settle legitimate claims and reinforced compliance.

Speculations

The use of independent surgeons to assess the case suggested that the Council sought to avoid bias. This approach may have been intended to produce a decision that both parties would accept.

The amount awarded, £6 0s 0d, indicates that the treatment was considered substantial. This may reflect the seriousness of the injury or the extent of care required.

The earlier refusal by Marsh to pay suggests uncertainty or disagreement over the value of medical services. The formal ruling may have been necessary to establish clearer expectations for such cases in future.

The enforcement of licensing rules against Coulson alongside the settlement of the medical dispute showed the Council addressing both economic regulation and private conflict in the same session. This reflects the broad scope of its authority.

35

33

Henry Coales Richard Ray and Thomas
Coales made Complaint to us that
Thomas Harper hath stolen their Jack Catch and
his man

The said Thomas Harper Denyes itt

Simon Whaley Soldʳ Saith that on Munday last in the
morning, he Thomas Coales, and the said Harper Goeing all three
Standing att the Sayd post Gate saw the said Henry Coales and yᵉ
sᵈ Ray Comeing Downewards, the said Harper said there
Comes Jack Catch and his man, which yᵉ sᵈ Coales heareing
Come to yᵉ sᵈ Harper, and asked him who was that
he called so, the said Harper Replyed not you Mʳ Coales
So went away./

Tho: Coales Saith the same/

Richard Ray Soldʳ being Sworne Saith that
the sᵈ Tho: Harper hath called him Jack Catch man
Severall times/

It is ordered

That the said Thomas Harper be Committed to
Prison untill tomorrow then to ask yᵉ said Henry Coales
and Ray forgivenes, and Committed never to use such
words to them hereafter and Pay any money/

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Thomas Harper
call by Henry Coales
and Richd Ray for
calling Coales Jack
Catch, and Richd Ray
Jack Catchs man.

Henry Coles, Richard Ray, and Thomas Coles submitted a complaint against Thomas Harper. They stated that he had insulted them by calling Coles “Jack Catch” and referring to Ray as his man.

Thomas Harper denied the accusation.

Simon Whaley, a soldier, gave evidence that on Monday morning he, Thomas Coles, and Harper were standing at the post gate when Henry Coles and Richard Ray approached. Harper remarked, “There comes Jack Catch and his man.” Thomas Coles heard this and immediately asked Harper whom he meant. Harper replied that he had not meant him and then walked away.

Thomas Coles confirmed this account. Richard Ray, also a soldier, stated on oath that Harper had called him “Jack Catch’s man” on several occasions.

It was ordered that Thomas Harper should be committed to prison until the following day. He was then required to ask Henry Coles and Richard Ray for forgiveness and to promise that he would not use such language again. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the Council.

Interpretations

The term “Jack Catch” referred to the executioner. Using it as a label was a serious insult, associating the person with a dishonoured and socially marginal role. This showed how language could carry strong social meaning and provoke formal complaint.

The case demonstrated that verbal insults alone could lead to legal action. Maintaining respect between individuals, especially within the garrison, was treated as essential to order.

The reliance on multiple witnesses, including direct and repeated testimony, showed the importance of corroboration in resolving disputes based on speech.

The punishment combined short imprisonment with a requirement for apology. This reflected a focus on restoring social harmony rather than imposing heavy penalties.

The obligation to promise future good behaviour indicated that the Council aimed to prevent repeated conflict. Such undertakings reinforced discipline within the community.

The inclusion of Council costs ensured that the offender bore the expense of the proceedings, discouraging similar behaviour.

Speculations

The repeated use of the insult suggested that the conflict between Harper and the complainants had been ongoing. The formal complaint may have been the result of accumulated grievances rather than a single incident.

The decision to require a public apology implied that reputation was central to the dispute. Restoring the standing of Coles and Ray may have been as important as punishing Harper.

The limited severity of the punishment suggested that the offence, while serious in social terms, was not seen as requiring long detention. The aim was probably to correct behaviour quickly and maintain working relations.

The willingness of witnesses to testify against Harper indicated that his conduct may not have been widely supported. This may have strengthened the complainants’ position and influenced the outcome.

36

34

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Tues
day the 30 Day of January 1699 att Fort
James

Preſ:
Step: Poirier Governʳ
Tho Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Tho: Goodwin Engineer

William Bidot Chirurgeon Complained of
William Marsh free planter, who would not pay what was awarded
to him the Summe of Six pound Sixteen Shillings Six pence
which Marsh owed him for the Cure that he had done att
his Sons Legg as yᵉ Consultation Held yᵉ 18ᵗʰ of Janᵘᵃʳʸ appeares
And the other matter of yᵉ same penalty is for bleeding & Purging
given yᵉ said Marshes family, which said Sume of money he
Marsh Denys to pay yᵉ sᵈ Bidot.

The said Marsh being asked why he did not pay yᵉ said Bidot
said that he did not owe him so much as he Demanded
and made appeare that the sᵈ Bidot had had 19 months payment
which he would not deny whereupon

It was ordered

That that the said Marsh pay the sᵈ Bidot fifty five
Shillings, besides the pound made of the pound Interest to him
and that they deduct his House Rent from yᵉ Beginning of pound
until yᵉ day of the date hereof And also that yᵉ Marsh pay
yᵉ Charges of yᵉ said Bidot Summons.

Thomas Dixon Junʳ who bought the Estate formerly
of Thomas Stevens of yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ finding he Could not
for it according to his agreement with us, Humbly desired that
we would take the Estate againe into our possession, and to let
him have it by way of lease for 21 years paying annuall Rent
for it, wherefore

Margin Notes:
Wᵐ Bidot Complaines
of Wᵐ Marsh for Re
fusing to pay none
more he should him
which to yᵉ aforesaid
Bidot

The aforesaid Marsh
to pay the said Bidot fifty
shillings.

Tho: Dixon Junʳ
weaving to make yᵉ
sale yᵉ Estate we sold
him ten acres Land
againe he being not able
to pay for it according
agreement therefore he
lease of paying
annuall Rent said year
desired to approve

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 30 January 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

William Bidot, surgeon, complained that William Marsh, a free planter, had refused to pay the sum of £6 16s 6d that had been awarded for the treatment of his son’s leg, as ordered in the consultation of 18 January 1700. Bidot also claimed additional payment for bleeding and purging provided to Marsh’s household. Marsh denied owing the full amount and argued that Bidot had already received payment covering a long period.

After consideration, it was ordered that Marsh should pay Bidot £2 15s 0d, together with interest on the outstanding amount. It was also ordered that Marsh’s house rent should be deducted from the account from the beginning of the debt up to the present date. Marsh was further required to pay the costs of Bidot’s summons.

Thomas Dixon Junior, who had previously purchased an estate from the Honourable Company that had belonged to Thomas Stevens, stated that he was unable to meet the terms of the agreement. He requested that the Company take back possession of the estate and allow him to hold it instead on a lease for 21 years, paying an annual rent. This request was placed under consideration.

Interpretations

The dispute between Bidot and Marsh showed that enforcement of earlier financial awards could require further intervention. Compliance with Council decisions was not automatic and might lead to additional proceedings.

The adjustment of the amount owed indicated that the Council could revise earlier decisions in light of new evidence. This showed flexibility in determining fair compensation.

The deduction of house rent from the debt demonstrated the use of offsets within the accounting system. Obligations could be balanced against each other rather than settled only by direct payment.

The inclusion of interest on the debt showed that delayed payment carried financial consequences. This encouraged timely settlement of obligations.

The requirement to pay summons costs reinforced the principle that the party resisting payment bore the expense of enforcement.

The case of Thomas Dixon Junior showed that land sales by the Company were subject to review when purchasers could not fulfil their agreements. Ownership could revert to the Company, maintaining control over land distribution.

The proposal to convert ownership into a lease indicated a flexible approach to land tenure. Leasing allowed continued use of land while securing a regular income for the Company.

Speculations

The reduction of the amount owed to Bidot suggested that the original award may have been contested or considered excessive. The Council may have aimed to reach a compromise acceptable to both parties.

The use of rent deductions indicated that Marsh had ongoing obligations to the Company. This arrangement may have been chosen to simplify settlement without requiring immediate cash payment.

Dixon’s inability to complete the purchase suggested financial strain among planters. The shift to a lease may have been intended to prevent abandonment of the land while preserving its productive use.

The willingness to reconsider land agreements indicated that the Company prioritised continued cultivation over strict enforcement of initial sale terms.

37

35

Upon mature Consideration It is ordered, That
Two persons be appointed to appraise the said Estate, and bring
an accompt thereof unto Governᵒ and Councill on Tuesday yᵉ 6ᵗʰ of
February next Ensuing./

Margarett Gunning orphan aged abᵗ fourteen years
Came to the Governᵒ and Councill desireing she might Chuse her
Brother in Law James Greenle to be her Guardian, being now
arrived with whome she lives is going off yᵉ Island, which was
granted her, and the said James Greenle Charged to take Care
of her, and Estate./

William French Gunʳ mate being a very Drunken
Extravagant fellow, who owes the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ att the
Sume of Eighteen pounds in their Store book Sallʳy was
ordered to appeare before us that some means might be used
for paymᵗ yᵉ said sume, who being asked which way he would
pay yᵉ said Sume, desired some time for payment thereof,
but Considering him to be so Extravagant & a great Spender
It was thought fitt and accordingly

ordered,

That the said Wᵐ French be Committed to prison
untill he gives good Security for Paymᵗ of the abovesᵈ Sume
But producing none.

It was further ordered

That Henry Coales Marshall be fully Impowered by warrᵗ
under the Governᵒ hand and Seale to make Seizure of yᵉ goods
and Chattles belonging unto the said French, for yᵉ use of yᵉ
said Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ./

William Blot Chirurgeon made Complaint to the Governᵒ
& Councill That William Marsh had given him very ill Language
by calling him severall names, as Bastard Rogue, and those clothes
and threatened to Beat him; therefore for prevention of any
further trouble and mischief desired that the said Marsh Swear yᵉ Peace agᵗ
the sᵈ Marsh which he accordingly did, and produced for evidence

Margin Notes:
Mary Gunning
Choses yᵉ James Green
[...][...] as her
Guardian

Wᵐ French being
Indebted to yᵉ Compᵃ
his goods and Chattles
Seized on

Wᵐ Marsh bound
over to the good beha-
viour for abusing
Wᵐ Bidell.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 30 January 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

William Bidot, surgeon, complained that William Marsh, a free planter, had refused to pay £6 16s 6d for the cure of his son’s leg, as ordered on 18 January 1700. He also claimed payment for bleeding and purging given to Marsh’s household. Marsh denied the full amount. He stated that Bidot had already received payment for a long period.

After consideration, it was ordered that Marsh should pay Bidot £2 15s 0d, together with interest. His house rent was to be deducted from the account from the beginning of the debt to the present date. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the summons.

Thomas Dixon Junior stated that he could not complete his purchase of the estate formerly belonging to Thomas Stevens. He asked that the Company take the estate back and grant it to him on lease for 21 years at an annual rent.

After consideration, it was ordered that two men should value the estate and report to the Governor and Council on 6 February 1700.

Margaret Gunning, an orphan aged about 14, appeared before the Council. She asked to choose her brother-in-law, James Greenle, as her guardian, as the person she lived with was leaving the island. The request was granted. Greenle was charged with her care and her estate.

William French, gunner’s mate, owed the Honourable Company £18 0s 0d in the store account. He was known to be drunk and wasteful. He was called before the Council and asked how he would pay. He asked for time. This was refused. He was committed to prison until he gave security for payment. He gave none.

A warrant was issued. Henry Coles, marshal, was ordered to seize French’s goods and chattels for the Company.

William Blot, surgeon, complained that William Marsh had abused him with insulting words and threats. Blot required that Marsh be bound to keep the peace. This was done.

Interpretations

The revision of the debt showed that the Council could adjust earlier rulings. It balanced evidence and payments already made.

The deduction of house rent showed that debts could be offset within the Company’s accounts. This reduced the need for immediate cash payment.

The valuation of Dixon’s estate showed that land was treated as a measured asset. Its value had to be fixed before any new agreement.

The lease request showed that landholding could shift from ownership to tenancy. This allowed continued use while securing Company income.

The appointment of a guardian for Margaret Gunning showed that the Council controlled the care of orphans and their property. Consent was required even when the guardian was a relative.

The imprisonment of William French showed strict enforcement of debt. Failure to give security led to loss of liberty.

The seizure of goods showed that property could be taken to satisfy Company debts. The marshal enforced this by warrant.

The order binding Marsh to the peace showed that threats and insults could trigger preventive action. The aim was to stop further conflict.

Speculations

The reduced payment ordered for Marsh suggests that the earlier sum was disputed or judged too high. The Council appears to have settled on a compromise.

The shift from sale to lease in Dixon’s case suggests financial strain. The Council preferred continued cultivation over forfeiture.

The refusal to grant time to French suggests lack of trust in him. His behaviour probably influenced the decision.

The use of seizure suggests urgency in recovering the debt. Delay may have risked loss to the Company.

The second dispute between Blot and Marsh shows ongoing conflict. The order to keep the peace suggests concern that it could turn violent.

38

36

John Alexander who Saith that he being yesterday in the
Evening att the said Mʳ Marshes house, heard the sᵈ Marsh
Call the sᵈ Bidot severall names as Rogue and Knave, and
Challenged him to fight, and also heard the sᵈ Marsh Sweare
about five or Six oathes/

It is ordered

That the said Wᵐ Marsh be Committed to Prison, and be
of the good behaviour, untill the next Generall Sessions, and be
fined five shillings for swearing, but produced Immediately
Security for his good behaviour which was accepted./

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday the
13ᵗʰ Day of February 1699/00 Att Fort James

Pres:
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governoʳ
Thomas Goodwin Engineer

Whereas in the foregoing Consultation It was ordered
That Henry Coales Marshall should make Seizure of the goods
and Chattles belonging unto Wᵐ French for payment of a
Sume of money which he stands Indebted unto the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃ who accordingly this day brought and Delivered an
Inventory of the said Frenches Estate, which is hereafter
mentioned

Margin Notes:
An Inventory of Wᵐ
French’s Estate Delivered
Governʳ & Councill

John Alexander stated that on the previous evening he was at the house of William Marsh. He heard Marsh call William Bidot several abusive names, including rogue and knave. He also heard Marsh challenge him to fight and swear five or six oaths.

It was ordered that William Marsh should be committed to prison and bound to good behaviour until the next General Sessions. He was also fined £0 5s 0d for swearing. He immediately produced security for his good behaviour, which was accepted.

A consultation was then held at Fort James on Tuesday 13 February 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

In the previous consultation, Henry Coles, marshal, had been ordered to seize the goods and chattels of William French for a debt owed to the Honourable Company. On this day, he presented and delivered an inventory of French’s estate to the Governor and Council. The contents of that estate were recorded.

Interpretations

The order to bind Marsh to good behaviour showed a preventive measure used to control threats and disorder. It restrained future conduct rather than punishing past action alone.

The acceptance of security in place of continued imprisonment showed that custody could be avoided if guarantees were given. Responsibility could shift to those who stood surety for the accused.

The fine for swearing confirmed that abusive language was treated as an offence in itself. Moral discipline remained part of legal enforcement.

The delivery of an inventory by the marshal showed a formal process in debt recovery. Property was listed and recorded before being used to satisfy obligations.

The role of the marshal demonstrated the enforcement arm of the Council. Orders made in consultation were carried out through seizure and documentation of goods.

The recording of the estate indicated that financial accountability required written evidence. This ensured transparency in the handling of seized property.

Speculations

The immediate provision of security by Marsh suggests that he had support or resources available. This may have prevented a longer period of imprisonment.

The detailed listing of French’s goods suggests concern over recovering the full value of the debt. This may indicate that his ability to pay was uncertain.

The combination of fines, bonds, and seizure shows increasing pressure on individuals who resisted authority. This may reflect broader concern over discipline and compliance within the settlement.

39

37

An Inventory of Wᵐ Frenches Eſtate Taken
and Seized for the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ uſe by me Henry Coales
vizᵗ

Ten acres of Land

4 Cowes
1 Calfe
2 Heifers
1 Bull
10 Sows and Piggs
20 Goates young and old } 8 head

The said Wᵐ French humbly desired yᵗ his Eſtate might
Remaine in his hands untill two moneths after to dispose of
getting Robert Addis Gunʳ and Tho: Dixon Junʳ for his Suretys
which was accepted of as yᵉ following writing made

Wee Robert Addis and Thomas Dixon do hereby
Promise and Engage to the said William French his Estate not
to sell nor make away any part of the above particulars and
to be accountable for yᵉ same Delivering an accoᵗ thereof
when thereunto called by Governᵒ and Councill, And if the
said Wᵐ French do hereby Engage my selfe and Estate
and Consent that after the abovesᵈ two months Expired the part
The Remaining part of my Estate shall be lyable to the Use
of my Creditor and to give an accoᵗ thereof to the Governᵒ
and Councill of Sᵗ Helena Witnesse our hands this 13 day of
February 1699/00

Robᵗ Addis
Tho: Dixon
Will: French

Wittnesses
Henry Coales
Jo: Alexander

Margin Notes:
Security Given by Wᵐ
French for yᵉ fourth
coming of his Estate.

An inventory was taken of the estate of William French. It was seized for the use of the Honourable Company by Henry Coles, marshal.

The estate included ten acres of land, four cows, one calf, two heifers, one bull, ten sows and pigs, and eight goats, young and old.

William French asked that the estate remain in his hands for two months so he could dispose of it. He offered Robert Addis, gunner, and Thomas Dixon Junior as sureties. This request was granted.

A written agreement was made. Robert Addis and Thomas Dixon promised that none of the estate would be sold or removed during those two months. They agreed to be accountable for it and to give a full account when required by the Governor and Council.

William French agreed that after the two months any remaining part of his estate would be liable to his creditors. He bound himself and his estate to this condition and agreed to give an account to the Governor and Council.

The agreement was signed on 13 February 1700 by Robert Addis, Thomas Dixon, and William French, in the presence of Henry Coles and John Alexander.

Interpretations

The inventory showed that wealth lay in land and livestock. These could be seized to settle debts.

The delay of two months showed that enforcement could be staged. Seizure did not always mean immediate loss of possession.

The use of sureties shifted responsibility. Addis and Dixon stood answerable for the estate.

The order that nothing be sold or removed protected the value of the estate. It prevented loss before settlement.

The written bond made the agreement enforceable. Witnesses gave it legal weight.

The clause on liability after two months showed a controlled process. It allowed time but fixed a clear point for full recovery.

Speculations

The two-month period suggests that French was expected to raise money. This may have avoided forced sale.

The presence of sureties suggests that French still had support. Others were willing to risk their standing for him.

The strict control over the estate suggests fear of concealment. The Council may have acted to prevent loss before payment.

40

38

Capᵗ Thomas Warren who Comander of the Wᵐ & Jno
who did arrive here the 20ᵗʰ February last Past, bringing
Maderascar, with about Eighty Negroes, and Twenty
of those pirates, whome have accepted the Kings Pardon offered
unto them by the said Capᵗ Warren, as haveing Coms to do in
by Capᵗ Warren Comodor of the Kings Squadron, of ships in
India and his Majesties Commissioners, Those of whome
desired us to give them leave and liberty to Remaine here
some being Sick and some being willing to go directly for
England by the first opportunity or delay which should
Warren home, haveing taken upon himselfe And Considering further that
Capᵗ Sawk they is so Extreamly uncertaine of their Passage on board
said Ship Company, that thought fitt and accordingly

ordered

That their Request be Granted Being the only article
on board the said Wise Pink who seized mannage the said
ship in Case of Rebellion against Capᵗ Warren, and yᵉ Company
ships Stay here, the officers hope that they all According
and that they also worke unto Governing Councills, Capᵗ
Warren Sent home. And that those hand of the few have
as aforesaid

Robert Flower
Wm Jackson
Ralph Chilson
John Busling

Henry Coales Marshall and John Goodwin free planter
appointed to appraise Thomas Dixon’s Estate
which they did and this day brought an Accoᵗ of the Sume
Said Estate amounted to Sixty one pound

It is ordered

That the said Dixon have and possesse for Twenty one years
according to his Desire, as the lease of it annually without
paying any manner of Revenue besides, And It is also
ordered and agreed that the said Tho: Dixon shall Leave
the House and Plantation In as good a condition as he
them att the End and Expiration of the Said 21 years, and
that he have Credit in the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs book of Credit
for the sume of Sixty one pound aforesᵈ.

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Four pirates being
Sick desired that
they might stay here
untill recovered or
till yᵉ arrival of
Comodore Warren
from India.
Their Request granted

Henry Coales & Jnᵒ
Goodwin made appraisment
of Tho: Dixons Estate &c
brought their Accoᵗ this
Day

the sᵈ Dixon to have yᵉ
Estate for 21 years
paying no Revenue
&c.

Captain Thomas Warren, commander of the William and John, arrived on 20 February 1700. He came from Madagascar with about 80 slaves and about 20 pirates. These pirates had accepted the King’s pardon offered by Captain Warren, who acted under authority as commodore of the King’s squadron in India and under His Majesty’s commission.

Some of these men asked permission to remain on the island. Several were sick. Others wished to wait for passage to England by the first opportunity. Passage on the ship was uncertain. After consideration, it was ordered that their request should be granted.

The men named were Robert Flower, William Jackson, Ralph Chilson, and John Busling.

Henry Coles, marshal, and John Goodwin, free planter, were appointed to value the estate of Thomas Dixon. They carried out the valuation and reported that the estate was worth £61 0s 0d.

It was ordered that Thomas Dixon should hold the estate on a lease for 21 years, as he had requested. He was not required to pay any annual rent. He was required to leave the house and plantation in as good condition at the end of the term as when he received them.

It was also ordered that Thomas Dixon should receive credit of £61 0s 0d in the Honourable Company’s books.

Interpretations

The arrival of pardoned pirates showed the use of royal clemency to restore offenders. Acceptance of the pardon placed them under lawful authority again.

The decision to allow some to remain on the island showed local discretion in managing transient populations. Illness and lack of transport were accepted as valid grounds.

The naming of individuals indicated that their status was recorded and controlled. This reduced the risk of disorder from former pirates.

The valuation of Dixon’s estate fixed its monetary worth. This allowed the Council to convert ownership into a structured lease.

The grant of a 21-year lease without rent showed a negotiated settlement. The Company retained ownership while allowing continued use.

The requirement to maintain the property protected its long-term value. Responsibility for upkeep rested with the tenant.

The credit of £61 0s 0d in the Company’s books showed that the value of the estate was transferred into an accounting system. This replaced landholding with a financial claim.

Speculations

The permission given to the pardoned pirates suggests concern over their condition and control. Allowing them to remain may have reduced risk of disorder at sea.

The absence of rent in Dixon’s lease suggests that his inability to pay was recognised. The Council may have preferred continued occupation to abandonment.

The grant of credit equal to the estate’s value suggests compensation for surrendering ownership. This may have eased the transition from owner to tenant.

The requirement to maintain the property suggests concern over neglect. The Council may have acted to preserve productive land over the long term.

41

39

Jonathan Dufton youngest of Kin to Andrew
Phillips late Gunner, who is much afflicted with Sicknes
and cannot help himselfe, was willing to take the said Phillips
Estate and effects, that it might not be wasted, and also to buy such provisions and other
necessarys fitting for him, being uncapable of doing it him
selfe, wherefore

It was ordered

That the said Duftons Request be granted and that
he Take an Inventory of the sᵈ Phillips Estate, and to give
an Accoᵗ thereof when thereunto called by Goverʳ & Councill

Island Sᵗ Helena

By The Governoʳ & Councill
A Proclamation,

Whereas Capᵗ Thomas Warren was here brought some
Seeds, which he brought from the Cape, and hath bin planted
att the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Companyes Land Plantation
which is growne Wonderfully To an Admirable Tree, So
to breake those casted off boughs, That is so Dangerous to the
Island, growing without nothing Else Rains, and Considering
then that it is a Treasure from the Providence, So where
who minding his Estate, will take Care to plant any thing
about it & their Plantations, But Information, hath brought
from us, That inconsiderate persons, who mind only themselves
and have no will for the future, doth gather and take [...]
the Blossoms thereof, which is the only means to stop
Increasing of it, But to Prevent such Childish doings for
the future,

It is ordered

That whoever shall be found Guilty of it hereafter [...]

Margin Notes:
Jonathan
Request

Proclamation
agᵗ stealing yᵉ seeds
[...] from yᵉ Tree
planted at Plantation
[...]

Jonathan Dufton, the nearest relative of Andrew Phillips, the former gunner, appeared before the Council. Phillips was very ill and unable to manage his affairs. Dufton offered to take charge of Phillips’s estate so it would not be wasted. He also undertook to buy provisions and other necessities for him.

It was ordered that Dufton’s request should be granted. He was required to take an inventory of Phillips’s estate and to give an account of it when called upon by the Governor and Council.

A proclamation was then issued by the Governor and Council.

Captain Thomas Warren had brought seeds from the Cape. These had been planted on the Honourable Company’s plantation. The plants had grown well and produced a strong and valuable tree. Its growth was seen as important to the island.

It was reported that some people were picking the blossoms from the trees. This prevented further growth. These actions were described as harmful and careless.

It was therefore ordered that anyone found doing this in future would be punished.

Interpretations

The appointment of Jonathan Dufton showed that care of the sick and their property could be transferred to a relative under Council authority. This protected both the person and the estate.

The requirement to take an inventory ensured that Dufton remained accountable. Property could not be used or disposed of without oversight.

The proclamation showed that the Council acted to protect useful resources. The tree was treated as valuable to the island’s economy.

The concern over picking blossoms showed awareness of how cultivation affected future supply. Preservation of growth was enforced as policy.

The use of a proclamation indicated a public order rather than a private decision. It applied to all inhabitants and set a general rule.

The reference to seeds brought from the Cape showed the transfer of plants between regions. New crops were introduced and managed under Company control.

Speculations

The decision to appoint Dufton suggests that Phillips had no capacity to manage his affairs. The Council acted to prevent loss or neglect of his property.

The strong reaction to the removal of blossoms suggests that the tree had high expected value. It may have been intended for food, timber, or trade.

The need for a public order suggests that misuse had already occurred more than once. The Council may have acted to stop further damage before it became serious.

The emphasis on collective benefit over individual use suggests concern for long-term supply. The Council appears to have prioritised future gain over immediate consumption.

42

40

Att a Conſultation Held on
27ᵗʰ Day of February 1699/00 Att [...]

Preſᵗ
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Tho: Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Tho: Goodwin Enſigne

Whereas Mʳ Thomas Goodwin acquainted
Governʳ That last night after the Taps too had Beaten, Mathew
Freeze and Edward [...] were quarrelling and fighting in yᵉ
and tho they did afterwards make themselves, Mʳ could ſay but twice
themselves, and further they were Drunk,

It was ordered

That Edward [...] be fined 10 shillings for being Drunk and
make his Escape, or else be put in the Stocks for yᵉ Space of
4 houres with his Single Irons and then Released. Also that
Matthew Freeze be fined 5 shillings for being Drunke

John Foster Soldʳ humbly desired that we would be pleased
to sell him a Black negroe slave, which we had out the last
of yᵉ last Black Ship from Madagascar, for Tennage/

It is ordered

That the said Foster have the said Negroe at yᵉ Rate
Price of Twenty Pound five shillings and that he have one
Time for Payment thereof according to his Request/

Margin Notes:
[Edw]ard [...] to be
fined 10s for being drunk
and making his
Escape out [...]

John Foster’s
Request granted

A consultation was held on 27 February 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Thomas Goodwin reported that on the previous night, after the evening signal had been given, Matthew Freeze and Edward [...] were quarrelling and fighting. Both were drunk. They later withdrew, but the disturbance had already taken place.

It was ordered that Edward [...] should be fined £0 10s 0d for being drunk. If he failed to pay, he was to be placed in the stocks for four hours in irons and then released. Matthew Freeze was fined £0 5s 0d for being drunk.

John Foster, a soldier, requested that he might purchase a black slave from those recently brought from Madagascar. This slave came from the last ship that arrived.

It was ordered that Foster should have the slave at the price of £20 5s 0d. He was granted time to make payment, as he had requested.

Interpretations

The reference to the evening signal showed a regulated daily routine. Fighting after this time was treated as disorder.

The fines for drunkenness confirmed that intoxication leading to disturbance was punishable. Different fines reflected degrees of offence.

The alternative punishment of the stocks showed a public form of discipline. It combined restraint with exposure to others.

The sale of a slave by the Company showed direct involvement in the slave trade. Enslaved people were treated as property and sold at fixed prices.

The grant of time for payment showed that purchases could be made on credit. The Company controlled both supply and terms of sale.

The classification of Foster as a soldier buying a slave showed that individuals within the garrison could acquire labour. This linked military service with private economic activity.

Speculations

The quick punishment of the fight suggests concern for discipline at night. The Council may have acted to prevent wider disorder.

The option of the stocks suggests that not all offenders could pay fines. Public punishment ensured enforcement even without money.

The sale on credit suggests that Foster may not have had immediate funds. The Company may have prioritised placing labour over immediate payment.

The presence of newly arrived slaves suggests active trade connections with Madagascar. The Council appears to have integrated these arrivals quickly into the island economy.

43

43

Capᵗ Thomas Bright Deputy Governoʳ of this Iſland
haveing sett his Love and affection upon Mʳ Elizaᵇᵗʰ
Elliot Mʳ John Elliot Daughter and wife of Mʳ John Elliot
did the Governoʳ Bright therefore when She was first married
to the Said John Elliot who Departed from this Iſland abt
five Years ago wanting four months In the good Ship Sumer
Capᵗ William Gifford Comandʳ could not be Satisfyed to prmit
them to go on without before hand to have Evidence the said Elliots
Death According to Law To This End they are Come before the
Governoʳ and have given their oathes that the said John Elliot husband
to the Said Mʳ Eliza his wife, and the said Elizabeth their Daughter
that Severall Persons who hath bin here lately in severall
Ships did testify that the said Elliot died in France of the French
Small Pox the Ship in which he went off in being Taken by yᵉ French
In so much they are in their Consciences Satisfyed that the said
Elliot is dead, Moreover The Governoʳ hath Read a letter Sent from
Mʳ Allen out of England to her father Edmᵈ Edmunds here, who
Certifyed the Same. Therefore

It is ordered

That The said Captaine Bright, and Mʳ Elizᵗʰ Elliot be
married when they please/

Mʳ George Corne desired that the following Writeing
might be Entred Councill Booke, wᶜʰ was Granted him, and
are as followeth./

Know all men by these presents That Ellen
Beale of this Island widᵒ: doe Constitute and appoint my well-
beloved Son in Law Mʳ George Carne to be my Lawfull attorney
In my stead to act as if I were in Present, and in all manner of
Suits and Actions whatsoever Depending to Stand to whatsoever
Discharges and Agreement he Shall make, with Gabriel Powell
or his Attorney Concerning the whole Dividend of Capᵗ Beale
my Deceased Husbands Estate Reale and Personall, And that he
Demand whatsoever he shall think Convenient Concerning the
said Premises, Witness my hand this 4ᵗʰ day of March 1699/00

Elen Beale

Margin Notes:
Ellen Beale Letter of
Attorney to George
Carne.

Captain Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, declared his intention to marry Elizabeth Elliot, daughter of John Elliot. Elizabeth had been married to John Elliot, who had left the island about five years earlier, lacking four months, on the ship Sumer under Captain William Gifford.

Before allowing a new marriage, proof of John Elliot’s death was required. Elizabeth Elliot and her father appeared before the Governor and gave sworn statements. They declared that several people who had recently arrived on different ships had reported that John Elliot died in France from smallpox after his ship was taken by the French. They stated that they were fully satisfied that he was dead.

A letter was also read from Mr Allen in England to Edmund Edmunds, Elizabeth’s father. This letter confirmed the same account of Elliot’s death.

It was therefore ordered that Captain Thomas Bright and Elizabeth Elliot might marry at their discretion.

George Corne then requested that a written document should be entered into the Council books. This request was granted.

Ellen Beale, widow, appointed her son-in-law George Carne as her lawful attorney. He was authorised to act on her behalf in all suits and actions. He was given full power to settle and discharge claims with Gabriel Powell or his attorney concerning the whole share of Captain Beale’s estate, both real and personal. He was also empowered to demand whatever he considered necessary in relation to the matter.

This authority was confirmed under Ellen Beale’s hand on 4 March 1700.

Interpretations

The requirement for proof of death before remarriage showed strict control over marriage law. Testimony and written evidence were needed to prevent unlawful remarriage.

The use of witness statements from arriving ships showed reliance on maritime networks for information. News of deaths abroad was verified through travellers.

The reading of a letter as evidence showed that written correspondence could support sworn testimony. This added weight to claims that could not be directly proved on the island.

The formal permission for marriage indicated that the Governor and Council exercised authority over personal status. Marriage required official approval in uncertain cases.

The letter of attorney showed how legal authority could be transferred. George Carne was empowered to act fully in Ellen Beale’s place.

The reference to “real and personal” estate showed that property was divided into land and movable goods. Both were subject to legal claim and settlement.

The inclusion of named parties in the dispute, including Gabriel Powell, showed that inheritance and division of estates could involve formal negotiation or conflict.

Speculations

The careful collection of evidence suggests concern over the legality of the marriage. The Council may have acted to avoid later disputes over inheritance or legitimacy.

The reliance on multiple reports and a letter suggests that direct proof was unavailable. The Council accepted a combination of sources to reach certainty.

The appointment of George Carne as attorney suggests that Ellen Beale was unable or unwilling to manage the matter herself. This may reflect distance, age, or complexity of the claim.

The broad authority granted to Carne suggests that the estate dispute was significant. Full discretion may have been needed to negotiate effectively.

44

44

That the Houſe In the Countrey Commonly Knowne
to be Capᵗ Anthony Beales and now in the poſſeſſion
of Mʳm Beale his widᵒ aforeſaid be now Divided in
manner following

That is to ſay the Kitching with the Chamber over it, with
her Dairy Roome behind the ſaid Kitching, is to Remaine in
the Poſſeſſion of the ſaid Madᵐ Beale, and that the Hall
and Chamber over it, and Roome att the End and shed with
the Negroe Houſe be Delivered into the Poſſeſſion of Gabriell
Powell aforeſᵈ and that each Repaire their Part of yᵉ Houſe
and Keep it so

Item That the Remaining part of the ſaid Houſe at fort James
unſold Commonly Knowne to be Capᵗ Anthony Beales and
now In Poſſeſſion of the aforeſᵈ Madᵐ Beale, that is the old
Kitching and Chamber over it, and aſſtet Kitching with its
appurtenances, Except the Roome and Store Roome under it
adjoyning To the Compᵃˢ Store Roome do Remaine in yᵉ Poſ
ſeſſion of Madam B[ea]le aforeſaid.

Item It is alſo agreed that Madᵐ Beale aforeſaid shall Enjoy
the houſe att the Runty beads, takeing the 10 acres of Land
belonging To it.

Item That yᵉ whole 90 acres of Land be divided Equally forthwith

Item That Gabˡ Corneil aforeſaid is to have a twelve month time to
raise a quantity of Stones into his Chamber, meanetime the uſe yᵉ houſe
in Madᵐ Beales part of the Country Houſe.

Theſe Articles to be faithfully performed and Entered according to yᵉ naturall
uſe of the aforeſᵈ Madam Beale & Mr Powell whereof
we have hereunto ſett our hands and Seales Enterchangable
this 7ᵗʰ Day of March 1699/00

George Corne
Gabriell Powell

Margin Notes:
Wittneſs
Carne
Edw: Edmunds

It was agreed that the country house formerly belonging to Captain Anthony Beale, now in the possession of Madam Beale, his widow, should be divided.

The kitchen, the chamber above it, and the dairy room behind it were to remain with Madam Beale. The hall, the chamber above it, the end room, the shed, and the slave house were to be delivered to Gabriel Powell. Each party was to repair and maintain their own part of the house.

The remaining part of the house at Fort James, also formerly belonging to Captain Anthony Beale and still in Madam Beale’s possession, was to remain with her. This included the old kitchen, the chamber above it, and the adjoining kitchen with its appurtenances, except for the room and store room beneath it that adjoined the Company’s store.

It was also agreed that Madam Beale should keep the house at Runty Beads together with the ten acres of land attached to it.

The total of 90 acres of land was to be divided equally at once.

Gabriel Powell was given twelve months to bring stone into his chamber. During that time, he was allowed to use part of Madam Beale’s section of the country house.

These terms were to be carried out fully and were entered into record. The agreement was made between Madam Beale and Gabriel Powell and was signed on 7 March 1700 by George Corne and Gabriel Powell in the presence of Edmund Edmunds.

Interpretations

The division of the house showed a physical partition of property. Shared buildings could be split and occupied separately.

The requirement that each party repair their own section placed responsibility on the occupant. Maintenance was tied to possession.

The reference to the slave house showed that enslaved people were housed as part of the estate. This formed part of the property division.

The exclusion of the store room adjoining the Company’s store showed that some spaces remained under Company control. Private ownership was limited where Company interests applied.

The equal division of 90 acres showed a formal settlement of land rights. Land was treated as a divisible asset between claimants.

The grant of time to Powell to complete building work showed flexibility in enforcing possession. Use could begin before full preparation was finished.

The recording of the agreement showed that private settlements required formal entry. This ensured recognition and enforceability.

Speculations

The detailed division suggests a dispute over inheritance or ownership. The agreement appears to settle competing claims.

The allowance for Powell to use part of Beale’s section suggests that his portion was not yet ready. This may have avoided delay in occupation.

The equal division of land suggests that both parties held strong claims. The settlement may have aimed to avoid further conflict.

The retention of certain rooms by Madam Beale suggests priority given to her position as widow. This may reflect customary rights within the settlement.

45

45

Articles of agreement between Mʳ George
Carne Attorney for Madᵐ Beale, and Gabriell Powell concerning
the Dividend of Land Commonly Knowne to be Capᵗ Beales
Land and part of his Reale Estate.

Imps That all the Inclosed Land eastward wᵗʰ Acres Land round Except
the Land Commonly Called Hemmings Land whereon Each hath a
Plantation To be the possission of Madᵐ Beale/

Item That the Land called Hemmings Land be divided Equally by a Row
of Rushes/

Item That Twenty acres att Dunsey bead be wholly Madᵐ Beales

Item That all the Cabbage tree Land being the woody Land both Eastward
and westward Running along the Ridge To be Gabriel Powells
with this allowance, that Madᵐ Beale for her owne use & thereof
Ever Shall have all manner of wood for fireing, and also the
Timber of the whole Land to dispose of according to her pleasure/

Item That Gabriell Powell Grant to me a Proper quantity of Land
for Madᵐ Beale in his Division, Close adjoining to Remaine
with Madam Beale and no longer/

George Carne
Gabriell Powell

John Long Slave being heard that we
would be pleased to grant him the like of haveing his freedom
continue as aforesᵈ in yᵉ Court Booke, standing a desire to goe off
the Island if he thought the other Jacobs his fellow to the
said Island to his wife and family at his Come any way as man
of miserable Crimes of John Coulson Negroes which wee
Granted him and are as followeth/

Island Sᵗ Helena

This Indenture made the thirtieth day
of June one Thousand Six hundred ninety and four Between
Thomas More of Sᵗ Francis more lately of the sᵈ Island
Deceased of the one parte, and John Long of the said Island Planter
of the other parte Wittnesseth, That the sᵈ Thomas More for
and In consideration of the Sume of Twenty pounds In a Bill
assigned To the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ East India Compᵃ To mine hand
paid, and hereby acknowledge my Selfe to have Received

Margin Notes:
Island Sᵗ Helena

Articles of agreement were made between George Carne, acting as attorney for Madam Beale, and Gabriel Powell. The agreement concerned the division of land known as Captain Beale’s land, forming part of his real estate.

All enclosed land to the east, together with the surrounding acreage, except the land known as Hemmings Land where each party already had a plantation, was to remain in the possession of Madam Beale.

Hemmings Land was to be divided equally between them by a marked line of rushes.

Twenty acres at Dunsey Bead were to belong entirely to Madam Beale.

All the cabbage tree land, being the wooded land both eastward and westward along the ridge, was to belong to Gabriel Powell. However, Madam Beale was to have the right to take firewood from this land at all times. She also retained control over all timber from the whole estate and could dispose of it as she wished.

Gabriel Powell agreed to grant a suitable portion of land within his division, adjoining Madam Beale’s land, for her use.

The agreement was made between George Carne and Gabriel Powell.

John Long, described as a slave, requested that his freedom should be confirmed in the Council records. He wished to leave the island and return to his wife and family. This request was granted.

A document relating to his freedom was then recorded. It was dated 30 June 1694 and made between Thomas More, formerly of St Helena and now deceased, and John Long, a planter of the island. It stated that Thomas More, in return for £20 0s 0d paid in a bill assigned to the Honourable East India Company, acknowledged receipt of payment.

Interpretations

The agreement showed a structured division of land between competing claims. Boundaries were defined by natural markers such as rushes.

The allocation of enclosed land to Madam Beale showed recognition of established possession. Existing use influenced final division.

The grant of wooded land to Powell, with reserved rights for Beale, showed separation of ownership and usage. Control of timber remained with Beale despite Powell’s possession.

The retention of timber rights showed the importance of wood as a resource. It was treated as distinct from the land itself.

The requirement for Powell to grant adjoining land to Beale ensured continuity of her holding. This prevented fragmentation of her estate.

The confirmation of John Long’s freedom showed that manumission required formal recognition. Entry in the Council books gave legal status to his liberty.

The payment of £20 0s 0d for freedom showed that emancipation could be purchased. The transaction was recorded as a financial agreement.

The description of John Long as a planter after manumission showed a change in legal and social status. Freedom allowed participation in landholding and economic life.

Speculations

The careful division of land suggests prior dispute. The agreement appears designed to prevent further conflict.

The retention of timber rights by Madam Beale suggests that wood was scarce or valuable. Control of this resource may have been a key concern.

The request by John Long to have his freedom recorded suggests uncertainty over his status. Formal entry may have been needed to secure his rights.

The mention of his wish to leave the island suggests that freedom alone was not sufficient. He may have needed legal proof to travel or reunite with family.

46

46

Hath given Granted alienated Bargained & Sold and
do by theſe preſents Grant alienate Bargaine & Sell from
me my heires Executʳˢ Adminiſtratʳˢ and Aſſignes unto
the said John Long his heires Executʳˢ Adminiſtratʳˢ & Aſſignes
all that parcell of Land Containing by Eſtimation Twenty
Acres of Land, Either more or leſſe, being the Lott Land of
the said Mʳ Francis Moore Scituate lying and being in
Sandy Bay Ridge on the said Iſland, together with all the
wood trees ſprings that therein Standing Growing, or being
To have and to hold all and ſingular the said Twenty
Acres of Land, which abutteth upon the Land of Mʳ Allen
towards the Eaſt, upon the Land of John Teel [...]
towards the South upon the land now in the poſſeſſion
of Leigh Bodley towards the weſt, and upon the Land of
Richard Alexander upwards towards the North, and all
other the aforeſaid premiſſes before and by theſe preſents
Bargained and Sold, and every of them and Parcel thereof
unto the said John Long his heires and Aſſignes for Ever
In Witneſſe whereof I have hereunto sett my hand &
Seale the day and yeare above written And in the
Sixt yeare of the Raigne of our Sovereigne Lord and
Lady King William and Queen Mary King and
Queen of England Scotland France and Ireland Defender
of the faith &c

Tho: Moore

Signed Sealed & Delivered
In the preſence of us
Edw Edmunds
John Midge
James Taylor
Henry Coales
Edw Crosby
Matt: Barret

October yᵉ 13ᵗʰ 1701

John Long free Planter deposed yᵗ
the writeing conteined might
is held of [...] 20 acres
to him.

London Apʳill 11ᵗʰ 1701

whereas John Long of Sᵗ Hellena Planter have given unto me one
Square of the Ground Lately my fathers Francis Moores. As hereby appeare
him. I have now given my trouble to him as for my sisters Title, Interest
or Concern by same Land unto my Brother Thomas Moore lately dead
passing me Credit for Twenty one Pound as by his [...] appeares,
this is acknowledged to be whereof my
father is buried
Ephrah Moore

Witnes my hand
Alexander C.C

Margin Notes:
a Lease of 20 Acres
of Land Sold to John
Long by Tho: Moore

Thomas Moore granted and sold to John Long a parcel of land estimated at 20 acres in Sandy Bay Ridge on the island. This land had previously belonged to Francis Moore.

The grant included all trees, wood, and springs on the land. The boundaries were defined as follows. To the east lay the land of Mr Allen. To the south lay the land of John Teel [...]. To the west lay the land in the possession of Leigh Bodley. To the north lay the land of Richard Alexander.

The land was conveyed fully to John Long, his heirs and assigns, to hold forever. The deed was signed and sealed by Thomas Moore in the reign of King William and Queen Mary. It was witnessed by Edmund Edmunds, John Midge, James Taylor, Henry Coles, Edward Crosby, and Matthew Barrett.

On 13 October 1701, John Long, now a free planter, declared that this document confirmed his title to the 20 acres.

A further statement dated 11 April 1701 in London was made by Ephrah Moore. He acknowledged that John Long had received the land formerly belonging to Francis Moore. He also confirmed that he had transferred any claim or interest held through his family to his brother Thomas Moore, who was now deceased, and that he had received credit of £21 0s 0d in settlement. He affirmed that the land was the place where his father was buried.

Interpretations

The deed showed a complete transfer of land ownership. The phrase granting it “to hold forever” indicated freehold tenure.

The inclusion of trees and springs showed that natural resources formed part of the property. These were valuable assets tied to the land.

The detailed boundary description fixed the limits of the property. This reduced the risk of later dispute.

The presence of multiple witnesses gave the document legal strength. It ensured that the transaction could be verified.

The later declaration by John Long confirmed his status as a free planter. This showed the transition from slave to landholder.

The London statement by Ephrah Moore showed that claims to land could extend beyond the island. Family members abroad could hold or release rights.

The payment of £21 0s 0d showed that competing claims were settled financially. Credit could replace direct possession.

The reference to a burial site indicated that land also held personal and family significance. Ownership could involve both economic and memorial value.

Speculations

The need for a later confirmation suggests that Long’s title may have been questioned. Additional statements may have been required to secure his claim.

The involvement of family members in England suggests that inheritance rights were complex. The settlement may have aimed to prevent future disputes.

The mention of the burial place suggests emotional attachment to the land. This may have increased the importance of formal agreement.

The careful recording of witnesses and later declarations suggests concern for long-term security of title. The parties may have sought to prevent any future challenge.

47

47

Honored Sʳ

London March yᵉ 13ᵗʰ 95

Sʳ

I hopeing with my most Humble Service to
you hopeing that these my few lines will find you in a good
health as I am att this present writing hopeing in God
my Dear Brother and Sister is well, wee are alive my friends
Love to them, also to Mʳ Cox, and the three sons hoping that
they are all well, and my Service to your selfe, and Mʳ Ladson
and his wife and pray let him have this Right hand at his
Daughers House, and we give and him an Indian being a Girle,
and a boy Drank their good health and all our friends upon this
Iſland She Remembers her Duty to her father and mother
and Pray Remember my Love to Mʳ Sick and his wife and all
his family, and tell him that his son is Safe in India the new
was Beſpreed But I have not Seen him yet, for the Paſt is strong
that Dare not Shew my head to day my Relations Mʳ Allen is Indifferent
ent well, But hath bin very Sick, but is Recovered, He is pretty
often at Mʳ Thackstons House, and alwayes a Talking of his wife
Here is Mʳ Price and Mʳ Smith is well, and Servant Beale and
Mʳ Betsell and his wife, but is brought a bed before we Came in port
Mʳ Hermit, and Mʳ C[...]before we Came to Longf[...] and all [...]
Children Except Two, but they went out of the Ship into another
Ship, so that I believe they be left behind and they should
be heard of I hope She is at the Bottom of the Sea for we have
already one nine days, So that we thought every one to perish
it being a very Dreadfull Storme Ever was Known but thankes
be to God we Escaped it, though with much Difficulty Wee
and the Charles, and the Samuell and Raymond are Arrived very
well Mʳ Betty Johnson is very well and with Mʳ Hughbund
that night, but was Six gone Scorne In but haveing not an
opportunity to Come Hathnow againe Inrowe Defsire and Pray you
as You have bin very kind to me, That you should be pleased to
Take Care of my Sister, and I thanke Dear Brother, and bring
them up in the feare of God, and the first Place Take Care of the
Sister, and if she hath any Suiters, That you would Enquire after
them, and Know what they are, for she is but Young, and doth
not understand as yet, for England is made both of all
Now, and Exceeding Dear, and if she should Come over here, it is
one that would Speed, and she goe to being it would breake my
heart, and pray take Care of my Brother and Bind him to some
honest man, but if Capᵗ Browns Come Let him not Concern
his Share, for he hath bin very unjust to us, and if I should not Come
to make you all requited, I hope the almighty God will recompence
you Let me Desire you to devide this Cause, and to see my
Part and send it over neither in Bills or Bond at Red

Margin Notes:
A Lre from Tho:
Moore.

A letter dated 13 March 1695 was sent from London by Thomas Moore.

He sent his service and expressed hope that the recipient was in good health. He stated that he himself was well. He sent greetings to his brother and sister and to their friends. He also sent his service to Mr Cox and his three sons, and to Mr Ladson and his wife. He asked that his greetings be delivered to them. He referred to a girl described as an Indian and a boy, and stated that they drank to the health of friends on the island. He added that she remembered her duty to her father and mother.

He sent his regards to Mr Sick and his wife and family. He reported that Mr Sick’s son was safe in India, although he had not yet seen him. He stated that news had spread but he had not confirmed it in person.

He reported that Mr Allen had been very ill but had recovered. He stated that Allen often visited Mr Thackston’s house and spoke frequently about his wife. He reported that Mr Price, Mr Smith, Mr Beale, and Mr Betsell and his wife were well. He noted that Betsell’s wife had recently given birth before they reached port.

He mentioned Mr Hermit and others, and referred to children from a ship, stating that two had left their ship and gone into another vessel and were believed to have been left behind.

He described a severe storm at sea that lasted nine days. He stated that all expected to perish but survived with difficulty. He gave thanks to God for their escape. He reported that the ships Charles, Samuel, and Raymond had arrived safely.

He stated that Betty Johnson was well and with her husband. He referred to delays and lack of opportunity to travel.

He asked the recipient to take care of his sister. He urged that she should be raised carefully and that any suitors should be examined closely, as she was young and inexperienced. He warned that life in England was difficult and expensive. He stated that her coming there might lead to hardship.

He also asked that his brother should be placed with an honest man. He warned against Captain Brown, stating that he had acted unjustly. He expressed hope that, if he did not return, God would reward the recipient for their care.

He asked that his share of property or goods should be divided and sent to him, either in bills or bonds.

Interpretations

The letter showed reliance on personal correspondence to maintain family ties across long distances. News, requests, and instructions were communicated through informal networks.

The references to multiple named individuals showed a wide social network linking the island, England, and India. Movement between these places was common.

The mention of ships and storms showed the risks of sea travel. Survival depended on weather and ship condition.

The request to supervise a sister’s upbringing showed family control over marriage. Guardians were expected to assess suitors and protect family interests.

The instruction to bind a brother to an honest man referred to apprenticeship or service. This was a means of securing livelihood and discipline.

The warning about England being expensive showed awareness of economic conditions. Migration was not always seen as beneficial.

The request to send property in bills or bonds showed use of financial instruments. Wealth could be transferred without moving goods directly.

The reference to injustice by Captain Brown showed concern over fairness in shared ventures or property. Personal trust affected economic dealings.

Speculations

The detailed instructions about family suggest that Moore expected a long absence or possible death. He may have sought to secure his family’s future.

The emphasis on choosing suitors carefully suggests fear of exploitation. This may reflect the vulnerability of young women without close supervision.

The concern over Captain Brown suggests a prior dispute. Moore may have wished to prevent further loss or conflict.

The request to send his share in financial form suggests difficulty in returning to claim it himself. He may have anticipated continued separation from the island.

48

48

money, and be sure to send Letters and Direct them to be left
att Mʳ Steemans liveing next doore to the Golden Key upon
London bridge, and pray you should Examine about this bill
by my owne hand, shee be sure this will Sattisfie them and
Pray do it above as you Can, and send it over by the first
Ship, I have Received my Bills of Exchange for the Value
and what you should take any Bills of Exchange, taken
Care that they be in bills of advice, or else they will not be
paid my voyage is this straight where I may God send
me along to you and all my friends a happy life, and also
In this world to Come, which is all att present from
your most Humble Servᵗ To Command

Tho: Moore

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Saturday
the 16ᵗʰ of March 1699/00 att Fort James

Pres:
Step: Poirier Govʳ
Tho: Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Tho: Goodwin Engineer

Whereas William French Gunner mate having
been severall times very Remiss and neglectfull of his duty,
and being always Drunk and not Capable thereof, wee on
mature Consideration the aforesaid offences after Haveing bin to
make friends Exced as the Councill Book doth appeare, wherefore
wee thought fitt and accordingly

ordered

That the said William French be Dismist from the Rᵗ
Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ Service. And being in want of another man
to be in his Roome, we have appointed John Harris who was
Quarter Gunner to officiate in the said Frenches place, and also
that Thomas Harper Soldʳ be Quarter Gunner his pay to
Commence from Thursday next Ensuing

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Wᵐ French Gunr
Mate Dismist out
of yᵉ Compᵃˢ Service for
severall past and
his Remiss.

Tho: Harper hath bin
[...] into the
Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ Ship Bedford
Capᵗ John Hudson Commander

Thomas Moore added that money should be sent to him with care. Letters were to be directed to Mr Steemans, who lived next door to the Golden Key on London Bridge. He asked that the bill written in his own hand should be checked, as it would satisfy those concerned. He requested that payment be sent by the first available ship.

He stated that he had received bills of exchange for value. He advised that any further bills should be accompanied by bills of advice, otherwise they would not be honoured. He expressed hope for a safe voyage and wished for a happy reunion with his friends. He ended by commending them to God and signed himself their humble servant, Thomas Moore.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Saturday 16 March 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, engineer.

William French, gunner’s mate, was found to have been repeatedly negligent in his duties. He was often drunk and unfit for service. Previous warnings had been recorded in the Council books. After consideration, it was ordered that he should be dismissed from the service of the Honourable Company.

John Harris, who had been quarter gunner, was appointed to take French’s place. Thomas Harper, a soldier, was appointed as quarter gunner. His pay was to begin on the following Thursday.

Interpretations

The instruction to send money by bills of exchange showed reliance on formal financial instruments. These allowed funds to be transferred across long distances without moving cash.

The requirement for bills of advice showed that payment depended on proper documentation. Without it, bills might be refused.

The specific London address showed how correspondence and payments were routed through known contacts. Trusted intermediaries were essential.

The dismissal of William French showed that repeated neglect and drunkenness could lead to removal from Company service. Discipline was enforced after earlier warnings failed.

The reassignment of roles showed a structured chain of command. Vacant posts were filled quickly to maintain function.

The promotion of John Harris and appointment of Thomas Harper showed that positions could be filled from within the garrison. Advancement followed vacancy.

Speculations

The detailed instructions about bills suggest concern over fraud or loss. Moore may have experienced problems with payment before.

The insistence on quick dispatch suggests urgency. He may have depended on these funds for survival or business.

The dismissal of French after repeated offences suggests that tolerance had limits. The Council may have delayed action until replacement was available.

The immediate reassignment of duties suggests concern for maintaining readiness. The post of gunner’s mate may have been considered critical.

49

49

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Court Judicature Held
on Monday The 25ᵗʰ Day of March 1700
Att the Court Houſe near Fort James

Stepⁿ Poirier Govʳ & Judge
Preſᵗ Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Enſigne

After The court was opened according to the
Accuſtomed Manner, Theſe perſons appointed for Jurors
are as followeth vizᵗ

Orlando Bagley Senʳ foreman one
Thomas Phillips 2
Robert Addis 3
John Long 4
William Marſh 5
John Feild 6
John Midge 7
William Holding 8
Simon Wild 9
Thomas Goodwin 10
Thomas Trowler 11
John Nichoals 12 who was alſo ſworne

Margery Hayles widᵒ made Complaint againſt
James Rider & Samᵐ Wrangham Executʳˢ of the laſt Will &
Teſtamᵗ of Wᵐ Price freeplanter, late of the Iſland Deceaſd,

That

Margin Notes:
Margery Hayles
widᵒ Complaint agᵗ
James Rider & Samᵐ
Wrangham Executʳˢ
of Wᵐ Price for Inden-
tures to ſell her Chil-
drens Eſtate.

A Court of Judicature was held at the Court House near Fort James on Monday 25 March 1700. Stephen Poirier acted as Governor and judge. Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign, were present.

The court was opened in the usual manner. A jury was appointed and sworn.

Orlando Bagley Senior was foreman. The other jurors were Thomas Phillips, Robert Addis, John Long, William Marsh, John Feild, John Midge, William Holding, Simon Wild, Thomas Goodwin, Thomas Trowler, and John Nichols.

Margery Hayles, widow, brought a complaint against James Rider and Samuel Wrangham. They were executors of the last will and testament of William Price, a free planter of the island who was deceased.

She alleged that they had made indentures concerning the sale of her children’s estate.

Interpretations

The Court of Judicature showed a formal legal setting separate from routine consultations. It handled disputes requiring jury decision.

The Governor acting as judge showed centralised authority. Judicial power rested with the island’s chief officer.

The presence of a sworn jury showed use of trial by peers. Decisions were not made by the Governor alone.

The naming of each juror showed accountability. Participation in the legal process was a civic duty.

The role of executors showed that estates were managed after death by appointed individuals. They had authority to act on behalf of the deceased.

The complaint about indentures showed that property transactions involving minors were subject to challenge. Guardians or parents could contest such actions.

Speculations

The involvement of executors suggests a dispute over inheritance. The sale of estate property may have been contested as improper.

The reference to children’s estate suggests that minors were involved. This may have increased concern over fairness and legality.

The use of a full jury suggests that the case was serious. It may have involved significant property or conflicting claims.

The formal setting indicates that earlier attempts at settlement may have failed. The matter required a binding judgment.

50

50

That whereas she haveing a Desire to go off yᵉ said Island by yᵉ
first Ship that arrived here, and being [...] mate Sale of the
Estate belonging unto her Children was made by the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Com-
pany and thought it [...] to go off with a ship came
then to the [...] with her
and [...] Brown to her [...]
Children who were both present and delivered their Petition
as followeth.

That the said Grace did Engage such Confidence
and trust in them and she promised according to Letter
[...] was the desire [...] would have fulfilled after their
Returne in [...] and believed she had done the same
[...] therefore
as care of her Children

And after severall questions objections and replies
the Key delivered and stayed about halfe an howre, then returned
and delivered their Verdict.

The Jury find although Hayes had no power to make
sale of any of the Estate belonging to the Children, without
the Consent of the above named Executors

Then the premises considering was made as
followeth.

In pursuance of the aforesaid Juryes verdict betwixt
Margery Hayles widow and James Rider and James Moyses
Executoʳˢ of the last Will and Testament of William Burch [...]
as it is agreed and concluded with them by their owne consent
and desire.

That the said Margery Hayles being almost
now leaveing the Island shall deliver into the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃˢ warehouse what goods she Receives and Retaines of William
Burch her husband, aged about Eighteen years, and Mary
Burch, aged about nine years, which belongs to
them

Margin Notes:
Margery Hayles is
to Deliver her Chil-
drens Estate in yᵉ Compᵃˢ
hands

Margery Hayles stated that she wished to leave the island on the first ship that arrived. She explained that, in preparation for this, a sale had been made of the estate belonging to her children. This had been done without proper authority. The matter was brought before the court.

James Rider and Samuel Wrangham, executors, were present. A petition was submitted on their behalf. It stated that trust had been placed in Margery Hayles, and that she had promised to act according to instructions given in writing. It was argued that she had failed to fulfil this trust and had acted without proper authority in dealing with the children’s estate.

The case was heard with questions, objections, and replies from both sides. The jury withdrew and remained out for about half an hour. They then returned and delivered their verdict.

The jury found that Margery Hayles had no authority to sell any part of the estate belonging to her children without the consent of the executors.

After this verdict, an agreement was reached between Margery Hayles and the executors, James Rider and James Moyses, acting for the estate.

It was agreed that Margery Hayles, being about to leave the island, should deliver into the Honourable Company’s warehouse all goods belonging to her children. These goods formed part of the estate of William Burch, their father.

The children were identified as William Burch, aged about 18 years, and Mary Burch, aged about nine years.

Interpretations

The jury’s finding showed that guardians did not have full control over children’s estates. Executors retained legal authority over property.

The requirement for consent before sale showed that estate management followed formal rules. Property could not be disposed of freely.

The involvement of the Company’s warehouse showed that the Company acted as a secure holder of goods. It could take custody of property in disputed cases.

The delivery of goods into Company control protected the children’s interests. This prevented further misuse or loss.

The use of a jury to decide the matter showed that disputes over inheritance were treated as serious legal questions.

The identification of the children and their ages showed that minors’ property was closely regulated. Their rights were formally recognised.

Speculations

The attempt to sell the estate suggests that Hayles needed money to leave the island. This may have led her to act beyond her authority.

The agreement to place goods in the Company’s warehouse suggests lack of trust. The court may have sought to secure the estate before her departure.

The relatively short jury deliberation suggests that the legal position was clear. The lack of consent from executors may have been decisive.

The naming of the children and transfer of goods suggests preparation for future claims. The property was preserved until they could assert their rights.

51

51

Them according to the ſaid Price Will and Inventory, which
amounts to the Sume of forty Eight pounds Six Shillings and
Ten pence In the whole, but that now and Afterwards [...]
William Wrangham Alleging he was indebted to the ſaid Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃ to the Governʳ and Councill to the Sume being
unto the ſaid William and Mercy which Comes to Lesse age
or be married according to the Will, and to the ſaid to
to the sᵈ to be Deducted unto them att such time Those
things have been Concerns in Councill as may appeare
fully and largely proved by James M[...] to Honourable
Company and us Governor and Councill.

Whereupon It is also ordered

That of Grace Hayles the ſaid Executʳˢ their Heires
Executʳˢ Admʳˢ shall and are hereby Discharged for
Even and from the ſaid Sume by the ſaid

In respect of the Sume owned After the said Deceſſed
Price to the Honourable Company, where also the ſaid James
and Deed, to the said Will and Inventory, as in said Sume
and Deeds according to the act [...] can and have [...]
[...] and [...] matter as in the Discharge made by
the Executors [...]
which Widow [...] accordingly one third parte
of the whole Estate [...] in the Sume or
[...] aforesaid

Shew

The goods belonging to the children, according to William Price’s will and inventory, were valued at £48 6s 10d in total.

It was stated that William Wrangham was indebted to the Honourable Company. This debt was to be taken into account in relation to the estate. The property was to remain for the use of William and Mercy until they came of age or were married, as directed in the will. Any sums due were to be deducted at that time.

Evidence of these matters had been presented and was accepted by the Governor and Council.

It was therefore ordered that the executors, James Rider and Samuel Wrangham, together with their heirs and assigns, should be discharged from responsibility for the said sum. This discharge was made in consideration of the debt owed by the deceased William Price to the Honourable Company.

It was further confirmed that the estate should be handled according to the will and inventory, and that all accounts and obligations were to be settled in line with that direction.

The widow was to receive one third part of the whole estate, as her proper share.

Interpretations

The valuation of the estate fixed its total worth. This allowed clear accounting and division.

The deduction of debts to the Company showed priority of institutional claims. The Company’s interest was settled before distribution.

The condition that the estate remain for the children until adulthood or marriage showed protection of minors’ inheritance. Property was preserved until they could legally receive it.

The discharge of the executors showed that their responsibility ended once the estate was accounted for and debts were settled. This protected them from future claims.

The reference to the will and inventory showed that written documents governed distribution. Legal authority rested on recorded instructions.

The allocation of one third to the widow reflected customary division of estates. Her share was recognised as a fixed portion.

Speculations

The involvement of Company debt suggests that Price had financial obligations at death. This may have reduced the children’s inheritance.

The need to discharge the executors suggests concern over liability. They may have sought formal release to avoid later disputes.

The preservation of the estate for the children suggests that immediate distribution was not possible. This may reflect their young age and need for oversight.

The widow’s share indicates that her support was considered necessary. This may have been intended to ensure her maintenance after her husband’s death.

52

52

Then

Thomas Burnham Junʳ was called into Court
and informed what was [...] day last being the
19ᵗʰ Instant in the night time about nine a clock, he
one Sam who came and heard the Yames out of the
Hutts Plantation, belonging to the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ Land
Proprietors of this Island.

The said Burnham being asked what he could say for him
selfe Denyed the Same laid to his charge

Then the Evidences were called as followeth

Sam de G[...] being Sworne Saith That
[...] the Hutt Plantation with George [fort]
[...] that the said Thomas Burnham [...]
[...] of Yames who Immediately
[...] Thomas Burnham Junʳ
[...] That Burnham, whom
[...] that the sᵈ Burnham
[...] went towards the said
[...] him Run away as fast [...]
[...] he [...] him fast he [...]
[...] he saw in yᵉ Plantation
[...] and said Twas Tho: Burnham
[...] himselfe Saith he Just So [...]
[...] further Saith
[...] the yams and also more yᵉ Plantation made and when
Come to the said House where Burnham Lived, and his
[...] being gone in the path way, asked them what was
the matter, who told me that Some body had bin a Stealing
Yams out of the Hutts Plantation, and a little while after
came the said Burnhams House, and told him what Sam
had before informed me, and asked yᵉ sᵈ Burnham of Stealing
yᵉ Yames, who Could hardly Speake for Trembling, and could
Even See his Shoes wett and Dirty further Saith that the
next morning we Tracked the said Burnham to, and from
the said Plantation, to the House wherein he Lives./

Margin Notes:
Thomˢ Burnham
Junʳ Tryall for Stea-
ling of Yams out of
the Hutts Plantation
him, but Evidence
of Jury for want of
Sufficient Evidence

Thomas Burnham Junior was brought before the court. He was informed that on the night of 19 February 1700, at about nine o’clock, he had been accused of stealing yams from the Hutt Plantation belonging to the Honourable Company.

He was asked to answer the charge. He denied it.

Witnesses were then called.

Sam de [...] gave sworn evidence. He stated that he was at the Hutt Plantation with George [...]. He saw Thomas Burnham digging up yams. He moved towards him. Burnham ran away quickly. He was pursued but escaped. The witness stated that he clearly recognised Burnham.

He further stated that he later went to Burnham’s house and told others what he had seen. When Burnham was questioned, he trembled and struggled to speak. His shoes were wet and dirty.

The witness added that on the following morning he tracked Burnham’s path from the plantation to his house.

Interpretations

The formal calling of the accused and witnesses showed a structured trial process. Evidence was heard before judgment.

The reliance on eyewitness testimony showed that proof depended on direct observation. Identification of the accused was central.

The tracking of footprints showed use of physical evidence. Movement between places could be used to support accusation.

The description of Burnham’s behaviour, including trembling and difficulty speaking, was treated as suspicious conduct. Behaviour could be interpreted as indirect evidence.

The location of the offence on Company land showed that theft from Company property was treated as a serious matter.

Speculations

The emphasis on recognition suggests that identification may have been uncertain. The case may have depended heavily on the credibility of the witness.

The mention of wet and dirty shoes suggests recent movement through the plantation. This may have been used to strengthen the accusation.

The need to track his path suggests that direct capture did not occur. This may have weakened the case.

The note that the jury later acquitted him for lack of sufficient evidence suggests that the proof was not strong enough. The court may have required more than a single witness and circumstantial signs.

53

53

Sam the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs Slave Saith he being
watching by the Governoʳ order in the Hutts Plantation
he saw Thoˢ Burnham cutting up of yames out of the
Hutts Plantation whereupon he heard Mʳ Playse tell [...]
and called to Mʳ Mountaine, who went home to Supper
and afterward went back againe to the Place where he was
first and saw the said Burnham putting yᵉ Yames in
his bag, and Thinking he would be gone before the said
Mountaine came, Jumped over a Rock into yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
Plantation, and falling upon his face, the sᵈ Burnham saw him
and then run away home to a house whited normally which he
now lives, and the sᵈ Burnham jumped over yᵉ wall
before yᵉ Playse, yᵉ said Sam went almost Catch him, adding
further as in his former Declaration./

Paul Charles being Sworne saith That The
next day after that yᵉ said Depositions and Sam was
watching yᵉ Hutts Plantation, he went with George
and Saw a track of a man go from yᵉ house where yᵉ
Burnham lives, into the sᵈ Plantation, and also back
againe, and where he Jumped over yᵉ wall, yᵉ Sam Saith
and found 2 Raw Yames with the Succory in yᵉ way, adding
further as in his former Declaration./

Whereupon one of the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs Slaves a very old
man called George being Examined saith That he saw Thomas
Burnham in yᵉ said Hutts Plantation Two Times a cutting
up of Yams The first Time he said nothing to him
But a Rock with Testimony enough to for any Evidence
but did acquaint the Governoʳ of it, and that this 2 Time
he is very Certaine it was him that

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed abᵗ halfe an houre
and Returned their Verdict, vizᵗ

That for want of Sufficient Evidence they Discharged
the said Thomas Burnham from yᵉ Crime Laid to his
Charge. Then the Court was adjourned after yᵉ uſuall
manner

Tho Bright
Tho Goodwin

Sam, a slave belonging to the Honourable Company, gave sworn evidence. He stated that he had been set to watch the Hutt Plantation by order of the Governor. While on watch, he saw Thomas Burnham cutting up yams. He called out and informed Mr Playse, and then called for Mr Mountaine. Mountaine went home to eat and later returned.

Sam went back to the place where he had first seen Burnham. He saw him putting yams into a bag. He moved towards him, believing Burnham would escape before Mountaine returned. He jumped over a rock into the plantation and fell. Burnham saw him and ran away towards the house where he lived. Burnham jumped over a wall. Sam followed and almost caught him.

Paul Charles gave sworn evidence. He stated that on the following day he went with George to the plantation. They saw a track leading from Burnham’s house into the plantation and back again. They also found two raw yams with their stalks in the path.

An elderly slave of the Company named George gave evidence. He stated that he had seen Burnham in the plantation on two occasions cutting up yams. The first time he said nothing but later informed the Governor. The second time he was certain of what he had seen.

The jury withdrew for about half an hour. They then returned their verdict. They found that there was not sufficient evidence and discharged Thomas Burnham from the charge.

The court was then adjourned in the usual manner.

Interpretations

The use of enslaved witnesses showed that their testimony was accepted in court. Their role extended beyond labour into enforcement and surveillance.

The order for Sam to watch the plantation showed organised protection of Company property. Theft was monitored through assigned guards.

The emphasis on tracks and physical signs showed reliance on circumstantial evidence. Material traces were used to support claims.

The repeated sightings by different witnesses strengthened the accusation. However, the court required a higher standard of proof.

The jury’s decision showed that conviction required clear and sufficient evidence. Suspicion and multiple statements were not enough without decisive proof.

The formal adjournment showed adherence to established legal procedure. The court followed a structured process from hearing to verdict.

Speculations

The failure to convict despite multiple witnesses suggests uncertainty in identification. The court may have doubted whether the accused was clearly recognised.

The reliance on slaves to detect theft suggests limited formal policing. Surveillance depended on assigned individuals rather than a standing force.

The jury’s caution may reflect concern over wrongful punishment. They may have required direct capture or stronger proof.

The repeated reports of Burnham in the plantation suggest ongoing suspicion. Even after acquittal, he may have remained under informal scrutiny.

54

54

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Tueſday
The 25ᵗʰ Day of March 1699/00 Att Fort James

Preſᵗ
Step: Poirier Governour
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governʳ
Thomas Goodwin Enſigne

Charles Steward brought and Delivered the Stock and
Eſtate of Mary Cornill orphan, which was Examined whereon
it did appeare that he had Indebted to her the Sume of 5:10
and which Sume the said Sᵗeward paid yᵉ afore on accoᵗ of the said
Mary Cornill’s Government [...] that which Remained to be deduc[...]
of the said Estate

It is ordered

That the said Cornill Steward have yᵉ said Mary Cornill the
remainder In Captains hands that he find her Suffitient food and
cloathing until shee come to age, and also he to be paid there
[...] in Goods worth for which he is to have five pound,
besides the Care of looking after thereof/

Orlando Bagley Junʳ preſented an Accoᵗ of Mary orphan
being negroes which was Examined and appeared as followeth/

The said Mary orphan Desired she might have her
Estate in her owne poſſeſſion being desirous to goe
off the Iſland, which being of age was Granted. But however

Ordered

That the said Orlando Bagley do oversee the laying out
of any her Estate for cloathing that her Stock may not Decay
by Extravagance Especially

Gabriell Powell delivered the accoᵗ of Edmᵈ Moores orphan
James, and haveing owed Jonas Beals late years and
an account Read and Jury of said Stock of Cattle were by years since
found him to Stand Indebted to the sᵈ orphans the Sume
of twenty five pounds Two Shillings Six pence, besides four
pounds more which his wife had Cattle for out yᵉ said Estate

Margin Notes:
Charles Steward
brought an Accoᵗ of
the Stock and Estate
of Mary Cornill Orphan

Charles Steward to
have the care of the
Mary Cornill &c.

Orlando Bagley Junʳ
brought an Accoᵗ of
the Stock & Estate of
said Mary Orphan being
[...] Ne[groe] Jem and ordered
to oversee the laying
out of any of her Cattle.

Gabl Powell the Accoᵗ
of Edm Moores Orphans
James.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 25 March 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Charles Steward presented the stock and estate account of Mary Cornill, an orphan. The account was examined. It showed that Steward owed her £5 10s 0d. He paid this sum on her account. A balance remained to be deducted from the estate.

It was ordered that Charles Steward should retain custody of Mary Cornill. He was to provide her with sufficient food and clothing until she came of age. He was to be paid in goods to the value of £5 0s 0d for his care and oversight.

Orlando Bagley Junior presented an account of the estate of another orphan named Mary, described as a slave. The account was examined.

This Mary, being of age, requested possession of her own estate so that she could leave the island. This was granted. However, it was ordered that Orlando Bagley should supervise how her estate was spent on clothing, to prevent waste and preserve her stock.

Gabriel Powell delivered the account of Edmund Moore’s orphan, James. The account showed that Jonas Beale had previously been involved. It was found that he stood indebted to the orphan in the sum of £25 2s 6d. A further £4 0s 0d was also due, relating to cattle taken from the estate by his wife.

Interpretations

The presentation of accounts showed formal oversight of orphan estates. Guardians or custodians were required to account for property.

The requirement that Steward pay what he owed showed enforcement of financial responsibility. Debts to orphans were treated as enforceable claims.

The order that Steward should maintain the orphan showed a system of guardianship. Care included food, clothing, and supervision.

Payment in goods rather than money showed that estates were managed in kind. Material support was part of the system.

The case of Mary, a slave, showed that enslaved persons could hold and manage property under supervision. However, oversight remained in place to control spending.

The permission for her to leave the island showed that mobility could be granted when a person was of age. Authority still regulated how assets were used.

The account of Edmund Moore’s orphan showed that estate management could involve multiple parties over time. Debts could arise from use of estate resources.

The identification of sums owed showed careful financial recording. Estates were treated as structured accounts.

Speculations

The supervision of Mary’s spending suggests concern over misuse of assets. The Council may have feared rapid loss of her estate.

The requirement for Steward to maintain the orphan suggests limited family support. Guardianship may have been assigned out of necessity.

The debt involving Jonas Beale suggests earlier control of the estate. Disputes or mismanagement may have occurred.

The inclusion of cattle in the debt suggests that livestock was a key form of wealth. Loss or use of animals had financial consequences.

55

55

Since her Huſbands Death, which amounts to
the Sume of fifty two pounds two shillings & five pence/

Mʳ Thomas Goodwin Delivered the accoᵗ of the
Stock and Estate of Elizabeth R[...]ing Orphan which was
Examined and approved of and

John Hemmon who hath Married lately the sᵈ Elizaᵇᵗʰ
R[...]ing Petitioned That he might have his wifes Estate
in his owne possession./

It is ordered

That the said Mʳ Tho: Goodwin Deliver unto the said John
Hemmon the said Orphans Estate according to yᵉ account
hereunto annexed, and that the sᵈ Hemmon discharge the Governoʳ and
Councill from further Trouble/

Margarett Warren Delivered an accoᵗ of the Stock
& Estate belonging unto Martha Hunte Orphan, which
was Examined and approved of and

Paul Charles haveing Married the said Martha Hunte
Desired that he might have the Estate into his owne

It is ordered

That the said Paul Charles have the sᵈ Martha Hunte
Estate in his owne possession and that he give a Discharge
to Governoʳ and Councill for the same./

Tho Bright

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Mʳ Tho: Goodwin
gave up the accoᵗ of
yᵉ Stock & Estate
of Elizᵃᵇᵗʰ R[...]ing
she being Married to John
Hemmon gave Green
they desire yᵗ he may have
his wifes Estate in his
possession to his hand
as came according
to yᵉ accᵗ

Margᵗ Warren delivᵈ
an accoᵗ of Martha
Hunt Orphans Cattle &c
she being Married to Paul
Charles had the same

It was recorded that, since her husband’s death, the estate in question amounted to £52 2s 5d.

Thomas Goodwin presented the account of the stock and estate of Elizabeth R[...]ing, an orphan. The account was examined and approved.

John Hemmon, who had recently married Elizabeth R[...]ing, submitted a petition requesting possession of his wife’s estate.

It was ordered that Thomas Goodwin should deliver the estate to John Hemmon according to the approved account. Hemmon was required to discharge the Governor and Council from any further responsibility in the matter.

Margaret Warren then presented the account of the stock and estate belonging to Martha Hunte, an orphan. This account was examined and approved.

Paul Charles, who had married Martha Hunte, requested possession of her estate.

It was ordered that Paul Charles should receive the estate of Martha Hunte. He was also required to give a discharge to the Governor and Council.

Interpretations

The recording of the estate’s value showed formal accounting. Property was assessed and expressed in monetary terms.

The approval of accounts by the Council showed oversight of orphan property. Estates were audited before transfer.

Marriage transferred control of an orphan’s estate to her husband. Legal authority over property passed through marriage.

The requirement for a discharge protected the Governor and Council. It confirmed that responsibility ended once the estate was handed over.

The repeated process in both cases showed a standard administrative procedure. Estates were examined, approved, transferred, and formally discharged.

Speculations

The immediate transfer of estates upon marriage suggests that marriage was treated as a point of legal independence. The women’s property became part of the husband’s management.

The requirement for discharge suggests concern over future disputes. The Council sought to avoid later claims of mismanagement.

The careful accounting before transfer suggests prior risk of loss or misuse. Formal approval ensured clarity before control changed hands.

56

56

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Mon
day the 8ᵗʰ Day of April 1700 Att Fort James

Pres:
Stepⁿ Poirier Governʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Samˡ Maxwell free Planter
humbly desired to
Governʳ & Councill that his son
[...] might have Entered
into the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ
Service as a Souldʳ in garrison

It is therefore ordered

That his humble request be Granted and
[...] from the fourth day of this
[...]

Phillip Jeffrey and Heir of Ten acres of
Land lying in Deep Valley formerly the aforesᵈ
[...] which the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃˢ did give very convenient
[...] wherefore it was thought
[...] according to his Request; therefore

It was ordered

That the said Phillip Jeffrey have yᵉ said 10 acres of Land
at the sᵈ Deep valley laid him by the Governʳ for his request
in consideration that there is aboute 6 runs of land now
in yᵉ said Jeffrey Land, and to have one months work
a Black man of the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ to help incloſe some
of yᵉ said Land.

Margin Notes:
Samˡ Maxwell Son
Entertained for a
Souldʳ

Phillip Jeffrey Soldʳ
humbly requests ten Acres
of Land at Deep
Valley in Exchange
for yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ
[...]

A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 8 April 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Samuel Maxwell, a free planter, submitted a request that his son should be admitted into the service of the Honourable Company as a soldier in the garrison. The request was granted. His service was to begin from 4 April 1700.

Phillip Jeffrey, a soldier and heir to ten acres of land in Deep Valley, made a request concerning land. The land had previously been connected with the Honourable Company, and he sought a convenient arrangement.

It was ordered that Phillip Jeffrey should receive the ten acres of land in Deep Valley. This grant was made in consideration of land already associated with him, amounting to about six runs.

It was also ordered that he should receive one month’s labour from a black man belonging to the Honourable Company. This labour was to assist him in enclosing part of the land.

Interpretations

The admission of Maxwell’s son showed that entry into Company service could be obtained by petition. Military roles were partly filled through local requests.

The specification of a start date showed formal enrolment. Service began at a fixed and recorded time.

The grant of land to Jeffrey showed that land allocation was controlled by the Governor and Council. Ownership or use could be adjusted by order.

The reference to “runs” indicated measured parcels of land. Landholding was organised and quantified.

The provision of labour from a Company-owned slave showed that labour resources were allocated administratively. The Company directed labour to support development.

The requirement to enclose land showed emphasis on cultivation and improvement. Land was expected to be made productive.

Speculations

The grant of land in exchange suggests a rearrangement of holdings. The Council may have aimed to consolidate or regularise property boundaries.

The provision of labour indicates that enclosure was necessary but difficult to achieve alone. Assistance was provided to ensure compliance.

The acceptance of Maxwell’s son into service suggests a need for manpower. The garrison may have required reinforcement.

The structured allocation of land and labour suggests active management of settlement. The Council may have sought to expand cultivation and secure territory.

57

57

a black negroe man belonging unto Grace Coulson
widᵒ run away from her about three months and now
by the meanes of her full persons Request brought in
made by yᵉ [...][...] Rogers, he hath been Sick for [...] time
one negroe woman Mary Marke [...] for his [...]
to about him Damnified enough to make him a black [...]
of bricks, and also one negro by yᵉ Compa [...]
[...]

Whereas the Governour was Informd that yᵉ Rᵗ
called Ship Prosperous lay the Child? [...] on this Island
neglected their Duty, much more by no bodies Shee
[...] on Sunday night last, and no body of the
[...] but Mʳ Thomas Hughes who stood
going all the Round House and Harris Hughes who stood
[...] House, by on [...] with yᵉ [...]
he answered nothing with word and say [...]
and said say nothing in this place.

It is ordered

That the said [...] and Hughes be Committed to
Prison untill the order of the Court, and then to
[...]

Whereas over Inconveniencys have at
the Inhabitants of this Island by Runaway
Blacks

The present Governor Taken serious Consideration
of the whole matter, and the whole Court have did desire yᵉ
same persons might have a [...] that (take) should
be [...] for the [...] of any Company black
and Prevention of future of Rebels

Whereupon whose names are hereunder written
being chosen for that purpose, do appoint

Margin Notes:
Black from Widdᵒ
[...] being Rem
away for 3 Months
and now taken by
Wᵐ Marsh tho
Marshes Rock
accoursum[.]

Isaack Leech & Tho:
Hughes soldʳ to Ride
the Wooden
horse for
neglecting Duty
at yᵉ Prosperous.

Law Concerning
Run away Blacks

A black slave belonging to Grace Coulson, widow, had run away about three months earlier. He was later brought back through the efforts of William Rogers. At the time of his return, he had been ill for some time. A black woman named Mary Marke had attended him. He was described as being in poor condition and unfit for work.

Information was then given that the ship Prosperous lay at the island, and that some men assigned to duty had neglected their posts. On the Sunday night in question, proper watch had not been kept. Only Thomas Hughes and Harris Hughes were found at their stations. Others had failed to attend and gave no proper answer when questioned.

It was ordered that Isaac Leech and Thomas Hughes, soldiers, should be committed to prison until further order of the court. They were later to be punished for neglect of duty.

The Governor then considered the wider problem of inconvenience caused by runaway slaves. The matter was examined in detail by the Council. It was agreed that stronger measures were needed to prevent escapes and future disorder.

Certain persons were appointed for this purpose. Their names were recorded. They were tasked with taking action to recover Company slaves who ran away and to prevent further incidents.

Interpretations

The recovery of the runaway slave showed organised pursuit and return of enslaved people. Individuals could be tasked to locate and capture them.

The mention of illness on return showed that fugitives often suffered severe hardship. Their condition affected their value as labour.

The neglect of duty aboard the Prosperous showed that military discipline extended to guarding ships. Failure to keep watch was treated as a serious offence.

The imprisonment of soldiers showed immediate enforcement of discipline. Custody could be used before formal punishment.

The concern over runaway slaves showed the scale of the problem. Escapes were frequent enough to require policy response.

The appointment of specific persons showed creation of a system for enforcement. Responsibility was formally assigned.

The reference to preventing “rebels” showed that runaway slaves were seen as a threat to order. Control of labour was tied to security.

Speculations

The emphasis on illness suggests that the runaway may have been unable to sustain himself. This may have contributed to his capture.

The failure of multiple guards suggests weak discipline. The Council may have feared vulnerability of ships or stores.

The creation of a system to recover runaways suggests that earlier efforts were ineffective. A more organised approach was needed.

The language of rebellion suggests fear of collective resistance. The authorities may have been concerned about coordinated escape or unrest.

58

58

That [...] men be Chosen for such purposes vizᵗ To goe
out after the said Blacks whereon their Masters or wh[...]
[...] the said Company Negroes and the said persons
who are annually have paid the
summe of five pound to Each of
[...] age of 16 years & upwards

And the Governour the best of their good will
[...] some of the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ Blacks to assist the
said persons, for Encouragement
to allow the said Black for each Black Taken the Sume
of five shillings to be paid by the owner, And also the owner
to have as many lashes given upon him or her as marks can
be found upon his marke &c

The Names of Such Runaway
Blacks to be prosecuted

The first time the owner is to have a blow of stone
and the Back of this [...] which he is to [...]
one year, the second time he is to have the first
burning marke upon one of the two hands fingers The
fifth finger of the right hand And if the woman
[...] herselfe having a bigger haire Cut off and
burned upon the island./

The owners of the Black Runaways on due proof
be forfeit for the first offence two rice [...]
Robert Bagley and Matthew [...] who are the persons
nominated shall impose the Stated Summe of this
law which is the fourty shillings the Determinate
Summe for the trouble they have for neglect
and for [...] duty and punishments to be [...]
to use this manner Diligence in such cases without
[...] neglect

Mary Black that is brought out of any ships should
Return themselves from Island, are only to be secured
to see the same punishment as aforesaid./

Certain men were chosen to pursue runaway slaves. They were to go out to recover slaves belonging either to private owners or to the Honourable Company.

Each household with persons aged 16 years and above was required to contribute towards this system. A yearly payment of £5 0s 0d was to be made for this purpose.

The Governor agreed that some of the Company’s slaves should assist in these pursuits. As encouragement, a reward of 5s 0d was to be paid for each runaway slave captured. This payment was to be made by the owner.

Punishment was set for those who were taken after running away. The number of lashes was to correspond to the marks or offences found against them.

A scale of repeated punishment was established. On the first offence, a mark was to be made upon the body. This mark was to remain visible for one year. On the second offence, a further mark was to be burned onto the fifth finger of the right hand. For women, hair was to be cut and a mark burned on the body.

Owners of runaway slaves were also penalised. On proof of an offence, they were to forfeit a set amount for the first occurrence.

Robert Bagley and Matthew [...] were appointed to enforce this system. They were authorised to impose the fixed sum of 40s 0d for neglect of duty and to ensure punishments were carried out.

They were required to act with diligence and without delay in all such cases.

Any slaves brought from ships who attempted to remain on the island without permission were to be secured and subjected to the same punishments.

Interpretations

The appointment of designated pursuers showed a formal policing system for runaway slaves. Enforcement was organised and funded.

The yearly payment by inhabitants showed a collective financial burden. Control of slaves was treated as a public concern.

The reward for capture created an incentive system. Recovery of labour was encouraged through payment.

The use of Company slaves to assist showed layered control. Enslaved people were used to police others.

The graded punishments showed an escalating system of discipline. Repeated offences led to harsher penalties.

The use of physical marking showed permanent identification. Marks served both as punishment and as a record of prior offences.

The penalty on owners showed shared responsibility. Masters were held accountable for the behaviour of their slaves.

The appointment of named enforcers showed delegation of authority. Specific individuals were made responsible for execution of the law.

The extension of rules to slaves arriving by ship showed control over population movement. Entry and residence were regulated.

Speculations

The detailed structure of punishments suggests frequent escapes. The system may have been created in response to ongoing problems.

The involvement of multiple layers of enforcement suggests that earlier measures failed. A more rigid framework was introduced.

The penalties on owners suggest concern over lax supervision. Authorities may have believed that negligence encouraged escape.

The marking system suggests difficulty in identifying repeat offenders. Permanent marks may have been intended to prevent denial or concealment.

59

59

The aforeſaid Annuall Payment to be paid the ſaid
[...] by thoſe who had the Catching on hand [...]
[...] Edward Edmunds
James Hayward
[...] John [...]
Robert [...]
Henry Cole
Will [...]
Henry Hawley
John Grove
Thomas [...]

Iſland Sᵗ Helena

Att a Conſultation Held on Satu[...]
[...]day the [...] day of [...] 1700 Att Fort
James

Preſᵗ
Step: Poirier Governoʳ
Thom: Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thom: Goodwin Enſigne

Matthew Freese Soldʳ being yeſterday
upon the Guard went up to the valley without leave
and came not home till this morning being ordered
before us he did deny the [...] Compᵃ his viſiting
there neither nevertheless was brought downe [...]
[...] when questioned what was his business he said
the woman [...] The day before

It is ordered

That that the said Matthew Freese Ride yᵉ wooden
Horse this day againe with yᵉ Musquet tyed to each
Legg, for the space of two Houres and admonished for
the future/

Margin Notes:
Mathew Freese
being Drunk on the
Guard Rides the
Wooden horse

The annual payment for pursuing runaway slaves was to be paid to the appointed men responsible for that duty. Those named for this purpose included Edward Edmunds, James Hayward, John [...], Robert [...], Henry Coles, William [...], Henry Hawley, John Grove, and Thomas [...].

A consultation was then held at Fort James on a Saturday in 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Matthew Freese, a soldier, had been on guard duty the previous day. He left his post and went into the valley without permission. He did not return until the following morning. When brought before the Governor and Council, he denied any improper conduct, but gave no sufficient explanation for his absence.

It was ordered that Matthew Freese should be punished. He was to ride the wooden horse for two hours. A musket was to be tied to each of his legs during the punishment. He was also warned to be more careful in future.

Interpretations

The collection of annual payments showed a structured funding system for enforcement. Those responsible for capturing runaways were supported by contributions from inhabitants.

The naming of individuals showed formal assignment of duties. Responsibility was clearly distributed.

The offence of leaving guard duty without permission showed strict expectations of military discipline. Soldiers were required to remain at their posts.

The punishment of riding the wooden horse showed use of physical and public discipline. The addition of muskets increased discomfort and humiliation.

The formal warning alongside punishment showed a corrective purpose. Discipline aimed to prevent repeated offences.

Speculations

The need for funded pursuers suggests that voluntary enforcement was insufficient. Financial support may have been necessary to ensure action.

The absence of Freese overnight suggests lax discipline or personal motives. His unexplained visit to the valley may have raised suspicion.

The severity of the punishment suggests concern over guard reliability. The Council may have feared risk to security if such behaviour continued.

60

60

Samˡ Grandy Compᵃs [...] on yᵉ Guard was a
[...] being cloathed in his cloaths according to his order
[...] was dismissed from his place &c

It is ordered

That the said Samˡ Grandy be Dismist from his
Employ place, and to do private Centinall duty, dureing yᵉ
Governour and Councills Pleasure./

Allowed the Schoole master
annually for Teaching Children
as followeth

For writing and Cyphering p Quarter
For writing only
For Reading

John Howard who hath bin a Soldʳ
att Longwood & goeing on board the Ship Rochester
Capᵗ William [...] desired Wee would be pleased
[...] the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs Service
dureing yᵉ voyage out and when Returning he hath
his former encouragement Granted./

It is ordered

That the said Howard his request be Granted, and
his pay to begin from Tuesday next Ensuing./

Margin Notes:
Roger returned to
Phillip Leggett
Schoolemasʳ for
School

John Howard
Entertained from
Rochester &c

Samuel Grandy, a Company servant on guard duty, was found to have behaved improperly while on duty. He was brought before the Governor and Council. His conduct was judged unsatisfactory.

It was ordered that Samuel Grandy should be dismissed from his current employment. He was to be reduced to private sentinel duty for as long as the Governor and Council thought fit.

An allowance was set for the schoolmaster for teaching children. Payment was to be made annually. The rates were divided according to the type of instruction, including writing and arithmetic together, writing alone, and reading.

John Howard, who had been a soldier at Longwood and had gone aboard the ship Rochester, commanded by Captain William [...], requested permission to enter the service of the Honourable Company during the voyage. He asked that, on his return, he should be restored to his former position.

It was ordered that John Howard’s request be granted. His pay was to begin on the following Tuesday.

Interpretations

The dismissal of Grandy showed that misconduct while on guard duty led to loss of position. Discipline was enforced through demotion rather than immediate expulsion.

The reassignment to private sentinel duty showed a graded system of punishment. Offenders could be retained in lower roles under supervision.

The setting of schoolmaster fees showed organised provision for education. Instruction was structured and valued at different levels.

The distinction between writing, arithmetic, and reading showed a hierarchy of skills. More advanced teaching commanded higher payment.

The case of John Howard showed flexibility in service. Soldiers could be assigned to maritime duties and later return to land service.

The approval of his request showed that service arrangements could be negotiated. The Council controlled such transfers.

Speculations

The reduction rather than dismissal of Grandy suggests that trained personnel were scarce. The Council may have preferred to retain him in a lesser role.

The formalisation of school fees suggests growing demand for education. Families may have sought instruction for practical skills.

The arrangement for Howard suggests coordination between land and sea service. The Company may have needed experienced men for voyages.

The guarantee of reinstatement suggests an incentive to volunteer. It may have encouraged participation in ship service without permanent loss of position.

61

61

John Goodwin free Planter made Complaint to the
Governᵒr and Councill That on Saturday Last his brother
in Law named Greenlee being a Shooting Saw a Black
man of John Fullers one of his goates who carryed the
said Greenlee that his master told him he had found
a Gun that day, and that he had done so severall times
Further Declares that some pounds told him that there
was a Gun found in Governours Walk hanging where the
said Goodwins Goats commonly feed and said it was a
very Remarkable Gun and believe you may know it,
The said Goodwin asked the said Fullers black whose the Gun
was, who told him at Long Feilds for his Black found it
So they both went to the said Feilds to see the Gun and
being viewing it saw two letters that was J G thereupon
that it was yᵉ said Fullers Gun who said another said that
Gun was found night The day before by Thomas Harper
had before found dead Goate, and there desired to tell you
that I heard my Master say that yᵉ Fullers Black told him
That his master had Imployed
him to Steal yams out of Jacobs Ground and out of
that plantation belonging to the said Pedrowes hathe
and to use some [...] times more of the Compᵃˢ Plantation
Called Buttons, and Tomas made [...] of Mʳ James
Plantation Furthermore the said John Goodwin Declared
That on Monday last he being a Talking with Thomas
Harper Soldʳ about the aforesaid Gun, that was found
and the Goate that was killed The said Harper swore
go to law with the old widdow, I had Evidence Enough
against him to doe his buisnes for his Goodwin asked
him what he could say who Replyed that when he
Lived at the said Fullers Hayes which was about two
years ago he bid him go out a hunting to his goates
for Goates he had, and would have had none, and now have
found out in what he did, to all which the sᵈ John
Goodwin hath made oath/

The said Fullers Black being at the fort was Exa=
=amined as followeth

That he being going to fetch some wood his masters
dogg followed him, and seeing some Goates a great
way

Margin Notes:
John Goodwins
Information agᵗ
Fullers Black
of Killing of
Goates &c.

John Goodwin, a free planter, complained to the Governor and Council. He stated that on the previous Saturday his brother in law, James Greenlee, had been out shooting. During this, Greenlee saw a black slave belonging to John Fuller near one of Goodwin’s goats. The slave told him that his master had found a gun that day. It was also said that this had happened several times before.

Goodwin further stated that he had been told that a gun had been found in the Governor’s Walk, where his goats usually grazed. The gun was described as distinctive and recognisable. Goodwin asked Fuller’s slave whose gun it was. The slave said it had been found at Long Field. They went to see it and observed the letters “J G” marked on it.

It was reported that Thomas Harper had said the gun had been found the previous night and that a goat had also been found dead. Goodwin stated that he had heard that Fuller’s slave had said his master had instructed him to steal yams from Jacob’s ground and from a plantation belonging to Pedro. He also claimed that produce had been taken from other Company plantations, including one called Button’s, and from land belonging to Mr James.

Goodwin further stated that on the following Monday he spoke with Thomas Harper about the gun and the dead goat. Harper said that he could bring a case against the widow and had evidence enough. When questioned, Harper said that when he had lived with Fuller about two years earlier, Fuller had sent him out hunting goats and had made use of them. Goodwin swore that this account was true.

Fuller’s slave was then examined at the fort. He stated that he had gone to fetch wood and that his master’s dog had followed him. He saw some goats at a distance.

Interpretations

The complaint showed how disputes over livestock and property were formally brought before the Council. Loss of animals and tools triggered investigation.

The identification of the gun by marked initials showed use of personal marking to establish ownership. Property was identified through physical signs.

The involvement of multiple witnesses showed reliance on shared testimony. Evidence was built from statements rather than direct proof alone.

The accusation that a master instructed theft showed that responsibility could extend beyond the slave. Masters could be implicated in wrongdoing.

The reference to several plantations showed interconnected land use. Theft could affect both private and Company property.

The examination of the slave showed that enslaved individuals were questioned as witnesses or suspects. Their testimony formed part of the legal process.

Speculations

The repeated mention of stolen goods suggests ongoing theft. The area may have suffered from persistent losses.

The claim that Fuller directed theft may reflect conflict between neighbours. The accusation could have been part of a wider dispute.

The marking on the gun suggests that it had been lost or taken earlier. Its recovery may have triggered suspicion of broader wrongdoing.

The reliance on second-hand statements suggests weak direct evidence. The case may have depended on credibility rather than proof.

62

62

way of run after them, and [...] Catch a kid, and before
he could get to them, The dogg had kill itt, and desiring
his Master Ever bid him kill any goate, only Sometimes
him he hath gone for wood The dogg used to kill some
his master said he had the Receipt & Sent him forth
pieces and Succory out of Bottoms ground the night time
and left them there, the next came home and sent him for
them, and had done so three times and Planted the Potatoes
in his masters Plantation, and also that his master sent
Gla[..] in yᵉ Said Bottoms ground, and brought them
home and planted them himselfe./

Therefore upon
the whole matter It was ordered

That the Master have delivered him Into
the hands of his master for to appeare before us
next Court day, and the said Negroes he [heard] next being yᵉ
[...] and ordered in Records That the business may
be further Ex[a]mined with/

Auditors for Proclamation Issued out the 2
[...]

Will Harris
John Midge
John Feild
Gabriel Powell
James Hawkes
Simon [Ligham]
Thomas Clarke

It is ordered

That John Midge and John Facknall be appointed
Church Wardens for the yeare 1700 And also that James
Easthorpe and Simon Higham be overseers of the high way
the sᵈ yeare aforesaid

Margin Notes:
John Fullers Black
Information agᵗ
his Master

The above said Fuller
to appeare on Tuesday
next before the
Councill

Church Wardens
and Overseers of yᵉ
high way

Fuller’s slave continued his statement. He said that when he went to fetch wood, his master’s dog chased goats and killed a kid before he could stop it. He stated that his master had never ordered him to kill goats. He added that when he went out for wood, the dog sometimes killed animals without instruction.

He then stated that his master had sent him at night to collect pieces and succory from Bottoms ground. These were left there and collected the next day. He said this had been done three times. He also stated that his master had planted potatoes in his own plantation using what had been taken. He added that his master had sent him to gather produce from the same ground and bring it home for planting.

After hearing the matter, it was ordered that the slave should be returned to his master. John Fuller was required to appear before the Governor and Council on the next court day. The matter was to be examined further at that time.

Auditors were named for a proclamation. These were William Harris, John Midge, John Feild, Gabriel Powell, James Hawkes, Simon Higham, and Thomas Clarke.

It was also ordered that John Midge and John Facknall should serve as churchwardens for the year 1700. James Easthorpe and Simon Higham were appointed as overseers of the highways for the same year.

Interpretations

The slave’s testimony distinguished between actions by the dog and instructions from the master. Responsibility for damage could depend on intention.

The account of night collection of produce showed organised removal of crops. This suggested planned taking rather than accidental loss.

The requirement for Fuller to appear showed that masters were accountable for actions linked to their slaves. Allegations were pursued formally.

The continuation of the case showed that decisions could be deferred. Further evidence was required before judgment.

The naming of auditors for a proclamation showed administrative oversight. Specific individuals were assigned to supervise public measures.

The appointment of churchwardens showed local responsibility for religious and charitable duties. These roles were assigned annually.

The appointment of highway overseers showed organised maintenance of infrastructure. Labour and repair were supervised by designated persons.

Speculations

The slave’s denial of direct orders to kill goats may have been an attempt to protect his master. Responsibility could shift depending on testimony.

The repeated removal of produce suggests ongoing exploitation of nearby land. This may have caused tension between neighbours.

The decision to delay judgment suggests uncertainty. The Council may have needed stronger evidence before acting against Fuller.

The multiple appointments in the same sitting suggest routine governance alongside dispute resolution. Administrative duties continued alongside legal cases.

63

63

Moreover it is ordered

That both the old Church wardens and new Church
wardens, and overseers of the high wayes appeare before the
Governour and Councill this day fortnight, and Then
being in their accounts [...] excepting preceeding the
yeare past, that the new Church wardens and overseers
may be sworne in their office and be sworne accordingly

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday The 23ᵈ day of Aprill 1700 att
Fort James

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governᵒʳ
Tho Bright Depᵗy Governᵒʳ
Tho Goodwin Enſigne

Whereas yesterday arrived an Interloper Named the Shaven[...]
bury Gally whereof Mʳ John Leake is Supra Cargo who
desired to Supply with the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃˢ four Masters
orders Concerning ships in that Circumstances, But after Some
words, and Debates Concerning themselves [...] and wee being
uncertaine of her true Tunnage desireing him according to the best of
his knowledge, answered that the said ship was no more
then Sixty Tunnes, tho Capᵗ haveing told him to Leeward
[...] before they arrived in the Road [...] needing
they gave us three Bills of Exchange for the Sume

Margin Notes:
The old Church
Wardens and Overseers
being in their accounts
next Councill Day

Mʳ John Leake Supra
Cargo of the Interloper
Ship Salisbury
desired to be supplied
by the Compᵃˢ orders
for the Severall sums
and Debates Comp[...][...]

It was further ordered that both the outgoing and incoming churchwardens, together with the overseers of the highways, should appear before the Governor and Council in fourteen days’ time. They were required to present their accounts for the past year. After this, the new churchwardens and overseers were to be sworn into their offices.

A consultation was then held at Fort James on Tuesday 23 April 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

On the previous day, an interloping ship called the Salisbury Galley arrived. John Leake, acting as supercargo, requested supplies from the Honourable Company in accordance with standing orders for ships in such circumstances.

The matter was discussed at length. There was uncertainty about the true tonnage of the vessel. Leake stated, to the best of his knowledge, that the ship was no more than 60 tons. It was also reported that the captain had given a different account before arrival.

As part of the arrangement, three bills of exchange were offered for payment.

Interpretations

The requirement for outgoing officers to present accounts showed formal auditing. Officials were held accountable for their management of funds and duties.

The swearing in of new officers showed a structured transition of authority. Public roles required formal confirmation.

The arrival of an interloper showed that unauthorised or independent ships reached the island. These ships operated outside the Company’s monopoly.

The role of the supercargo showed responsibility for trade and negotiation. He acted on behalf of the ship’s commercial interests.

The request for supplies showed dependence on the island for provisions. Visiting ships relied on Company resources.

The uncertainty over tonnage showed its importance in determining terms. Charges and obligations could depend on a ship’s size.

The use of bills of exchange showed that payment was made through financial instruments. Direct cash payment was not required.

Speculations

The debate over tonnage suggests suspicion of misrepresentation. The ship may have understated its size to reduce charges.

The offering of multiple bills suggests negotiation over payment. The Company may have required security before supplying goods.

The classification as an interloper suggests tension. The Company may have been cautious in dealing with non-authorised traders.

The detailed discussion indicates that such cases were not routine. Each arrival may have required careful judgment.

64

64

of Sixty pounds Sterling payable on yᵉ forgoing said Ship
payable to the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ in England/

Whereas it was ordered that after the Complaint of John
Goodwin freeplanter made against John Fuller yᵉ [...]
the said Fuller to appeare before the Governoʳ and Councill and yᵉ
the said Goodwin Shew us what the said Goodwin only app[...]
and acquainted us that the said Fuller had he had a Gun
and shade up the Busines, and yᵗ he doth not Intend to p[...]
the said Fuller any further

It is therefore ordered

That the said John Goodwins Complaint be void unto
all further Complaint, and that the said Goodwin
shall make Satisfaction for the Damages
done to the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ at the Settlers ground, when yᵉ
same is demanded./

Being in great necessity of a Surgeon Doctor [...]
takeing his passage home for England In the Ship [...]
and being now in the Road Wee have desired David Law
[...] to spare us his Doctor that we
[...] who is extraordinary subscriber of [...]
[...] to grant our Request the said Law [...]
[...] willing to stay on this Island who hath obliged himselfe
[...] the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ as Companyes Surgeon for the
full year to the 5 June next that the said [Kenneth] hath

It is agreed and ordered

That the said David Law serve the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ as
his Salary to Commence from the time that yᵉ Island
Acct is made up and Ballanced./

Edward Sheild being a very Diligent officer, haveing [...]
to be at Lemon Valley Post in Shipping times for
the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ officers and planters powder there set an alarme
in order and ready to hinder persons from trading with
any Ships or their slaves which would prove, as it hath
bin before, a great wrong to our masters; therefore who humbly
desired us to consider that it lookt something odd for a quarter
at Lemon Valley, and when the Ships are gone to be kept
at yᵉ Great Post offering of his owne accord that when there
was no ships in the road to settle himselfe at Ruperts

Margin Notes:
The Difference be-
tweene John Goodwin
& John Fuller made
up &c.

Jnᵒ Fuller shall make
satisfaction for the
Damages done on Sett-
lers ground when
Demanded &c.

David Law Employed
hired for Surgeon

Edward Shields to be
Sentinell
at Lemon Valley
&c.

Three bills of exchange were delivered for the sum of £60 0s 0d sterling, payable in England to the Honourable Company.

The complaint made by John Goodwin against John Fuller was then considered. Goodwin appeared before the Governor and Council and stated that the matter had been settled between them. He declared that he did not intend to pursue the complaint further.

It was ordered that the complaint should be void and no further action taken. It was also ordered that John Goodwin should make satisfaction for any damage done to the Honourable Company’s land at Settlers Ground when this was demanded.

The Council then addressed the need for a surgeon. A doctor who had been on the island was preparing to leave for England on a ship then in the road. In consequence, a request was made to David Law to remain on the island in that capacity. He agreed to stay and serve as the Company’s surgeon.

It was ordered that David Law should be employed as surgeon for the Honourable Company. His salary was to begin from the time the island accounts were settled and balanced.

Edward Sheild, an officer noted for diligence, had been stationed at Lemon Valley during times when ships were present. His duty had been to watch for unlawful trading between inhabitants and visiting ships or their slaves, which had previously caused loss to the Company.

He requested that his posting should be adjusted. He proposed that he should remain at Lemon Valley only when ships were in the road, and at other times be stationed at Ruperts.

Interpretations

The use of bills of exchange showed formal commercial practice. Payment for supplies was secured through credit instruments payable in England.

The withdrawal of the complaint showed that disputes could be settled privately. The Council accepted such settlements and closed the case.

The requirement for Goodwin to compensate for damage showed that responsibility could remain even after a complaint was withdrawn. Company property was protected.

The appointment of a surgeon showed the importance of medical provision. The island required a resident practitioner for both Company and inhabitants.

The agreement with David Law showed contractual service. Employment was formalised with defined duties and pay.

The role of Edward Sheild showed active enforcement against illicit trade. Guarding against unauthorised exchange protected the Company’s monopoly.

The proposed change of posting showed flexibility in deployment. Duties were adjusted according to need.

Speculations

The settlement between Goodwin and Fuller suggests that the evidence may have been uncertain. Private agreement may have been preferred to formal judgment.

The insistence on compensation suggests that the Company prioritised recovery of loss. Even informal settlements did not remove financial responsibility.

The urgency in appointing a surgeon suggests risk to health on the island. Loss of medical support may have been seen as dangerous.

The concern over illicit trade suggests ongoing problems. The Company may have suffered repeated losses from unauthorised dealings.

The request by Sheild suggests that his duties were demanding or inefficiently arranged. Reassignment may have been intended to improve coverage.

65

65

Fort, to keep the said Watch there and Carry Wheather
power in order, and also when ordered by the Governoʳ to goe
to Lemon Valley the Chief look out at Shipping In the
night time to observe the said Ships bound to see what idea
they keep that they may Constantly attend their duty, which
have been too much neglected since we have had none of
the above Therefore

It is ordered

That under the appellation of Capt the said Shields
shall have the Care and oversight of these Parts above written
And whereas being in want of another Corporall to Supply
the said Shields place, Wee have thought fitt & Accordingly

ordered

That John Hemmon Soldʳ be Corporall in the said Shells
roome, both their Sallary to commence from the first Day
of october 1699

Whereas a parcell of coined Gold was found by some blacks
that was at worke about a house of John F[...] not
a building

Roger whichman yᵉ John Foster Bricklayer his
apprentice Saith That he being a pulling downe
an old wall found some gold tyed up in an old Rag, which
he put into his pockett and a little while after gave some of
the gold to the black man that were at worke with him, vizᵗ
four peices of Gold to Crowers black, four pᵉ more to then
and three pᵉ more to George Stubbssons late black, and
gave to Wishbands black seven pᵉ of gold, and the rest kept
himselfe

The aforesaid blacks saith they had three pounds of punch
of Thomas Carby, who hath a grant for Staying belonging
and that he sold 2 pᵉ of gold for two bowls of Punch and
what gold they had Remaining, have already Delivered to their
masters, who were present, having searched and found out
what gold the black had

Margin Notes:
John Hemmons Soldʳ
made Corpʳ

Some Coined Gold
found by John Foster
Bricklayer and the
same of yᵉ Gold
stolen by [...] black
and the overseer with him
& peices gave yᵉ
ball to Tho: Stubley
punch &c.

Edward Sheild was assigned responsibility for the watch at Ruperts Fort. He was to maintain vigilance there and keep proper order. When ordered by the Governor, he was to go to Lemon Valley and act as the principal lookout during times when ships were in the road. He was to observe all vessels and ensure that duties were properly carried out, as these tasks had been neglected in recent times.

It was ordered that Edward Sheild should take charge of these duties. He was given authority over the watch in these areas.

As a result of his reassignment, a new corporal was required. It was ordered that John Hemmon, a soldier, should take Sheild’s former place as corporal. Both their salaries were to be reckoned from 1 October 1699.

A separate matter was then reported. A quantity of coined gold had been found during work at a house belonging to John F[...].

Roger Whichman, apprentice to John Foster, bricklayer, gave evidence. He stated that while pulling down an old wall, he found gold wrapped in an old cloth. He took it and placed it in his pocket. He later distributed some of the gold to several black labourers working with him. He gave four pieces to Crower’s slave, four pieces to another, three pieces to a slave belonging to George Stubbsson, and seven pieces to Wishband’s slave. He kept the remainder.

The slaves stated that they used some of the gold to obtain punch from Thomas Carby, who held a licence to sell drink. They said that two pieces of gold were exchanged for two bowls of punch. The remaining gold in their possession had been returned to their masters, who were present and had recovered it after searching them.

Interpretations

The assignment of Sheild showed formal delegation of military oversight. Surveillance of shipping and prevention of neglect were treated as critical duties.

The reference to previous neglect showed concern over lapses in discipline. Regular watchkeeping was essential for security and trade control.

The appointment of Hemmon as corporal showed structured rank replacement. Promotion followed vacancy within the garrison.

The discovery of gold showed that valuable items could be found during building work. Such finds became matters of legal concern.

The testimony of the apprentice showed that distribution of found property was treated as improper. Goods were not to be divided privately.

The involvement of enslaved labourers showed their participation in work sites. Their actions were subject to scrutiny and recovery of goods.

The exchange of gold for drink showed informal trade. Licensed sellers could receive payment in kind.

The recovery of gold by masters showed control over enslaved persons’ possessions. Property held by slaves was reclaimed through their owners.

Speculations

The emphasis on neglected watch duties suggests prior risk to security. The Council may have feared smuggling or surprise arrival of ships.

The sharing of gold suggests opportunistic behaviour. The find may have tempted quick distribution before discovery.

The use of gold to buy drink suggests lack of formal market controls. Informal exchange may have been common.

The recovery of gold through masters suggests concern over loss of valuable resources. Authorities may have acted quickly to prevent wider dispersal.

66

66

It is ordered

That the said Thomas Risby according to the same
made concerning trading and bartering with Blacks
Immediately pay unto John Facknall and Richᵈ [...]
for the [...] price of one Million being four pᵉ
for yᵉ three pᵉ of gold agreed of the black for punch, he
having evidence up those three [...] Remaines him
more in value thereof being three shillᵗ Each, And be
fourty shillings to the Rᵗ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ and not to [...]
any more punch.

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Fryday
the 10ᵗʰ Day of May 1700 att Fort James

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governᵒʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governᵒʳ
Thomas Goodwin Enſigne

Whereas Capᵗ Lewis Whitwell Commander of the
ship Sidney being away in himselfe and a Great many of his
men not recovered, Hath wrote to us being in the Road
Desireing us to give an order unto Capᵗ Francis Miller [...]
of the Hampshire which is Ready to Sayle to Day, That he
might stay for to accompany with him till Sunday next [...]
the ship Sidney being very Leackey.

Upon Mature Consideration

Margin Notes:
Mʳ Thomas Risby to
pay to Jnᵒ Facknall
and Richᵈ [...] being for
trading wᵗʰ the Negro
Fosters & Twenty shillᵗ
to yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ

Capᵗ Fisher ordered
stay for Capᵗ Whit=
=well to consult
together &c.

It was ordered that Thomas Risby, having traded and bartered with slaves, should make payment according to the regulation on such dealings. He was required to pay John Facknall and Richard [...] for the agreed value of the gold used in exchange for punch. This amounted to three pieces of gold, valued at 3s 0d each. He was also ordered to pay 40s 0d to the Honourable Company and to refrain from selling any more punch.

A consultation was then held at Fort James on Friday 10 May 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Captain Lewis Whitwell, commander of the ship Sidney, sent a request while lying in the road. He reported that he and many of his crew were still unwell and that his ship was leaking badly. He asked that an order be given to Captain Francis Miller, commander of the ship Hampshire, which was ready to sail, to delay departure until the following Sunday so that the two ships might sail together.

The matter was considered by the Governor and Council.

Interpretations

The fine imposed on Risby showed enforcement of rules against trading with slaves. Such exchanges were regulated to prevent unauthorised circulation of goods.

The requirement to compensate named individuals showed restitution for improper transactions. Value was calculated and recovered.

The additional fine to the Company showed institutional penalty alongside private compensation. Both personal and Company interests were protected.

The prohibition on further sale of punch showed control over licensed trade. Sellers could lose privileges if they broke regulations.

The request from Captain Whitwell showed reliance between ships. Mutual support at sea was necessary for safety.

The condition of illness and a leaking ship showed the risks of voyage. Ships depended on assistance when weakened.

The authority of the Council to delay another ship showed control over harbour activity. Departure could be regulated for practical reasons.

Speculations

The regulation against trading with slaves suggests ongoing informal exchange. Authorities may have struggled to control such activity.

The relatively high fine suggests the offence was taken seriously. The Council may have aimed to deter others.

The request to delay sailing suggests that Whitwell feared travelling alone. His ship’s condition may have made it vulnerable.

The willingness to consider delay suggests cooperation between vessels. The Council may have prioritised safety over strict scheduling.

67

67

It is ordered

That Considering Our Honoᵇˡᵉ Masters Goods may
be in hazard for want of Convoy: We have thought fitt
for the Reasons aforesaid to require the said Capᵗ Fisher
to Stay till Sunday next, and they may Sail
Together

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday The 30ᵗʰ day of May 1700 att Fort
James

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governᵒʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Whereas the old Church wardens, and overseers
of the high wayes they gave but part [...] ordered to appeare
this day before us. In order of making up their accᵗˢ of the
said last yeare preceeding, And also the new Church wardens
and overseers of the high wayes to [...] and invested in
their offices Who accordingly was and had the Directions and
matters delivered thereto as usual.

Margin Notes:
The old Church
wardens & Overseers of
high ways brought
their Accᵗˢ and
Delivered to yᵉ
Church wardens and
overseers of yᵉ high
ways.

It was ordered that, because the Honourable Company’s goods might be at risk without protection, Captain Fisher should delay his departure until the following Sunday. The ships were then to sail together under convoy.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 30 May 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

The former churchwardens and overseers of the highways appeared before the Governor and Council. They presented their accounts for the previous year, although only part of the accounts had initially been delivered.

The new churchwardens and overseers of the highways were also present. They were sworn into their offices and formally took up their duties.

The accounts and responsibilities of the previous officers were handed over to their successors in the usual manner.

Interpretations

The decision to delay sailing showed concern for the safety of Company goods. Convoy travel reduced risk from damage or attack.

The authority to hold ships in port showed control over maritime activity. The Council managed departures in line with Company interests.

The requirement for accounts from outgoing officers showed financial accountability. Officials were expected to report on their management.

The swearing in of new officers showed formal assumption of duty. Public roles required legal confirmation.

The transfer of accounts showed continuity in administration. Responsibility passed in an ordered process.

The reference to established procedure showed that such transitions were routine. Governance followed a regular pattern.

Speculations

The concern over convoy suggests fear of loss at sea. The ships may have faced danger from weather or hostile action.

The incomplete accounts suggest possible delay or difficulty in record keeping. The Council may have pressed for proper completion.

The formal handover indicates importance of accurate records. Mismanagement may have been a recurring concern.

The structured process suggests a stable administrative system. The Council may have aimed to maintain order through routine practice.

68

68

Samuel Wrangham of the said Island free planter
Presented to us the Governour and Councill his humble Peti[...]
[...] Setting forth therein That a former Governoʳ and Councill
[...] having taken into their possession Thirty Acres of Land
and a House [...] at Society free, formerly of his Mother
in Law Mary Senter widᵒ whereof we desired yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
[...] Satisfaction for said House/

It is ordered

That the said Wrangham Take into his Possession the
said Thirty Acres of Land, and make his Application to the
Rᵗ Honourable Compᵃs due masters for the Value of the sᵈ
house He being a former Governours Removed off the sᵈ
Land and gave to the use of the said Honourable Compᵃ/

John Facknall and Richard Curling made Complaint
to us by Petition, That Thomas Askey Soldʳ had in his possession
some peice of Gold, and was with small pᵉ which doth
not found of their Ground

The said Thomas Askey was Examined, and owned that he
hath one piece of gold which he took from his black, which
he did not examine farther he was Examined before, But he
gave him a little more of that gold or Arrow ground/

James [...] saith that the said Askey came to his house
yesterday, and desired him to see him some Rum and Sugar
offering gold for it, and saw him have one large pᵉ of gold
which is now produced, besides thinks he might have four or
five small pᵉ more in a little bag of thread/

Upon mature Consideration

It is ordered

That the said Thomas Askey be fined five Shilˢ for his
Misdemeanor and be Dismist from the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs
Service and to Deliver the said pᵉ of Gold to yᵉ said Facknall
Curling, paying also Charge of Councill./

Margin Notes:

Samuel Wrangham
Petitioned Govʳ & Councill
abt 30 Acres of Land
&a House the former
Govʳ & Councill had
taken into their possession &c

That yᵉ said Wrangham
Take into his possession
yᵉ sᵈ thirty Acres of
Land & make his appli-
cation to yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ
Compᵃ &c

Jnᵒ Facknall & Richᵈ
Curling complaining
Tho: Askey soldʳ of
having some Gold
in his hands, being Exa-
mined made it appeare
he belongs to them

Tho: Askey fined 5 shill
& Dismist from yᵉ Compᵃ
Service & to Deliver yᵉ
pᵉ Gold to yᵉ said Fack-
nall & Curling &c.

Samuel Wrangham, a free planter, submitted a petition to the Governor and Council. He stated that a former Governor and Council had taken into their possession 30 acres of land and a house at Sandy Bay that had belonged to his mother in law, Mary Senter, widow. He requested satisfaction for the house.

It was ordered that Samuel Wrangham should take possession of the 30 acres of land. He was instructed to apply to the Honourable Company for compensation for the house, as it had been taken for Company use by a former Governor.

John Facknall and Richard Curling then submitted a petition. They complained that Thomas Askey, a soldier, had in his possession some gold that did not belong to him.

Thomas Askey was examined. He admitted that he had one piece of gold, which he said he had taken from his slave. He did not give a clear account of how it had been obtained.

James [...] gave evidence. He stated that Askey had come to his house the previous day and asked him to sell rum and sugar. Askey offered gold in payment. He saw Askey with one large piece of gold, which was produced, and believed that he had four or five smaller pieces in a small bag.

After consideration, it was ordered that Thomas Askey should be fined 5s 0d for his misconduct. He was dismissed from the Honourable Company’s service. He was also ordered to deliver the piece of gold to John Facknall and Richard Curling and to pay the costs of the Council.

Interpretations

The decision in Wrangham’s case showed recognition of prior dispossession. Land taken for Company use could be restored, while compensation for buildings required reference to higher authority.

The instruction to apply to the Company showed limits on local authority. Financial compensation lay beyond the Council’s immediate power.

The complaint against Askey showed continued concern over gold circulation. Ownership of such finds was closely controlled.

Askey’s dismissal showed that misconduct could lead to loss of employment. Discipline within the Company’s service was enforced.

The requirement to return the gold showed protection of property rights. Goods were restored to those judged to have rightful claim.

The fine and costs showed combined punishment and restitution. Offenders bore both penalty and administrative expense.

Speculations

Wrangham’s recovery of land suggests that earlier seizures may have been contested. The Council may have been correcting previous decisions.

The uncertainty over the house’s value suggests administrative complexity. Compensation may have required approval from England.

Askey’s vague account suggests concealment. The gold may have come from earlier undisclosed finds.

The swift dismissal suggests concern over wider misconduct. The Council may have aimed to deter similar behaviour among soldiers.

69

69

William Dufton Soldʳ made Complaint to the
Governᵒʳ and Councill That on the 7ᵗʰ day of [...] last he had
stolen out of his father Isaacks House in the Fort Valley
viz four [...] whole Dollars one halfe Dollar six pˢ of King
Williams Coin, and one pˢ Six guilders of Rum, six pounds
of Sugar and one [...] shilling [life] /

Which particulars abovesaid he Suspected to be stolen
by his said father’s Son, and Jack yampot a Slave of James Grandys,
who were examined, and also the said Duftons Evidences.

Jack yampot Slave of James Grandys being
Examined Saith That on Sunday morning he Come downe to
the Fort to bring his Master some Victualls, and being setting at
his Masters door Sutton Isaack Junʳ Come to him and asked him
for a pipe, who replyed you are alwayes a begging of me, You never
gave me a Dram Since you have bin a Lad, whereupon you come
here of Mʳ Thomas Ashby. No said the said Sutton, what if my
Mother and father were gone up the hill into the Country, I know
where to gett sum Rum, where said the said Jack, he replyed
there is some Rum In my fathers House, of Willᵐ Duftons.
The said Jack asked him how he could goe it, the door being
Lockt. The said Isaack Replyed again there is a hole in the back
where I will put downe a Stick and push back the bolt of the
Lock, and he got out the Rum, which he did and took four
quart bottles full and gave him to hide amongst some weeds
that grew behinde the House, and bid him when he come
up in yᵉ Country to bring it with him, for if he found
it up himselfe, his father and mother would drink it all up
and that the said Isaack bid the said James to give him a call
when he came a Top of the hill about their house, which he
did, and yᵉ said Isaack Came up to him and bid three Quarts
of the Rum there amongst Rocks, and the other bottle full
they carried to his Masters House, and as they were going home
the hill met Gilbert Chagrave a coming up who asked yᵉ said Isaack
where he was agoing The said Isaack replyed To Sarah Clifford’s
to fetch two Quarts of Rum for his father, and a bottle an
halfe after the and said Isaack went to Mʳ Chagraves House
and while they was there, the said Gilbert Chagrave Come home
againe and yᵉ said Isaack haveing some Rum with him
asked the Gilbert to Drink a Dram, who asked him where he
had it. yᵉ said Isaack said at home, and a little while after the
said Gilbert and Isaack went over to Thomas Ash’s house
and in the Night went over himselfe and carried a bottle
of Rum with him, and after they had drank it out

Margin Notes:

Wᵐ Dufton Soldʳ
Information agᵗ
Sutton Isaack Junʳ
& Jack Yam Pot a
Slave of James Grandy
for Stealing Severall
things out of his fa-
thers house &c.

William Dufton, a soldier, made a complaint to the Governor and Council. He reported that on 7 [...] last, several items had been stolen from his father Isaac Dufton’s house in Fort Valley. These included four whole dollars, one half dollar, six pieces of King William’s coin, one piece worth six guilders, a quantity of rum, six pounds of sugar, and about 1s 0d in money.

He suspected that the theft had been carried out by his father’s son, Sutton Isaac Junior, together with Jack Yampot, a slave belonging to James Grandy. Both were examined, along with the witnesses produced by Dufton.

Jack Yampot gave evidence. He stated that on Sunday morning he came down to the fort to bring provisions to his master. While he was sitting at his master’s door, Sutton Isaac Junior approached him and asked for a pipe. He replied that Sutton was always asking for things and had never given him a drink.

Sutton then said that he knew where to obtain rum. He explained that his parents were away in the country and that there was rum in his father’s house. When asked how he could enter, he said there was a hole at the back of the house. He used a stick to push back the bolt and gained entry.

He took out four quart bottles of rum. He gave them to Jack Yampot to hide among weeds behind the house. He told him to bring the rum later when he came up to the country, saying that otherwise his parents would drink it.

Jack later called to him from the top of the hill, as instructed. Sutton came up and hid three bottles among rocks. They carried the remaining bottle to the master’s house.

On their way, they met Gilbert Chagrave. He asked Sutton where he was going. Sutton replied that he was going to Sarah Clifford’s to fetch two quarts of rum for his father. He later went to Chagrave’s house and offered him a drink. When asked where the rum came from, he said it was from home.

Later that evening, Sutton went again and carried another bottle of rum. They drank it together.

Interpretations

The complaint showed theft within a household. Property belonging to a family member was treated as subject to legal protection.

The detailed inventory of stolen goods showed the range of valuable items. Money, alcohol, and sugar were all treated as significant property.

The method of entry showed knowledge of the house. The use of a gap and a stick to open the door indicated familiarity with the building.

The involvement of a slave showed participation across social ranks. Enslaved people could be drawn into offences by free persons.

The movement and concealment of the rum showed intent to avoid detection. Goods were hidden and distributed in stages.

The false explanation given to Chagrave showed conscious deception. Sutton attempted to conceal the origin of the goods.

The sharing of the rum showed consumption of stolen property. Immediate use reduced the chance of recovery.

Speculations

The detailed account suggests strong evidence against Sutton Isaac. His actions appear planned rather than accidental.

The involvement of Jack Yampot may have been influenced by dependency. He may have followed instructions rather than acting independently.

The emphasis on rum suggests its high value. Alcohol may have been both a commodity and a temptation.

The repeated movement of bottles suggests concern about discovery. The goods were divided and relocated to reduce risk.

The willingness to offer drink to others suggests an attempt to normalise possession. Sharing may have been used to avoid suspicion.

70

70

The said Isaack bid them go to Thomas Coles to fetch some
Rum in a Bottle, of which between him and the Sᵈ Gilbert [...]
drinking done Sent him and Laurence a Black of Mʳ Allis
to fetch another of the bottles of Rum up was hid by the Hill,
which they all drank together, further Saith that the said Sutton
Isaack gave him three Dollars and 9ᵈ to keep for him, which
him where he got it, the said Isaack Replyed the go [it] honestly The
said Jack told to him against if Some into any Cockle about
it he would tell the whole Truth; but does not know any thing
the other things, only ashing and that yᵉ said Isaack gave him/

Sutton Isaack Junʳ being Examined Saith that yᵉ
said Jack yampot hath told nothing but lies of him, for he never
askt any of the said Dollars Rum, nor nothing else, and
Denyed of denying the fact all tho the said Jack Confronted him to his
face/ but acknowledges that he was at Mʳ Chagraves house and
that he and his father Gilbert Chagrave went over to Thomas [...]
House, and that he drank some Rum there after left [...]
it was not from whence it came, and yᵗ he sent yᵉ said Jack to
Thomas Coles for a quart of Rum in a bottle and French which
he sent halfe a Dollar for, drank it yᵗ yᵉ said and 8ᵈ yᵉ said
Chagraves, but had none from hence./

Gilbert Chagrave Saith that on Sunday after [...]
Sunday about three a clock in the afternoon, being going up the
hill that goes from his mothers house, met with Sutton Isaack
Junʳ Jack yampot and Sutton Isaack Junʳ black wench, the said
Gilbert asked the said Isaack where he was agoing, who told him
he was going to Sarah Clifford’s for Two Quarts of Rum for his
father, Departed and Come up to his Brothers House, and when he
went home again, found the said Isaack and Jack at his mothers
House, and assoone as he Come to the Door, The said Isaack met him
with some Rum in a quart bottle, who asked him if he would
Dram, The said Gilbert asked him yᵉ said Isaack where he had
it, who told him, he bought it of a friend, so after they had drank
it all out he and the said Isaack and his Brother Thomas went
over to Thomas Allis’s house Intending to call him to go a fishing
with them, but being not at home stayed there all that night
and the next were all a sleep The said Jack yampot came to them
at yᵉ said Allis house, and brought with him a quart bottle of Rum
and presently after came three of Henry Coles’s blacks, and brought
that had bin in the House above an houre they made went out
of the house and brought in two Quart bottles of Rumm which
drank Together, but Cant tell where they got it, furthermore

Sutton Isaac Junior told them to go to Thomas Coles to fetch rum in a bottle. After drinking that between himself and Gilbert Chagrave, he sent Jack Yampot and Laurence, a slave belonging to Mr Allis, to fetch another bottle of rum that had been hidden on the hill. This was brought back and they all drank it together.

Jack Yampot further stated that Sutton Isaac Junior gave him three dollars and 9d to keep. When asked where he had obtained the money, Sutton replied that he had come by it honestly. Jack said that if any trouble arose about it, he would tell the whole truth. He added that he knew nothing about the other stolen goods, except for what Sutton had given him.

Sutton Isaac Junior was then examined. He denied all the accusations made by Jack Yampot and said that Jack had told nothing but lies. He denied taking any money, rum, or other goods. He admitted that he had been at Mr Chagrave’s house and that he and Gilbert Chagrave had gone to Thomas [...]’s house, where he drank some rum. He said he did not know where the rum had come from. He admitted sending Jack to Thomas Coles for a quart of rum, for which he paid half a dollar. He said that he and the Chagraves drank it, but insisted that none of it had come from his father’s house.

Gilbert Chagrave gave evidence. He said that on Sunday afternoon, at about three o’clock, he met Sutton Isaac Junior, Jack Yampot, and Sutton’s slave woman on the road near his mother’s house. He asked Sutton where he was going. Sutton replied that he was going to Sarah Clifford’s to fetch two quarts of rum for his father.

Later, when Gilbert returned home, he found Sutton and Jack at his mother’s house. Sutton met him at the door with a quart bottle of rum and offered him a drink. When asked where it came from, Sutton said he had bought it from a friend.

After drinking it, Gilbert, Sutton, and Thomas Chagrave went to Thomas Allis’s house, intending to ask him to go fishing. As Allis was not at home, they stayed there overnight.

The next morning, while they were still there, Jack Yampot arrived with another quart bottle of rum. Shortly afterwards, three slaves belonging to Henry Coles came in. After being in the house for about an hour, they went out and returned with two more quart bottles of rum. These were also drunk by the group. Gilbert said he did not know where this additional rum had come from.

Interpretations

The repeated movement and sharing of rum showed continued handling of stolen goods. Consumption was collective and frequent.

The giving of money by Sutton Isaac suggested distribution of stolen proceeds. This indicated control over the stolen property.

Jack Yampot’s statement showed partial cooperation with the investigation. He distinguished between what he knew directly and what he did not.

Sutton Isaac’s denial showed conflict in testimony. His admissions were limited to actions that appeared lawful.

The involvement of several individuals showed the spread of the goods. Stolen items circulated within a small community.

The use of purchased rum as a defence showed an attempt to present lawful acquisition. Payment was used to justify possession.

The participation of multiple slaves showed their integration into social activity. They were involved both in labour and informal exchange.

The overnight gathering showed social drinking practices. Such settings allowed further distribution of goods.

Speculations

The contradictions between testimonies suggest an attempt to conceal the origin of the goods. Sutton Isaac may have minimised his role.

The distribution of money and drink suggests an effort to secure silence or loyalty. Sharing may have reduced the risk of accusation.

The repeated fetching of rum suggests a larger quantity than initially reported. More goods may have been taken than recorded.

The presence of several slaves suggests informal networks of exchange. These may have operated beyond direct supervision.

The continued denial despite confrontation suggests confidence or expectation of insufficient proof. The outcome may have depended on witness credibility.

71

71

The said Gilbert Chagrave Saith that yesterday he heard the said
Jack yampot tell his Mistress that when he was at the Fort
he asked Sutton Isaack Junʳ for a Dram, who told him he had none
but yᵉ his father, and mother were gone up the Hill, he Could see
where to gett some Rumm, The said Jack asked him where, Isaack
said in our house, for Willᵐ Dufton had some there, and bid him
take a dry Tobacco Stick, and push back the Bolt of the Lock and
there was some Rum in a Rundlet, and when the money he stole
he first tyed up in a little bagg, the said Sutton Junʳ soon shewed
to it, as it was Kept, which said John Sew[ard] told Gibbs of Rum
that he poured out of said Rundlet, and some money to yᵉ Isaack
of said Sarah, he thought and said Isaack did yᵉ said Isaacks
things were and some think, and being yesterday evening a talking
with the said Isaack, he bid him tell the truth, Desireing yᵉ said
Isaack, the him about the Rumm that was Stank, but yᵉ said
Allis house, That it was his, who did through yᵉ said Isaack own
Invasion, thinking not that by that means he should be suspected
of doing yᵉ fact aforesaid, and Denyes that he Sent any money to
Coles for any Rumm or Piment, as the sᵈ Isaack hath said
he did.

Thomas Chagrave Saith that on the Sunday aforesaid
he seeing Jack yampot and Sutton Isaack comeing downe the
hill that goes from his mothers House, and knowing that
the said Jack came from the house went to aske him wherefor
he saw a black wench of the Compᵃs come up from yᵉ Fort, who told
him no, so was going toward Long Valley, The said Jack said what
hart are you in Come you stay a little while, and went in to
the said Isaack’s mother’s house, but would not name, The said Jack
asked him if he would Drink a Dram of Rum, who said I will
Care if I doe, and he took and went the back of them a
Dram, and mistd the said Jack, who gone out & feced the Stones
Sutton Isaack steered him and there he then another, and said there
by here’s another, which was three in all and saw Sutton Isaack
Said black wench have another Dram which yᵉ said Isaack said
his father sent to Isaack Chagrave for some Rum, and said he
Sent that Dollar to his father, and presently after went home
and the said Isaack and Jack went with him, and Carried almost
a quart bottle of Rum, and about halfe an houre after his Brother
Gilbert Come home, and Sutton his and Coming in at the door
Isaack asked him if he would Drink a Dram, who did and asked
him where he got that Rum. Isaack replyed of a friend, and a little
while after they went over to Thomas Allis house, and after they
had bin there a good while, Jack yampot Come and brought a Quart
bottle of Rum, and a little while after Three of Henry Coles
Blacks came there, who took part of yᵉ bottle of Rumm and
when it was all out, The said Isaack was minded to have more
and

Gilbert Chagrave stated that on the previous day he heard Jack Yampot tell his mistress that, when he was at the fort, he asked Sutton Isaac Junior for a drink. Sutton replied that he had none, but said that his father and mother were away in the country and that he knew where to obtain some rum. He said there was rum in his father’s house and explained how to enter by using a dry tobacco stick to push back the bolt of the door.

Gilbert further stated that Jack said Sutton had shown him where money was kept, which Sutton had taken and tied in a small bag. Some rum had been drawn from a cask in the house, and money had also been taken. Gilbert added that he later spoke with Sutton and urged him to tell the truth about the rum that had been drunk at Thomas Allis’s house. Sutton admitted that the rum there had been his, but claimed this in a way that suggested he did not expect to be suspected of theft. He denied sending any money to Thomas Coles for rum or drink, contrary to what had been alleged.

Thomas Chagrave gave further evidence. He said that on the same Sunday he saw Jack Yampot and Sutton Isaac coming down the hill near his mother’s house. He knew Jack had come from that direction and asked where he had been. A Company slave woman was also present. Jack invited him to stay and drink. He went with them and was given a drink of rum.

He observed that Jack went behind some stones and produced more rum. Sutton directed him there and showed him additional bottles, making three in total. Sutton also gave rum to a slave woman present. Sutton said that his father had sent for rum and that he had sent a dollar for it.

Thomas Chagrave stated that they then went to his house, carrying nearly a quart bottle of rum. About half an hour later, his brother Gilbert arrived. Sutton offered him a drink, and when asked where the rum came from, he said it was from a friend.

They later went to Thomas Allis’s house. After they had been there some time, Jack Yampot arrived with another quart bottle of rum. Shortly afterwards, three slaves belonging to Henry Coles came in and drank part of it. When the rum was finished, Sutton Isaac wanted more.

Interpretations

The repeated testimony confirmed a consistent account of entry into the house. The method of opening the locked door showed deliberate action.

The reference to money being taken and tied in a bag showed organised removal of valuables. This indicated more than casual taking.

The statements attributed to Jack Yampot showed second-hand evidence being repeated. Testimony circulated through conversation as well as direct observation.

Sutton Isaac’s partial admission suggested an attempt to control the narrative. He acknowledged possession but denied theft.

The presence of multiple witnesses strengthened the case. Several individuals described similar movements and actions.

The handling of rum showed clear distribution and consumption. Goods were shared openly among those present.

The involvement of enslaved people and free individuals showed mixed participation. Social and labour boundaries did not prevent shared activity.

The repeated claim that the rum came from a “friend” showed a standard explanation. This was used to avoid direct accusation.

Speculations

The consistency of multiple accounts suggests that the events were widely known. Sutton Isaac may have struggled to conceal his actions.

The admission that the rum was his, without explanation, suggests a misjudgment. He may have believed possession alone would not prove theft.

The circulation of rum among many people suggests rapid dispersal of stolen goods. This may have made recovery difficult.

The use of a simple method to enter the house suggests familiarity with its structure. The act may have been opportunistic but informed.

The reliance on denial despite repeated testimony suggests hope of avoiding conviction. The outcome may have depended on the weight given to enslaved witnesses.

72

72

and bid the said Jack go to Thomas Coles for some Rum
a halfe Dollar bottle of Punch, but getting neither, sent him
to fetch that Rummy they had hid at the Hill, and [...]
they had Allis’s black went with him, who brought a quart bottle
full with them: the then saith that he heard the said Sutton
Isaack tell Jack yampot that old Coles had bin a pumping
him about the Rum and other things that was stole out of
Duftons house, Bid the Governoʳ should make him to Death
before he would Confess any thing./

Mary the wife of John Forster Saith that on the same
day aforesaid That W[illia]m Dufton had his Rumm and other
things stolen, Saw Sutton Isaack Junʳ go into his fathers House
Just as the Drum Beat for Church, and presently after Jack
went In after him/

James Grandy Saith that Sutton Isaack Junʳ and his
wife Came Into his house in the Fort Valley, between Six & Seven
of the Clock the same morning, and that the said Isaack soon
went out and In Severall Times, and that they went up in the
Country after the Drum had beaten for Church./

After mature and Serious Consi=
=deration It is ordered.

That The said Sutton Isaack Junʳ be Dismist from
the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs Service, and be kept in Prison untill
next dimo[u]nt of the Guard, Then To be Severely Lashed on his
naked body And that the said Gilbert Chagrave be fined
five Shillings to the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ And admonished to be a
better Compᵃ for the future/

And also

That all the aforesaid Blacks to be Severely whipt on
their naked bodyes at the flagstaff.

And whereas Complaint hath bin made against
the said Gilbert Chagrave, and Sutton Isaack Junʳ for that they
go together very often a shooting, and is thought to do Damage
which to prevent for the future./

Margin Notes:
Sutton Isaack Junʳ
Dismist from yᵉ
Compᵃ Service
and from to be Severely
Lash on his naked body
and Gilbert Chagrave fined
five shillings to yᵉ Honᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ

and all yᵉ aforesᵈ blacks
to be severely whipt.

Sutton Isaac Junior told Jack Yampot to go to Thomas Coles to obtain rum and a bottle of punch for half a dollar. When he failed to obtain any, Sutton sent him to fetch the rum that had been hidden on the hill. Jack went with a slave belonging to Thomas Allis, and they brought back a quart bottle full, which was then drunk.

Thomas Chagrave further stated that he heard Sutton Isaac Junior tell Jack Yampot that old Coles had been questioning him about the rum and other goods stolen from Dufton’s house. Sutton said that the Governor would put him to death before he would confess anything.

Mary, the wife of John Forster, gave evidence. She said that on the same day that William Dufton’s rum and other goods were stolen, she saw Sutton Isaac Junior enter his father’s house just as the drum beat for church. Shortly afterwards, Jack Yampot also went into the house.

James Grandy stated that Sutton Isaac Junior and his wife came into his house in Fort Valley between 6.00 and 7.00 in the morning. Sutton went in and out several times. After the drum had beaten for church, they went up into the country.

After mature and serious consideration, it was ordered that Sutton Isaac Junior be dismissed from the Honourable Company’s service. He was to be kept in prison until the next mounting of the guard, and then to be severely whipped on his naked body.

It was further ordered that Gilbert Chagrave be fined 5s 0d to the Honourable Company and admonished to behave better in future.

It was also ordered that all the slaves involved be severely whipped on their naked bodies at the flagstaff.

A further complaint had been made that Gilbert Chagrave and Sutton Isaac Junior frequently went out shooting together and were suspected of causing damage. Measures were to be taken to prevent this in future.

Interpretations

The failure to obtain rum from Coles and the return to hidden supplies confirmed reliance on stolen goods. The group repeatedly accessed concealed property.

Sutton Isaac’s statement about refusing to confess showed awareness of investigation. He anticipated severe punishment.

The testimony placing Sutton at the house at the time of church confirmed opportunity. The timing aligned with the reported theft.

The movement between houses and into the country showed coordination. Actions were not isolated but repeated.

The dismissal from Company service showed loss of status and livelihood. Discipline extended beyond fines to removal from employment.

The order for whipping showed corporal punishment as a standard response. Physical penalty was used to enforce discipline.

The fine imposed on Gilbert Chagrave showed lesser culpability. He was punished for association rather than direct theft.

The punishment of the enslaved people showed collective responsibility. All involved were subjected to corporal punishment.

The concern about shooting activities showed broader suspicion of misconduct. Such behaviour was linked to damage to property.

Speculations

Sutton Isaac’s refusal to confess suggests he expected harsh consequences. His statement implies fear of extreme punishment.

The repeated gathering and drinking suggests a social element to the offence. Theft may have supported communal activity.

The involvement of multiple individuals suggests weak control over behaviour. Informal networks may have enabled such actions.

The severe punishment of all involved suggests a desire to deter similar conduct. The Council may have aimed to make an example of the case.

The suspicion of damage from shooting suggests ongoing tensions over property use. The Council may have linked different behaviours as part of a pattern of disorder.

73

73

It is ordered

That The said Gilbert Chagrave do not go a Shooting
untill Six months be Expired, And that the said Isaack
likewise go not a Shooting Dureing our pleasure, on Paine of
fine or Punishment, as we shall think fitt.

Margin Notes:
Gilbert Chagrave and Sutton
Isaack forbid to go
Shooting upon Penalty.

It was ordered that Gilbert Chagrave should not go out shooting for a period of six months.

It was also ordered that Sutton Isaac Junior should not go out shooting for as long as the Governor and Council saw fit. If either of them broke this order, they would be liable to further fine or punishment.

Interpretations

The restriction on shooting showed preventative control. Activities associated with disorder or damage could be limited.

The fixed term for Gilbert Chagrave showed a measured penalty. His offence was considered less serious.

The indefinite restriction on Sutton Isaac showed greater severity. His conduct justified closer control.

The threat of further punishment showed ongoing supervision. Compliance was expected under risk of escalation.

Speculations

The ban on shooting suggests that this activity was linked to wider misconduct. The Council may have believed it enabled theft or damage.

The difference in duration suggests a hierarchy of blame. Sutton Isaac was treated as the principal offender.

The open-ended restriction implies uncertainty about reform. The Council may have intended to review his behaviour over time.

74

74

Island Sᵗ Helena

Whereas there is two years head money
due [...] to the Church from yᵉ Inhabitants of yᵉ said Island, That are of the
age of 16 years upwards, That is to Say 6ᵈ head poll in all Persons
of the age aforesaid, both whites and Blacks males & females, that
in each master or mistress family, And also there is due from the [...]
Inhabitants to Edward Coulson six years Sallary, That is 12ˢ from
each family, being according to agreement made of the Inhabitants [...]
assembled for the Regulating the Church affaires./

These are therefore in his majesties Name to Impower and
Require you John Midge and John Facknall Church Wardens for this
Present yeare to Collect forthwith of every Inhabitant of the Island
of the age aforesaid 6ᵈ p pole for all persons residing in each Mans
and Mastʳs family, for yᵉ Reparation of the Churches. And also 12ˢ
of every Master or mistress of a family for the use of yᵉ aforesaid
Edward Coulson, and that you may the Better and more [...]
Performe yᵉ Same hereunto is a List annexed of all persons that
to pay head money as aforesaid./

And if any Person or persons doth deny to pay you the
respective Sums he doth adj[udge] to Each persons Name, you are
hereby further Impowered to make Distress on their goods and
Chattles, selling the same at a Publique outcry, Delivering yᵉ over
plush if any to the owners after you are Satisfied and all reasonable
Charges Deducted./

And also you are Impowered to Collect from the s[ai]d
Persons that Look for runaway Blacks of Every Family one shil[ling] that
hath Blacks this present year, being the former Collect [...]
Coulson doth appeare, [...] which amounts to 19 Blacks, And to pay the
two Persons the Sume of Ten Pounds

For all which this shall be your sufficient Warrante given
under our hands this 20ᵗʰ day of Aprill 1700

Margin Notes:
Head money to the Church from yᵉ Inhabitants for to Collect yᵉ
6ᵈ p head of the age of 16 years & upward in all persons named &c

To John Midge &
John Facknall Church
Wardens These

A public order was issued on St Helena concerning money owed to the church and to Edward Coulson.

It stated that two years of head money were due from all inhabitants of the island aged 16 and above. This tax was set at 6d per person. It applied to all individuals, both white and black, male and female, within each household.

It also recorded that six years of salary were owed to Edward Coulson. This amounted to 12s 0d from each household, according to an earlier agreement made by the inhabitants for the regulation of church affairs.

John Midge and John Facknall, acting as churchwardens for the present year, were ordered and authorised to collect these sums. They were to gather 6d per head from every eligible person for the repair of the church. They were also to collect 12s 0d from each master or mistress of a household for payment to Edward Coulson.

A list of all persons liable to pay was attached to assist them in carrying out this duty.

If any person refused to pay, the churchwardens were empowered to seize goods and chattels to the value owed. These goods were to be sold publicly. Any surplus remaining after the debt and reasonable costs were deducted was to be returned to the owner.

They were also authorised to collect an additional payment of 1s 0d from each household that kept slaves. This was to fund the cost of pursuing runaway slaves. The record noted that this related to 19 slaves and that a total sum of £10 0s 0d was to be paid to two appointed persons for that service.

This order was issued under the authority of the Governor and Council on 20 April 1700.

Interpretations

The head tax showed a universal levy across the population. It applied regardless of status, though collected through household heads.

The payment to Edward Coulson showed organised funding of church personnel. Salary was supported by local contribution rather than central payment.

The authority given to churchwardens showed their administrative role. They acted as collectors and enforcers of financial obligations.

The power to seize and sell goods showed formal enforcement mechanisms. Non-payment could lead to loss of property.

The additional levy for households with slaves showed the cost of policing. Owners bore financial responsibility for controlling enslaved people.

The reference to a list showed structured record keeping. Taxation depended on identified individuals.

Speculations

The arrears of two years suggest difficulty in collection. Some inhabitants may have resisted or delayed payment.

The long unpaid salary suggests strain on church finances. Payment to officials may have been irregular.

The need to authorise seizure of goods suggests enforcement challenges. Compliance may not have been voluntary.

The levy for runaway slaves suggests frequent escapes. The island authorities may have faced ongoing difficulty in controlling movement.

75

75

Due to its complexity, this page has not been transcribed in its original form. See the modern interpretation section for a direct transcription of the image to contemporary English.

Mr John Godwin had 1 white and 4 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 5 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 5s 6d.

John Alexander had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Robert Addis had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

John Field had 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

East Puling had 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 3 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 3s 6d.

Thomas Dixon had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Matthew Bower had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Thomas Draper had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

James Maxwell had 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

Richard Wills had 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

Henry Francis had 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

Bartholomew Cawood had 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1700, total £0 1s 0d.

Richard Alexander had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 2s 6d.

Thomas Cattle had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Samuel Carpenter had 1 white and 4 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 4 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1700, total £0 5s 0d.

William Bingham had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

James Gallimore had 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1700, total £0 7s 0d.

John Harman had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Jonathan Hinton had 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1700, total £0 1s 0d.

John Allege had 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

Ones Fergus had 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

Benjamin Leach had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

William Leakes had 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1700, total £0 1s 0d.

Conrad Bryant had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

John Porter had 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1700, total £0 1s 0d.

Simon Whatley had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Thomas Allison’s daughters had 4 whites and 2 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 4 whites and 2 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

Orlando Bagley had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

John Bishop had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 2s 6d.

Edward Bagley had 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Thomas Burnham senior had 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Thomas Burnham junior had 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Evan Perrian had 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

Thomas Box had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Edward Beapre had 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Eleanor Sables had 3 whites and 6 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1699, 3 whites and 6 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1700, total £0 7s 0d.

Ann Bowman had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

George Corne had 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

Grace Aston, John’s daughter, had 5 whites and 4 blacks with £0 4s 6d in 1699, 5 whites and 4 blacks with £0 4s 6d in 1700, total £0 9s 0d.

Mary Cooper, Samuel’s son, had 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

Carried over had 59 whites and 58 blacks with £2 18s 6d in 1699, and 58 whites and 62 blacks with £3 0s 0d in 1700, total £5 18s 6d.

76

76

Due to its complexity, this page has not been transcribed in its original form. See the modern interpretation section for a direct transcription of the image to contemporary English.

Brought over had 59 whites and 58 blacks with a payment of £2 18s 6d in 1699, and 58 whites and 62 blacks with a payment of £3 0s 0d in 1700, total £5 18s 6d.

Edward Crosby had 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

James Leader had 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

John Codlash’s mother had 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 6d in 1700, total £0 4s 6d.

William Coals had 0 whites and 0 blacks with £0 0s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1700, total £0 0s 6d.

Thomas Care had 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

John Suter had 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

John Packwood had 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

Henry Francis had 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 6d.

John Godwin had 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1700, total £0 5s 0d.

Joseph Greentree had 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

James Greentree had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

James Grandy had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Robert Garland had 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

William Hayes’ son and daughter had 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 6d.

George Hawkins, his mother, had 2 whites and 5 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 5 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1700, total £0 7s 0d.

Leonard Short had 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 0 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Richard Harding had 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 1 black with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 3s 0d.

Aaron Abraham’s son had 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 3 whites and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

Madam Johnson’s son had 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

Eliza Finch, her negro woman, and Sam Rose had 3 whites and 5 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1700, total £0 5s 6d.

Mary Leach, widow, had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Elizabeth Young had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

John Saffin, his negro Steph, had 3 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 3 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1700, total £0 5s 0d.

Isaac Morris had 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

William Marsh’s son had 3 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 4 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

John Nichols had 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 2 whites and 2 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

Sarah Meedger, widow, had 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 1 white and 3 blacks with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 3s 6d.

James Roberts, his daughter, had 3 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 3 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

John Nix and James had 3 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 0d in 1699, 3 whites and 4 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1700, total £0 6s 6d.

Thomas Hawkins, his son, had 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 3 whites and 3 blacks with £0 3s 6d in 1700, total £0 6s 0d.

Mary Smith alias Brace had 1 white and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 2s 0d in 1700, total £0 4s 0d.

John Wrangham had 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1699, 2 whites and 3 blacks with £0 2s 6d in 1700, total £0 5s 0d.

Samuel Brown’s daughter had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 2 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1700, total £0 2s 6d.

Mary Lester, widow, had 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1699, 1 white and 1 black with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 0d.

Clothing of orphans had 0 whites and 3 blacks with £0 1s 6d in 1699, 0 whites and 2 blacks with £0 1s 0d in 1700, total £0 2s 6d.

Mary Powlett had 0 whites and 1 black with £0 0s 6d in 1699, 0 whites and 1 black with £0 0s 6d in 1700, total £0 1s 0d.

Mary Greentree had 1 white and 0 blacks with £0 0s 6d in 1699, 0 whites and 0 blacks with £0 0s 0d in 1700, total £0 0s 6d.

The totals were 125 whites and 124 blacks with £6 4s 6d in 1699, and 125 whites and 131 blacks with £6 8s 6d in 1700, making a combined total of £12 13s 0d.

A note stated that Edward Crosby must have two of each family as before, as sexton, and that this allowance was made according to young and grown persons.

77

77

Island Sᵗ Helena

You James Easthope and Jonaᵈ Heigham Soldʳ are
appointed Overseers of yᵉ High wayes for this present yeare 1700
which office you are hereby Required carefully & diligently to Execute
And that you may the better and more Impartially performe yᵉ same
hereunto is a list Annexed of yᵉ Names of yᵉ worke men Inhabitants
Except Such as are in yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs Service and of Negroes and
Blacks that any Person hath Except yᵉ said Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs/

These are therefore in his Majesties Name to will & Require
you James Easthope and Jonaᵈ Heigham To cause all Persons both whites
and Blacks to worke one day and no more In yᵉ ensuing making and
rePoirierg of any Such High wayes as is most needfull and Necessary
to be done, So as all and every yᵉ respective Inhabitants and their Blacks
do worke at yᵉ said High wayes this present yeare one day and no
more as aforesaid.

And if any Person or Persons after due warning shall absent
Themselves, and send not some one in their Stead his or their Negroes or Blacks by yᵉ
dayes and Times by you appointed, Then and there to Informe as aforesaid
Then you are to Site in some other man or men Blacks or English
in yᵉ Labourers roomes to worke one day as aforesaid and that yᵉ sᵈ
Ab[s]entees in force to pay according to yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃs orders which is
for a white man 5ˢ p dayes worke and 12ᵈ for a Black mans dayes worke/

And such person or persons so absenting refusing or not showing
as aforesaid are forthwith to repay you which if they refuse and deny
so to do you are hereby Impowered to take a Distress upon goods of such
such person or persons, and Sue yᵉ same untill Satisfaction out thereof
Defrayinge yᵉ overplush if any to yᵉ owners with your reasonable
and reasonable Charges Deducted/

For all which this shall be your sufficient Warrante Given
under our hands this 20ᵗʰ day of Aprill 1700

To James Easthope &
Jonaᵈ Heigham Survey
These

Margin Notes:
Warrᵗ for Overseers
for the high Ways.

An order was issued on St Helena appointing James Easthope and Jonathan Heigham, both soldiers, as overseers of the highways for the year 1700.

They were required to carry out this office carefully and diligently. A list of all workmen was attached. This list included inhabitants and the slaves owned by each person, except those in the service of the Honourable Company.

They were authorised, in His Majesty’s name, to require all inhabitants, both white and black, to work for one day only during the year on making and rePoirierg the highways. Every household was required to send either themselves or their slaves to complete this single day of labour.

If any person, after due notice, failed to attend or to send a substitute, the overseers were empowered to appoint another worker in their place. The absent person would then be required to pay for the labour. The rate was 5s 0d for a white person’s day’s work and 1s 0d for a black person’s day’s work.

If the person refused to pay, the overseers were authorised to seize goods to cover the amount owed. These goods could be sold, with any surplus returned to the owner after deducting the debt and reasonable costs.

This order was issued under the authority of the Governor and Council on 20 April 1700.

Interpretations

The system imposed compulsory labour for public works. Road maintenance was treated as a shared obligation.

The inclusion of both white inhabitants and enslaved people showed that labour demands were applied across the population, though organised through household heads.

The limitation to one day’s work per year showed an attempt to balance public need with private labour demands.

The use of substitutes allowed flexibility. Households could fulfil obligations through others.

The fixed payment rates showed monetisation of labour. Absence could be converted into a financial penalty.

The power to seize goods showed enforcement authority. Compliance could be compelled through property.

The overseers’ role showed delegated local administration. Responsibility for infrastructure was managed at community level.

Speculations

The requirement for only one day suggests limited labour capacity. The Council may have been cautious about overburdening inhabitants.

The option to pay instead of working suggests that some preferred to avoid manual labour. Wealthier inhabitants may have relied on fines rather than attendance.

The inclusion of enslaved labour suggests reliance on coerced work for public projects. This may have been a key labour source.

The need for enforcement powers suggests resistance or neglect. Some inhabitants may have failed to comply without compulsion.

78

78

A Liste of all Persons both Whites and Blacks That are To worke att the Said
High wayes, one day and no more this Present yeare 1700

Due to its complexity, this page has not been transcribed in its original form. See the modern interpretation section for a direct transcription of the image to contemporary English.

A list was drawn up of all persons, both white and black, who were required to work on the highways. Each person was to give one day of labour only during the year 1700.

Mr Thomas Goodwin, identified as an ensign was entered with a total of 0 whites and 3 blacks.

John Alexander was entered with 0 whites and 3 blacks.
Robert Addis was entered with 0 whites and 3 blacks.
John Heild was entered with 0 whites and 2 blacks.
East Burling was entered with 0 whites and 2 blacks.
Matthew Barrett was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
Thomas Gangson was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
James Randy was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
Samuel Marshall was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
Rynn Wills was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
Henry Collas was entered with 0 whites and 3 blacks.
Richard Alexander was entered with 0 whites and 2 blacks.
Edward Bagley was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
Thomas Ruck was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
John Desfounaine was entered with 0 whites and 3 blacks.
James Whites was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
John Hembrow was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
John Midge was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
[...] Kifham was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
Ores Haroho was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.
[...] Enois was entered with 0 whites and 5 blacks.
Thomas Rimbly was entered with 0 whites and 1 black.

Thomas and his two sons Rance were entered with 3 whites and 2 blacks.
David Bagley was entered with 3 whites and 1 black.
John Askby was entered with 3 whites and 1 black.
Thomas Gunham Junior was entered with 1 white and 0 blacks.
James Keeren was entered with 1 white and 0 blacks.
Thomas Boose and his two [...] were entered with 1 white and 3 blacks.
[...] [...] was entered with 1 white and 0 blacks.
Reano Earle was entered with 0 whites and 4 blacks.
Amy Bowman was entered with 0 whites and 3 blacks.
Mary Bowman was entered with 0 whites and 3 blacks.
George Caine was entered with 1 white and 2 blacks.
Grace Coulson and two sons were entered with 2 whites and 3 blacks.
Margaret Collings and her son Gilbert was entered with 1 white and 3 blacks.
Sarah Coley was entered with 1 white and 0 blacks.
James Draper was entered with 1 white and 2 blacks.
Thomas Earle was entered with 1 white and 1 black.
John Shuler was entered with 1 white and 1 black.
John Jackread was entered with 1 white and 2 blacks.
Henry Francis was entered with 1 white and 2 blacks.
John Goodwin was entered with 1 white and 2 blacks.
John Greentree and his two workers were entered with 2 whites and 1 black.
James Greentree was entered with 1 white and 1 black.

A total was recorded at the foot of the page as 21 whites and 62 blacks.

The account continued with a carried total noted as “brought over 21”.

The next column included no blacks.

Richard Gurling was entered with 1 white.

William Hayes Junior was entered with 1 white.

George Hoskison was entered with 1 white.

Leonard Hunt was entered with 1 white.

Richard Harding was entered with 1 white.

Sutton Jacobs Junior was entered with 1 white.

Madam Johnson was entered with 1 white.

Richard Leach and his son Robert were entered with 1 white.

Mary Lawson, widow, was entered with 0 whites.

Mary Leach, widow, was entered with 0 whites.

Elizabeth Long was entered with 0 whites.

John Luffkin and his son Stephen were entered with 2 whites.

Thomas Lloones and son were entered with 1 white.

William Marsh and two sons were entered with 3 whites.

John Richards was entered with 1 white.

Sarah Bladen was entered with 0 whites.

Annor Philip Jack was entered with 0 whites.

James Rider was entered with 1 white.

John Sick and his son James were entered with 2 whites.

Thomas Francis was entered with 1 white.

Mary Smith was entered with 0 whites.

Sarah Insing was entered with 0 whites.

Samuel Windham and his son Thomas were entered with 2 whites.

Gabriel Fowell was entered with 1 white.

Charles Howard was entered with 1 white.

Gurling Orpland was entered with 0 whites.

Mary Boodle was entered with 0 whites.

A total was then recorded as 44 whites.

The note at the end stated that the list formed a true copy and that it was entered into the yearly account for the year 1699.

Interpretations

The two-column structure recorded whites first and blacks second. Where no figure appeared in the first position, it was read as zero. This showed a fixed administrative method for counting both free settlers and slaves within a single return.

The grouping under Thomas Goodwin as ensign showed that the list followed a military chain of command. An ensign acted as a junior officer responsible for a defined body of people. The return therefore linked population accounting to military organisation and oversight.

Entries that included family members, such as “and his two sons” or “and her son Gilbert”, showed that counting operated at the level of the household. This indicated that labour, provisioning, and responsibility were organised through household heads.

The final total of 21 whites and 62 blacks showed a strong numerical imbalance. This revealed that slave labour formed the larger part of the counted population within this unit, even where many individual entries listed only one or two persons.

79

79

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday yᵉ 29 day of May 1700 Att Fort
James

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governᵒʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Whereas Severall Planters posted on advance
had before us appear to Cry the [...] against Richard Curling, Edᵈ Bagley
James Greenhee and James [...] who were all summoned
to appeare before us this day and being examined could say
nothing themselves wherefore

It is ordered

That Considering our Indulgence att the said Petitioners
former appearing all as single Planters, now being severall times
they be fined but fixed that each do yᵉ of the Rᵗ
Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ.

Rich: Curleing and Wᵐ Beale Two men late belonging unto
the Hampshire ship transported Mʳ Fisher Commander, Reported us their
intirely desiring that wee would acquaint the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ
[...] That they stayed on yᵉ sᵈ Island
In our Governors Company’s Commanders, and not stayed
at the said Commanders, Denyes to have their [...] who [...]
were aboarding yᵉ [...]

Margin Notes:
Richᵈ Curling, Edwᵈ
Bagley, Jas Greenhee
& Edwᵈ [...] each
fined five shill: for
not Appearing at the
post on a double alarm

Richᵈ Curling & Wᵐ
Beale both belonging
to yᵉ ship Hampsh[ire]
desire we would
advise the Compᵃ of their
pay, [...] not the [...],
as they Received before
wages &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 29 May 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Several planters who had been posted in advance appeared before the Council to complain against Richard Curling, Edward Bagley, James Greenhee, and James [...]. These men had been summoned to attend. When examined, they offered no sufficient explanation.

It was ordered that, although indulgence had previously been shown to them as single planters, their repeated failure required punishment. Each of them was fined 5s 0d to the Honourable Company.

Richard Curling and William Beale, who had recently belonged to the ship Hampshire under Captain Fisher, then made a request. They asked that the Governor and Council inform the Honourable Company that they had remained on the island under the Governor’s authority, and not by choice of the ship’s commander. They wished this to be recorded in relation to their pay, as they had previously received wages.

Interpretations

The fines showed enforcement of attendance duties. Failure to respond to alarms or postings was treated as an offence.

The reference to prior indulgence showed escalating discipline. Repeated neglect led to stricter penalties.

The equal fines showed uniform treatment. Each offender was punished at the same rate.

The involvement of planters showed that militia or defence duties extended beyond soldiers. Civil inhabitants were required to serve.

The request by Curling and Beale showed concern over wages. Employment status affected entitlement to pay.

The need to clarify their position showed administrative importance of service records. Pay depended on recognised authority.

Speculations

The repeated offences suggest reluctance to perform duty. Planters may have prioritised their own work over military obligations.

The modest fine suggests punishment was corrective rather than severe. The Council may have aimed to enforce compliance without alienating settlers.

The request about wages suggests uncertainty over employment status. Curling and Beale may have feared loss of income.

The emphasis on acting under the Governor suggests tension between ship authority and island authority. Jurisdiction may have been unclear in such cases.

80

80

Mʳˢ Coulson made Complaint to us That Mʳ John Humphreys
came to her House last night a little before the Tat[t]oo
beat and threatened to break open the Door, and called her whore
Bawd and Bitch,

The said Mʳ Humphreys saith he went to Mʳˢ Coulsons House
Intending To see Mʳ John Davis, who lay there sick, and had
no other occasion, but Denyes that he called yᵉ said Mʳˢ Coulson
those names aforesaid/

Elizabeth Long Saith that on Thursday night Mʳ Humphreys
came to her House at yᵉ Fort, and the Door being Lockt he
up the latch 2 or 3 times, she being ready to go to bed
did not let him in, so he went away, Laughing, he would swear
that he heard the said Mʳ Long say, he was go Severall Times
further saith that the said Humphreys come to her House
againe last night and being a little in Drink, called her Bawd
Bitch Jade and Scurvy Jade in yᵉ hearing of Mʳˢ Coulson, who
Immediately after went away to Mʳˢ Coulsons doore and knocked
at it two or three Times, But the said Mʳˢ Coulson would not
Let him in, whereupon he called her old Betty bitter whore
and Bawd,

Eleanor Beale widᵒ saith that she being at Mʳ Coulsons
House last night, Mʳ Humphreys came to yᵉ Door, who asked
yᵉ said Mʳˢ Coulson to let him in, and she refusing to do it
the said Davis, but she would not admitt him, whereupon the
said Humphreys being in a Passion called yᵉ said Mʳˢ Coulson [...]
whore and huffed, and came three times and knockt at yᵉ
aforeward./

The said Mʳ Humphreys saith he being refused
admittance to see Mʳ Davis, late 2 mate of yᵉ Armenian
Merchant, who is certainly dying man, they thos words and
actions abovesaid, and doth protest to do yᵉ said Mʳˢ Coulson all the
DisKindeness he can, proposing mortall hatred against her

After mature Consideration It is ordered

That the final decision of Mʳˢ Coulsons Complaint be referred
To a Jury att the next quarterly Sessions./

Margin Notes:
Mʳˢ Coulsons Com=
=plaint against Mʳ
John Humphreys

Mʳˢ Coulsons Complaint
referrd to a Jury next
quarter Sessions.

Mrs Coulson made a complaint to the Governor and Council. She said that Mr John Humphreys came to her house the previous night shortly before the tattoo beat. He threatened to break open the door and called her “whore”, “bawd” and “bitch”.

Mr John Humphreys stated that he went to Mrs Coulson’s house intending to see Mr John Davis, who was lying there sick. He said he had no other reason for going. He denied calling Mrs Coulson those names.

Elizabeth Long gave evidence. She said that on Thursday night Mr Humphreys came to her house at the fort. The door was locked. He lifted the latch two or three times. As she was about to go to bed, she did not admit him. He then went away laughing. She said he came again the following night, somewhat drunk, and called her “bawd”, “bitch”, “jade” and “scurvy jade” in the hearing of Mrs Coulson. He then went to Mrs Coulson’s door, knocked several times, and when refused entry called her “old Betty bitter whore” and “bawd”.

Eleanor Beale, widow, gave evidence. She said she was at Mrs Coulson’s house when Mr Humphreys came to the door and asked to be admitted. Mrs Coulson refused. He then became angry, used abusive language, and knocked repeatedly at the door.

Mr Humphreys stated that he had been refused entry to see Mr John Davis, formerly second mate of the ship Armenian Merchant, who was said to be dying. He admitted the words and behaviour described. He declared that he would do Mrs Coulson all the harm he could and expressed lasting hostility towards her.

After consideration, it was ordered that the final decision of Mrs Coulson’s complaint should be referred to a jury at the next quarterly sessions.

Interpretations

The complaint showed disturbance of the peace at night. Entry to a house was controlled and refusal had to be respected.

The repeated use of abusive language showed verbal offences taken seriously. Insults were grounds for formal complaint.

The presence of multiple witnesses strengthened the case. Testimony from different individuals supported the accusation.

Humphreys’s admission removed dispute over facts. His own statement confirmed the behaviour.

The reference to a sick man showed a claimed justification. Access to the house was linked to care of an ill person.

The escalation to threats showed seriousness. Hostility extended beyond words to declared intent.

The referral to a jury showed formal legal process. The Council deferred judgement in more serious disputes.

Speculations

Humphreys’s admission and threat suggest loss of control. Alcohol may have contributed to his behaviour.

The repeated attempts to gain entry suggest urgency or insistence. The illness of Davis may have been genuine but insufficient to justify conduct.

The strong language indicates personal conflict. Relations between Humphreys and Coulson may have been strained beforehand.

The referral to a jury suggests potential for harsher penalty. The Council may have considered the offence too serious for summary judgement.

81

81

Whereas the said Mʳˢ Coulson having severall times made
Complaints against yᵉ said Humphreys, [...] was referred to be decided
by a Jury at an open Court by order of Councill, But the said Mʳˢ Coulson
not performing yᵉ said orders, We are referred to binde her to
prosecute yᵉ said Humphreys in this matter, as followeth./

I Grace Coulson of the said Island widᵒ Doe hereby Engage my
selfe yᵗ unless the forfeiture of an Hundred Pounds Currant money of this
Island To prosecute the aforesaid John Humphreys att the next quarter
Sessions, Witness my hand this 35 day of May 1700

Grace C Coulson
marke

Witnessed by
J: Alexander

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Fryday the 6ᵗʰ
Day of June 1700 Att Fort James/

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governᵒʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governoʳ

Mary the wife of one Bevia, free planter, Informed the
Governour and Councill, That she being last night att Madᵐ Paulls
House, with Mʳˢ Carne and his wife, who haveing some Discourse
about Mʳ Edmond Goodwin her Son, The said Carne said he would
have his yᵉ said Goodwins blood, or he should have his;

Margin Notes:
Mʳˢ Coulsons Obligaᵒⁿ
to prosecute
Mʳ John Humphreys

Mary Bevia Com=
plaint agᵗ Mʳ Carne
for threatning her
son Mʳ Thoˢ Goodwin’s
blood or he should
have his &c.

Grace Coulson, widow, had made several complaints against John Humphreys. The matter had already been ordered to be decided by a jury in open court. As she had not acted on that order, she was required to enter into a formal obligation to proceed.

Grace Coulson therefore bound herself in writing to prosecute John Humphreys at the next quarterly sessions. She agreed that, if she failed to do so, she would forfeit £100 0s 0d in current island money. This obligation was signed by her mark and witnessed by John Alexander on 31 May 1700.

A consultation was then held at Fort James on Friday 6 June 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, and Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor.

Mary, the wife of Bevia, a free planter, made a complaint. She stated that on the previous night she was at the house of Madam Powell with Mrs Carne and her husband. During a discussion about Edmund Goodwin, her son, Mr Carne said that he would have Goodwin’s blood, or Goodwin would have his.

Interpretations

The requirement for a formal bond showed enforcement of legal process. Complainants were obliged to follow through once proceedings began.

The large penalty of £100 0s 0d showed the seriousness of the obligation. Failure to prosecute was treated as a significant breach.

The use of a written undertaking showed formal legal practice. Even a widow acting by mark was bound by recorded agreement.

The complaint against Humphreys had escalated beyond informal handling. Repeated allegations required structured prosecution.

The new complaint showed the importance of threats. Statements implying violence were treated as actionable offences.

The setting of the complaint in a domestic gathering showed that disputes arose in social contexts. Private conversations could lead to public legal action.

Speculations

The need to compel Coulson to prosecute suggests hesitation or reluctance. She may have feared consequences or lacked confidence in the outcome.

The high forfeiture suggests the Council wanted to prevent withdrawal. It may have aimed to avoid wasted proceedings.

The threat reported by Mary Bevia suggests existing tension between Carne and Goodwin. The dispute may have had prior causes.

The framing of the threat as mutual suggests conflict rather than one-sided aggression. Both parties may have been involved in a broader quarrel.

82

82

Upon which the said Carne was Sent for, and Examined about
yᵉ said Information who denyed what the said Mary Bevian hath
declared against him/

The said Mʳ Goodwin who by the mediation of his friends
hath Sett up the wrong the said Mʳ Carne did him about Two
months ago, In drawing his Sword on him, Desired his Evidence
aforesᵈ might be sworne, that he might Enjoy yᵉ Kings Peace,
which was accordingly done,

It is therefore ordered

That the said Mʳ Carne be Committed Immediately Into the
Marshalls Custody, untill Such Time as he gave Sufficient Secu=
=rity To be bound for his good behaviour till the next Genˡ Sessions
that the Case may be Decided by the Jury./

about Two houres after Mʳ Thoˢ Goodwin wrote the following
Letter To the Governour

Worshipᵖˡ Sʳ

Upon Consideration of Mʳ Carnes Business
my desire is that your Worship would be pleased to Remitt his
close Confinement, and Till the next Court, which will much
oblige

Your Humble Servant

Tho: Goodwin

June yᵉ 6ᵗʰ
1700

Margin Notes:
Mʳ Goodwins Eviden
ces Sworne agᵗ Mʳ
Carne.

Mʳ Carne Comitted
into yᵉ Marshall
untill he finde
Security for his good
behaviour.

Mʳ Goodwins Lre
to the Governʳ

Mr Carne was brought before the Governor and Council and examined regarding the complaint. He denied the statements made by Mary Bevia.

Mr Thomas Goodwin, who had previously settled a dispute with Mr Carne about two months earlier, when Carne had drawn his sword on him, requested that his evidence should be formally sworn so that he might be protected under the King’s peace. This was done.

It was ordered that Mr Carne should be committed immediately into the marshal’s custody. He was to remain there until he provided sufficient security to be bound for his good behaviour until the next general sessions, where the matter would be decided by a jury.

About two hours later, Mr Thomas Goodwin wrote to the Governor. In his letter, he asked that Mr Carne’s close confinement should be relaxed until the next court. He stated that such consideration would oblige him.

Interpretations

The denial by Carne showed contested testimony. Accusations required supporting evidence.

The swearing of Goodwin’s evidence showed formal legal procedure. Protection under the King’s peace required recorded statements.

The reference to a previous incident showed a pattern of conflict. Earlier violence was relevant to the present case.

The order for imprisonment showed preventative custody. Detention was used to secure behaviour before trial.

The requirement for security showed conditional release. Good conduct could be guaranteed through recognisance.

The later letter from Goodwin showed intervention by a party involved. Personal influence could affect enforcement.

The request to ease confinement showed flexibility in punishment. Conditions could be moderated before trial.

Speculations

Goodwin’s request to reduce confinement suggests reconciliation or strategic restraint. He may have wished to avoid escalation.

The earlier sword incident suggests ongoing hostility. The present case may have been part of a continuing dispute.

The use of custody before trial suggests concern over immediate violence. Authorities may have feared further confrontation.

The willingness to consider easing confinement suggests balancing discipline with community relations. The Council may have sought to maintain order without provoking resentment.

83

83

Whereas Mʳ Thomas Goodwin haveing desired that Mʳ Carne
Close Confinement might be Remitted It was accordingly granted
but further ordered, That the said Mʳ Carne be not permitted to
weare a Sword Dureing his stay on yᵉ said Island, nor any armes
offensive & Defensive, which order was carried and shewed the sᵈ
Carne, who refused to Comply therewith, Whereupon

It is further ordered

That he the said Carne shall remaine under Confinement
till Security be given, or Else be removed by Law./

The said Mʳ Carne being Confined Close Prisoner this
day In Fort James, his Lady Sent a message two severall
Times after the Tap-too had beaten To acquaint him she
was very ill, Wherefore the said Carne requested the Governor
That he would be pleased To accept of Bayle for his good behaviour
and Personall appearance Tomorrow morning, which was granted
him, and the two Johns for bayle bound as followeth/

We John Facknall and Erasmus [Purling] both of yᵉ said
Island, Do hereby enter into a Recognizance to Stephen Poirier Governour
of yᵉ said Island Payable to yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ
money [...] for yᵉ good behaviour and Personall appearance
of Mʳ George Carne tomorrow morning being yᵉ 7ᵗʰ of this instant
by nine a clock Witness our hands this 6ᵗʰ day of June 1700

J Facknall
Erasmus [Purling]

Witnessed by
J: Alexander

Margin Notes:

Mʳ James Refusall
to comply with the
Councill Orders

Mʳ Carne to Remaine
under Confinemᵗ till
he gives Security

John Facknall and
Erasmus [Purling]
bound for Mʳ Carnes
good behaviour and
personall appearance.

Mr Thomas Goodwin requested that Mr George Carne’s close confinement should be relaxed. This was granted. However, it was also ordered that Mr Carne should not wear a sword while he remained on the island, nor carry any offensive or defensive weapons.

This order was delivered to Mr Carne, but he refused to comply. It was therefore further ordered that he should remain in confinement until he gave security for his good behaviour, or otherwise be dealt with according to law.

Mr Carne was held in close confinement at Fort James that same day. His wife sent two messages after the tattoo had beaten to inform him that she was very ill. Mr Carne then asked the Governor to accept bail for his good behaviour and his personal appearance the following morning. This request was granted.

John Facknall and Erasmus [Purling] entered into a recognisance. They bound themselves to Stephen Poirier, Governor, payable to the Honourable Company, to secure Mr Carne’s good behaviour and his appearance at nine o’clock on 7 June 1700. The recognisance was signed by them and witnessed by John Alexander.

Interpretations

The easing of confinement showed discretionary authority. The Governor could modify conditions in response to requests.

The prohibition on carrying weapons showed preventative control. Disarming reduced the risk of further violence.

Carne’s refusal showed open defiance. Non-compliance led to continued confinement.

The requirement for security showed conditional release. Behaviour could be regulated through recognisance.

The use of sureties transferred responsibility. Facknall and Purling became liable for Carne’s conduct.

The formal recognisance created a binding legal obligation. Written and witnessed agreements carried authority.

The reference to his wife’s illness showed personal factors affecting decisions. Compassion could influence enforcement.

Speculations

Carne’s refusal to give up weapons suggests concern for honour or status. Carrying a sword may have been socially significant.

The later request for bail suggests a shift in approach. Personal circumstances may have encouraged cooperation.

The willingness of others to stand surety suggests Carne retained support. Social ties may have influenced the outcome.

The quick arrangement of bail suggests urgency. The Council may have sought to maintain order while allowing temporary relief.

84

84

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Monday yᵉ
9ᵗʰ day of June 1700 Att Fort James

Presᵗ;
Stepⁿ Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governoʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Whereas after Severall Proceedings made and many
[...] offered by Mʳ Carne who is Surprized for Threatening words
and Oathes appeare by the foregoing acts being absolutely resolved to
go off this Island within three or four months time, as he doth
[...] himselfe to do, And doth give good Security for his
good behaviour Mʳ John Facknall and Samuell Wrangham both
of the said Island free planters become in the sume of one
Hundred Pounds to the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ for him, That during
the Time he the said Carne lives on yᵉ said Island, he shall keepe
the Kings Peace towards every body & chiefly towards Mʳ Thomas
Goodwin, and in Consequence of such faire offers Defires he
may be permitted to weare his sword Considering he is a Gentleman
to weare his sword dureing the time aforesaid So with Submission
the said Mʳ Thomas Goodwin joined yᵉ Councill to it, We doe
Willingly allow him his request for yᵉ Time above mentioned/

This is my request
Witness my hand.

George Carne

Wee John Facknall and Samuell Wrangham both of
the said Island free Planters, Do hereby Enter a Recognizance of
one Hundred pounds Currᵗ money of this Island to yᵉ Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ, For [...]
of the said Island, for yᵉ good behaviour of Mʳ George Carne [...]
not breach of Peace dureing yᵉ space of four months from the
day of yᵉ date hereof Witness our hands this 9ᵗʰ day of June 1700

J Facknall
Samuᵉˡ Wrangham

Witnessed
Mathew Baxett
J: Alexander

Margin Notes:

Mʳ Carne permitted
to weare his Sword
and John Facknall &c
Samuᵉˡ Wrangham become
for his good behaviour.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 9 June 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

After several proceedings and many complaints against Mr George Carne for threatening words and oaths, as recorded in earlier acts, he declared that he intended to leave the island within three or four months. He undertook to do so and offered security for his good behaviour.

John Facknall and Samuel Wrangham, both free planters of the island, entered into a recognisance of £100 0s 0d to the Honourable Company on his behalf. They bound themselves that, while Mr Carne remained on the island, he would keep the King’s peace towards all persons, and especially towards Mr Thomas Goodwin.

On the strength of these assurances, Mr Carne requested permission to wear his sword during his remaining time on the island, stating that he was a gentleman. Mr Thomas Goodwin agreed to this request along with the Council.

It was therefore allowed that Mr Carne might wear his sword for the period stated.

Mr Carne set his hand to this request. A further recognisance was entered by John Facknall and Samuel Wrangham in the sum of £100 0s 0d current island money, binding themselves for Mr Carne’s good behaviour and that he would not break the peace during the four months from 9 June 1700. This was witnessed by Mathew Baxett and John Alexander.

Interpretations

The repeated proceedings showed an established pattern of misconduct. Earlier behaviour influenced present decisions.

The declaration to leave the island showed negotiated resolution. Departure could resolve ongoing conflict.

The recognisance created financial liability. Sureties were responsible for Carne’s conduct.

The specific reference to keeping the King’s peace showed legal framing. Public order was the central concern.

The emphasis on Mr Thomas Goodwin showed a targeted risk. The dispute between them was a key issue.

The permission to wear a sword showed accommodation of status. Social rank affected how rules were applied.

The agreement of Goodwin showed reconciliation or acceptance. The injured party’s consent influenced the outcome.

The written undertakings formalised the arrangement. Signatures and witnesses gave it legal force.

Speculations

Carne’s promise to leave suggests pressure to remove a disruptive individual. Exile may have been preferred to continued conflict.

The insistence on security suggests lack of trust. Authorities required guarantees before granting concessions.

The request to carry a sword suggests concern for honour. Restriction of arms may have been seen as degrading.

Goodwin’s agreement suggests a desire to end the dispute. He may have preferred settlement over further escalation.

The involvement of respected planters as sureties suggests community mediation. Social networks helped enforce order.

85

85

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues=
day the 10ᵗʰ day of June 1700 Att Fort James

Presᵗ;
Stepⁿ Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Mʳ George Carne Presented his Petition Setting forth that he
haveing his Sister Mʳˢ Margaret Bright lying dead Desired that her
Two Children might be taken from Francis Crooke her Hus=
=band and father in Law To the said Children, he being neither
their Executor or administrator, and to have Letters of Administration
Granted him upon yᵉ said Childrens Estate, as being by his wife
the next apparent heir thereto./

But after Severall Debates his request being
not Granted, Desired in his mother in Law Madᵐ Beales
behalfe, that she might have yᵉ Care and Tuition of the
said Two Children, But she being Continually Sick, We think
that the said Madᵐ Beale is not Capable of Looking after
them, Upon which answer The said Carne further Desired
that he might have yᵉ said Two Children himselfe, But
he and his family being resolved To go off very Suddenly
We therefore think fitt not To Trust the said Two Children
with yᵉ said Mʳ Carne.

Wherefore upon those Considerations

It is ordered

That Wee the Governoʳ & Councill Take into our hands
The care of yᵉ said Two Children and their Estate, for yᵉ present
until an Inventory be Taken thereof, and the sᵈ Estate made
Clear And also that yᵉ said Children be put to Henry Francis
untill further agreement be made with him for their mainta=
=nance

Margin Notes:

Geo: Carnes petition
for haveing his sister
in Laws Children
in his Custody &c.

The abovesaid Child=
=ren be put under
Francis Care &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 10 June 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Mr George Carne presented a petition. He stated that his sister, Mrs Margaret Bright, had died. He asked that her two children should be taken from Francis Crooke, their father and his brother in law. He argued that Crooke was neither executor nor administrator of the estate. He requested that letters of administration over the children’s estate should be granted to him, as his wife was the next apparent heir.

After several debates, this request was refused. Mr Carne then asked, on behalf of his mother in law, Madam Beale, that she might have the care and custody of the two children. As she was continually ill, the Council judged that she was not capable of caring for them.

Mr Carne then requested that he himself should take the children. As he and his family intended to leave the island very soon, the Council considered it unsafe to entrust the children to him.

It was therefore ordered that the Governor and Council should take the children and their estate into their own hands for the present. An inventory of the estate was to be made and the estate clarified. The children were to be placed with Henry Francis until a further agreement was made for their maintenance.

Interpretations

The dispute showed concern over guardianship. Control of children was linked to control of their estate.

The refusal of Crooke’s position as automatic guardian showed limits of paternal authority. Legal status depended on formal appointment.

The request for letters of administration showed formal estate process. Authority over property required official grant.

The rejection of Carne’s claim showed concern over stability. Imminent departure made him unsuitable.

The rejection of Madam Beale showed assessment of capacity. Illness could disqualify a guardian.

The decision to take custody showed state intervention. The Council acted as temporary guardian.

The requirement for an inventory showed administrative control. Estates had to be accounted for before transfer.

The placement with Henry Francis showed delegated care. Daily responsibility could be assigned while legal control remained with the Council.

Speculations

Carne’s request suggests interest in controlling the estate. Guardianship may have carried financial advantage.

The refusal of multiple candidates suggests lack of trust. The Council may have doubted their suitability.

The decision to retain control suggests caution. Authorities may have wanted to prevent misuse of the estate.

The temporary placement suggests urgency. Immediate care was needed while longer arrangements were considered.

86

86

Wherefore It is ordered by the
Consent of the said Mʳ Carne

That the said Gabriel Powell Take into his Posses=
=sion all the said Childrens Personall Estate, and Pay them [...]
in Cattle, and to make good yᵉ said Inventory, that is yᵉ
Two thirds thereof, which the said Powell Consented to, and
accordingly hath performed./

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Fryday
The 13ᵗʰ day of June 1700 Att Fort James

Stepⁿ Poirier Governᵒʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy [...]
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Eleanor Leach widᵒ brought this day her decᵈ
Husband Richᵈ Leache his last Will & Testament, To be
examined and proved, which was accordingly done by the oathes of
William Marsh, Samᵉˡ Maxwell and John Bagley who made
oath that yᵉ said Will now produced by yᵉ said Eleanor Leach
was her Deceᵈ Husbands last Will and Testament.

It is ordered

That The said Richᵈ Leaches Last Will & Testamᵗ be receᵈ
and approved off and a Coppy Given thereof when desired.

Margin Notes:

Gabriell Powell to
take into his Possession
all the Personall Est=
=ate of the aforesaid
Children &c.

Richᵈ Leaches Last
Will & Testament
Recᵈ & approved of.

By agreement with Mr George Carne, it was ordered that Gabriel Powell should take possession of all the personal estate belonging to the two children. He was to pay them in cattle and to make good the inventory, amounting to two thirds of the estate. Gabriel Powell agreed to this and carried it out.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Friday 13 June 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Eleanor Leach, widow, produced the last will and testament of her deceased husband, Richard Leach, for examination and proof. William Marsh, Samuel Maxwell and John Bagley gave sworn evidence that the will presented was indeed Richard Leach’s final will.

It was ordered that Richard Leach’s will should be received and approved. A copy was to be provided when requested.

Interpretations

The transfer of the children’s estate showed negotiated settlement. Carne’s consent resolved earlier dispute.

The requirement to make good two thirds of the inventory showed partial entitlement. The estate was divided according to agreed shares.

Payment in cattle showed the form of wealth. Livestock functioned as a standard means of settlement.

The formal proof of the will showed legal procedure. Multiple witnesses were required to confirm validity.

The acceptance of the will showed administrative authority. The Council validated inheritance arrangements.

The provision of copies showed record keeping. Documents were preserved and made accessible when needed.

Speculations

The agreement with Powell suggests compromise. Carne may have accepted reduced control over the estate.

The use of cattle suggests limited cash circulation. Assets were probably managed in kind rather than money.

The prompt proving of the will suggests urgency. The widow may have needed legal authority to manage the estate.

87

87

According To our Result In the foregoing Consultation concern=
=ing Jonathan Beales Children, Henry Francis was Sent for
To whome was proposed To have yᵉ said Children who was un=
=willing To have the Care and Tuition of them, the next orphan
being Called Powell the said Childrens father in Law, offered
To finde them Coaths yᵉ said Time, Therefore

It is ordered

That the said Henry Francis have yᵉ Tuition of yᵉ said Two
Children and To find them Victualls only, and Learne them
the Lords prayer and also To Teach them To Speak English which
he is To have Nine pounds, and yᵉ Labour of three Blacks
wenches yᵉ time aforesᵈ./

Margin Notes:

Francis to
have the tuition
of Jonathan Beals
Childⁿ for as: Recited
to have Nine pound
& the Labour of a
Black Wench &c.

Following the decision in the previous consultation concerning the children of Jonathan Beale, Henry Francis was called before the Governor and Council. He was asked to take responsibility for the children. He was unwilling to accept their care and upbringing.

The next relation, Gabriel Powell, who was the children’s father in law, was then called. He offered to provide clothing for them during that time.

It was therefore ordered that Henry Francis should take charge of the two children. He was required to provide them with food only, to teach them the Lord’s Prayer, and to teach them to speak English.

For this, he was to receive £9 0s 0d, together with the labour of three black female slaves for the same period.

Interpretations

The initial refusal by Francis showed reluctance to assume responsibility. Guardianship could be burdensome.

The involvement of Powell showed shared responsibility. Different individuals contributed to the children’s care.

The division of duties showed structured arrangements. Francis provided food and instruction, while Powell supplied clothing.

The requirement to teach the Lord’s Prayer showed religious instruction. Moral education was expected.

The requirement to teach English showed cultural control. Language was part of social integration.

The payment and labour allowance showed compensation. Care of orphans was supported by material reward.

The inclusion of slave labour showed dependence on enslaved workers. Their labour underpinned domestic and caregiving tasks.

Speculations

Francis’s reluctance suggests the cost of care was significant. The Council may have needed to compel or incentivise him.

The structured duties suggest concern for upbringing. Authorities aimed to shape behaviour and identity.

The allocation of enslaved labour suggests that caregiving required additional support. It also reflects reliance on forced labour in daily life.

The arrangement suggests temporary guardianship. Longer-term plans for the children may still have been under consideration.

88

88

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Court of Justice
Held on Monday the 5ᵗʰ day of July 1700
Att the Sessions House near Fort James/

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governoʳ
Capᵗ Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign &c.

Just as the Court was going to be opened according to the
accustomed Manner, Grace Coulson and Mʳ John Humphreys
come and acquainted the Court they were agreed, Therefore

It was ordered

That the Said Humphreys do not presume to give the said
Grace Coulson any more such Scurrilous and ill Language for
the future, Neither To go into her House, unless it be about
Some Lawfull Occasion, and to pay Court Charges according
To their Agreement./

Haveing no other Causes depending the Court was adjourned
till the first monday in octoᵇʳ Ensuing. Adijourned/

Margin Notes:

Grace Coulson and
Mʳ John Humphrys
Busines made up &c.
& yᵉ said Humphrys
Not to go into her house
Except it be upon
Some Lawfull Occasion.

A court of justice was held near Fort James on Monday 5 July 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Captain Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

As the court was about to open in the usual manner, Grace Coulson and Mr John Humphreys appeared and informed the court that they had reached an agreement.

It was ordered that Mr Humphreys should not use any further abusive or offensive language towards Grace Coulson. He was also forbidden to enter her house unless for a lawful reason. Court charges were to be paid according to their agreement.

As there were no other cases, the court was adjourned until the first Monday in October 1700.

Interpretations

The agreement showed private settlement within a formal court setting. Disputes could be resolved without full trial.

The restriction on language showed control of behaviour. Verbal abuse was treated as a punishable offence.

The prohibition on entering the house showed protection of domestic space. Access was regulated by law.

The requirement of a lawful occasion showed conditional permission. Entry was not completely forbidden but strictly limited.

The payment of court charges showed financial consequence. Even settled cases incurred costs.

The adjournment showed routine scheduling of justice. Courts met periodically rather than continuously.

Speculations

The settlement suggests both parties preferred resolution over trial. This may have avoided further escalation.

The specific restriction on entering the house suggests prior disturbance. The order aimed to prevent repetition.

The absence of further cases suggests limited litigation at that session. The court may have been convened primarily for this dispute.

89

89

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday
The 15ᵗʰ day of July 1700 Att Fort James

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Deputy Governoʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Whereas on Tuesday last being the 8ᵗʰ of this Instant
John Ma[...] a Church warden for this present yeare acquainted the
Governʳ That Mary Cleaver a black free woman formerly
was Declared yᵉ sᵈ Barbars Child she had committed yᵉ offence
which Complainᵗ Considering yᵉ sᵈ Mary Cleaver is poore
and not in a Condition to come downe to the fort as yet/

It is ordered

That the Church wardens of this present yeare make
Presentation of the said Mary Cleaver at the next Quarter
Sessions, that she may receive Punishmᵗ according to the
merits of her offence./

Gabriel Powell Preferred us his Petition declareing
that he might be discharged from the House which
was formerly John Beales House in the Country belonging to his
now deed wife, and that the said house might be delivered up to his
men to see that the said House is left in as good condition
now as it was when he had it first in his Possession. That
hereafter the heirs Thereunto might have no Just Claime for
any Damages, which was accordingly done.

and

Margin Notes:

Mary Cleaver a Black
free woman to be
Presented for a Bastard Child.

yᵉ Church Wardens
to Present the aforsᵈ
Mary Cleaver at
Next Genˡ Sessions.

Gabriel Powell
desired that he may
be discharged of yᵉ House
belonging to Jonathan
Beals Deceasᵈ.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 15 July 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

On Tuesday 8 July 1700, John Ma[...], churchwarden for that year, informed the Governor that Mary Cleaver, a free black woman, had been declared to have borne a bastard child and had committed an offence. As she was poor and not yet able to come down to the fort, immediate action was not taken.

It was ordered that the churchwardens for that year should present Mary Cleaver at the next quarter sessions so that she might receive punishment according to the nature of her offence.

Gabriel Powell then submitted a petition. He asked to be discharged from responsibility for a house in the country that had formerly belonged to John Beale and was connected to his now deceased wife. He requested that the house should be formally handed back, so that it could be confirmed to be in as good condition as when he first took possession. This was done so that the heirs could not later claim damages.

His request was granted.

Interpretations

The case of Mary Cleaver showed moral regulation. Bearing a child outside marriage was treated as an offence.

The involvement of churchwardens showed ecclesiastical oversight. Religious officers enforced moral discipline.

The delay due to poverty showed practical limits. Physical inability could postpone proceedings.

The order to present her at sessions showed formal procedure. Punishment required court hearing.

The petition by Powell showed concern over liability. Occupiers could be held responsible for property condition.

The formal return of the house showed legal protection. Condition at handover was recorded to prevent future claims.

The reference to heirs showed inheritance rights. Property disputes extended beyond immediate possession.

Speculations

The postponement suggests leniency influenced by circumstance. Poverty may have softened immediate enforcement.

The requirement to present her later suggests punishment was still expected. Moral offences were unlikely to be ignored.

Powell’s request suggests anticipation of dispute. He may have feared claims from heirs after his wife’s death.

The careful recording of condition suggests frequent disagreements over property. Formal discharge reduced risk of litigation.

90

90

And whereas being ordered on yᵉ Consultation held
the 13ᵗʰ day of June last past may appeare To take the personall
Estate of Jonathan Beales Two Children into his Possession
and to make payment thereof as before Defired that the said
Estate might be Sold That thereby he might know how much
to put into the said Estate Which is Rated accordingly to his
request as followeth./

The Estate of Jonaᵗʰ Beale Decᵈ

The Estate of Jonaᵗʰ Beale Decᵈ

To Severall persons as appears }
By Inventory } 46–2–9½
To mony due to mores } 35–12–5
Orphants }

83–15–2½
58–14–3½

Cleer Estate
133–9–4

Portᵗ Edᵈ:

By Inventory
amounts £ } 100–10–8
more pdᵈ by } 3–12–0
Severall psons } 29–6–8

Totall 133–9–4

It is ordered

That the said Gabriel Powell, put into the said Two Childrens
Estate the Sume of thirty four pounds Nine Shillings & six pence
in Cattle, and Two thirds of yᵉ aforesaid Estate, The other Third
being to himself being the deed wifes Thirds./

And also

That the said Gabriel Powell be Discharged of and from the
Care and Tuition of yᵉ aforesaid Orphans according to his request.

Whereas a small baile of goods was sent out of England by Johanna
Seeling alias Cheny to her Two brothers and Two Sisters on
this Island, which was divided in four parts according to her Directions
and Three parts thereof delivered to Three of them, and the other part
was delivered to one Thomas Mannycar for Care of Ann Squire orphan
that belongs to a boy that lives with her, and to pay him in
Cattle amounting to £3 7s 0d, which would be more advantage
to him then those goods, which she accordingly hath done.

Margin Notes:

Gabʳˡ Powell to make
payment in Cattle of
John Beales Childⁿ
Personall Estate.

Gabʳˡ Powell Discharged
of yᵉ aforesaid Charge.

Following the order made at the consultation of 13 June 1700, Gabriel Powell had taken possession of the personal estate of Jonathan Beale’s two children. He requested that the estate should be sold so that its value could be determined and he could know what sum he was required to contribute. This was agreed.

The estate of Jonathan Beale, deceased, was accounted as follows. The inventory amounted to £46 2s 9½d. Money due to the orphans amounted to £35 12s 5d. The total came to £83 15s 2½d. A further sum of £58 14s 3½d was added, making a clear estate of £133 9s 4d.

On the other side, the inventory amounted to £100 10s 8d, with £3 12s 0d paid by several persons, and £29 6s 8d from other sources, making a total of £133 9s 4d.

It was ordered that Gabriel Powell should put into the children’s estate the sum of £34 9s 6d in cattle, representing two thirds of the estate. The remaining one third was retained by him as his deceased wife’s share.

It was also ordered that Gabriel Powell should be discharged from the care and guardianship of the two children, according to his request.

A small bale of goods had been sent from England by Johanna Seeling, also known as Cheny, to her two brothers and two sisters on the island. The goods were divided into four parts according to her instructions. Three parts were delivered to three of them. The remaining part was given to Thomas Mannycar to hold for Ann Squire, an orphan connected to a boy living with her. Instead of receiving the goods, he was to be paid in cattle to the value of £3 7s 0d, which was judged more beneficial. This was carried out.

Interpretations

The sale of the estate showed valuation practice. Property was converted into a clear monetary value for settlement.

The division into thirds showed inheritance structure. A surviving spouse’s share was formally recognised.

Payment in cattle showed the standard medium of exchange. Livestock functioned as practical currency.

The balancing of accounts showed administrative precision. Debts and assets were carefully reconciled.

The discharge of Powell showed completion of responsibility. Guardianship ended once financial obligations were settled.

The division of goods sent from England showed adherence to instructions. External property was distributed according to the sender’s will.

The substitution of cattle for goods showed pragmatic adjustment. Value could be transferred in a more useful form.

Speculations

Powell’s request to value the estate suggests concern for fairness. He may have sought to avoid dispute over amounts owed.

The retention of one third suggests protection of marital rights. His claim rested on his deceased wife’s entitlement.

The use of cattle instead of goods suggests local priorities. Practical resources may have been more valuable than imported items.

The handling of the bale suggests organised distribution networks. Even small consignments were formally managed.

91

91

Island Sᵗ Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues=
=day The 30ᵗʰ day of July 1700 Att Fort James/

Presᵗ
Stepⁿ Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Governoʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Whereas a Bill was set up on the publique
place To give Notice To any Persons or Person That wee the Goverʳ
and Councill did Intend To lett out To hire, One House standing in
Fort James Vally, half a House, The Quantity of Thirty
acres of Land Lately belonging To John Beals wife deceᵈ
and accordingly Severall Persons appeared amongst whome Mʳ
George Carne appeared and bid Three pound p annum for yᵉ House
standing att the Fort and no person bidding more.

It was ordered

That the said Mʳ Carne have the said House att yᵉ rate aforesᵈ
adjoyning his Cattle

And we being willing That Madᵐ Denny might have the
first Refusall of yᵉ Said 30 acres of Land, belonging yᵉ said
Jonaᵗʰ Beales Children, desired Mʳ Carne To go and aske her whether
She would have the said Land, who went and brought answer she
would not meddle wᵗʰ it, Therefore

John Johnson Soldʳ bid Twenty shillᵍ p annum for said Land
besides To pay the Rᵗ Honoᵇˡᵉ Compᵃ their Revenue, and no person
offering more

It is ordered

That the sᵈ Johnson have the sᵈ aforesaid Land at yᵉ rate aforesᵈ and
also the House keeping it in repaire one yeare./

Margin Notes:

Mʳ Carne to have
Beales Fort
House at three
pounds p annum
belonging to
Jonathan Beals
wife deceasᵈ

Jonaᵗʰ Beale will
[... ] made with neither
House nor Land &c.

Jon Johnson Soldʳ to
have yᵉ Land & half yᵉ
House for Twenty shillᵍ
P annum he paying yᵉ
Rents in Repaire for
one year.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 30 July 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

A public notice had been posted announcing that the Governor and Council intended to lease out a house in Fort James Valley, half a house, and thirty acres of land that had formerly belonged to the wife of Jonathan Beale, deceased. Several persons attended.

Mr George Carne offered £3 0s 0d per year for the house at the fort. No higher offer was made. It was therefore ordered that he should have the house at that rent, adjoining his cattle.

The Council wished that Madam Denny should have the first refusal of the thirty acres of land belonging to Jonathan Beale’s children. Mr Carne was sent to ask her. He returned with her answer that she would not take the land.

John Johnson, a soldier, then offered 20s 0d per year for the land, in addition to paying the Honourable Company’s revenue. No higher offer was made.

It was ordered that John Johnson should have the land at that rent. He was also to have the house, on condition that he kept it in repair for one year.

Interpretations

The public notice showed open leasing practice. Property was offered through public announcement.

The bidding process showed competitive allocation. The highest offer secured the lease.

The rent set for the house showed fixed annual payment. Property generated regular income.

The offer of first refusal showed preference. Certain individuals could be given priority before open allocation.

The requirement to pay Company revenue showed layered obligations. Rent was separate from official dues.

The condition to maintain the house showed tenant responsibility. Upkeep was part of the lease terms.

The allocation to a soldier showed distribution beyond planters. Company servants could also hold land.

Speculations

The lack of higher bids suggests limited demand. The property may not have been highly valued.

The offer to Madam Denny suggests prior claim or status. She may have had some connection to the estate.

Carne’s acquisition of the house suggests expansion of his holdings. He may have sought to strengthen his position before leaving.

The low rent for the land suggests modest productivity. The value may have depended on labour or improvement.

92

92

Also

That John Bagley and John Greentree Carpenters be
appointed and sworne to value The said House att Fort James
and the House in the Country and to give an accᵗ thereof
unto us in writing as soone as Conveniently they could/

Whereas Eleanor Sterling orphan found a parcel of Gold
to the vallue of Ten pounds sixteen shillings, which is in
the Custody of Richᵈ Gurling with The Love,

It is ordered

That the said Richard Gurling be summoned to appeare
before us this day fortnight To deliver us the said gold for
the use of the orphan./

Robert Horne Junʳ and Thomas Erie Free
Planters came to Governoʳ and Councill The Last will and
Testament of William late said deceasᵈ In order
[...] which was accordingly done by
the oaths of The [...] Henry
[...] and Thomas [...] Who made oath
that [...] good and that they knew of no other
will of him Either in word or writing./

It is ordered

That the said Will now produced be received and approved
of and a Coppy Given thereof when demanded./

Jonathan Dufton Soldʳ desired that he might prove
the last Verbal will and Testament of his decᵈ uncle
Andrew Philips late Gunner, which was allowed him
and ordered to call his Evidences;

Margin Notes:

John Bagley and Jnᵒ
Greentree Carpenʳˢ
to vallue yᵉ House at
Fort James and the
Country & to give an
Accᵗ thereof as soon as
they can.

Richᵈ Gurling to ap=
=pear this day fortnight
and deliver up yᵉ Gold yᵗ
belongs to Redman
Sterling Orphan.

Robᵗ Horne Junʳ &
Tho: Erie
Will & Testamᵗ
recᵈ & approved of.

Jonathan Dufton desires
that he may prove his
Uncles Andrew Philips
Verball Will.

It was further ordered that John Bagley and John Greentree, carpenters, should be appointed and sworn to value the house at Fort James and the house in the country. They were to provide a written account of their valuation as soon as possible.

Eleanor Sterling, an orphan, had found a quantity of gold valued at £10 16s 0d. This gold was in the custody of Richard Curling. It was ordered that Richard Curling should be summoned to appear before the Governor and Council in fourteen days to deliver the gold for the use of the orphan.

Robert Horne Junior and Thomas Erie, free planters, then brought forward the last will and testament of William [...], deceased, for proof. This was examined and proved by the sworn evidence of witnesses, who stated that the will produced was his final will and that they knew of no other made by him, either spoken or written.

It was ordered that this will should be received and approved. A copy was to be provided when requested.

Jonathan Dufton, a soldier, then requested permission to prove the last verbal will of his deceased uncle, Andrew Phillips, formerly gunner. This was allowed, and he was ordered to call his witnesses.

Interpretations

The appointment of carpenters showed use of skilled labour in valuation. Property assessment required practical expertise.

The sworn valuation showed formal procedure. Written accounts were required for record and accountability.

The recovery of gold showed protection of orphan property. Assets belonging to minors were safeguarded.

The summoning of Curling showed enforcement authority. Custodians could be compelled to account for property.

The proving of wills showed standard legal practice. Witness testimony confirmed validity.

The acceptance of a verbal will showed flexibility. Spoken declarations could be recognised if properly supported.

The provision of copies showed administrative record keeping. Documents were preserved and made accessible.

Speculations

The need to value the houses suggests preparation for further leasing or dispute. Accurate valuation may have been necessary for revenue or settlement.

The gold found by the orphan suggests accidental discovery. Its custody by another person may have raised concern over control.

The summons suggests possible delay or reluctance in returning the gold. The Council may have acted to secure it.

The acceptance of a verbal will suggests urgency or absence of written record. The deceased may not have left a formal document.

93

93

Samuel Haselbury being sworne Saith that on Sᵗ
Helens day last, he and William French went into Gunner
Philips’ roome, who having some Discourse with the said
Philips asked him who he Designed to give his Estate To The said
Gunnʳ Philips answered To Jonathan, when Jonathan or your man
said the said Haselbury, The said Gunnʳ Philips replyed To
Jonathan Dufton my Couzen./

Sarah the wife of George Drought sworne Saith that
She and Betty Lansdowne went into Gunner Philips his roome
and being talking with him She asked him what he did Intend
to do with what he had, why said he I have given all my Estate
To betty then Betty Lansdowne replyed you mean Jonathan for
yes yes said he whereupon this deponent said I hear Ste[...]
Children, whose mother the said Philips was married To Intend=
=ed to come in for a share of your Estate, Therefore you had best
make a Will, No, no, said he I have given all my Estate To Jonaᵗʰ
already, and thinks he meant Jonathan Dufton, his Cousen./

Elizabeth Lansdowne Saith the same./

John Alexander deposeth that about one yeare ago he
made a deed of Gift by the said Philips his request for one
acre of Land and he gave To Mary Porter Dancing her naturall
life, when heard the said Philips say that he would or had
Given Jonathan Dufton all his Rights on yᵉ said Island being
his nearest Kinsman he had in yᵉ world that he knew of./

It is ordered

That the said Gunner Philips Verball Will be approved
and That the said Jonathan Dufton take into his possession
the said Philips his uncles Estate,

The said Jonathan Dufton Humbly desired further That
he might prove he is yᵉ son of Ann Dufton and also that she
was the sister of yᵉ said Andrew Philips, and likewise to his
sister Elizabeth Brunnock./

Margin Notes:

Gunnʳ Philips Verball
Will approved of &
Jonathan Dufton to take
his Uncle Philips Estᵗ
into his possession

Jonathan Dufton proves
that he is son of Ann
Dufton sister of yᵉ
said Philips.

Samuel Haselbury was sworn. He said that on St Helena Day he and William French went into the room of Gunner Andrew Phillips. During conversation, Haselbury asked him who he intended to leave his estate to. Phillips replied that he intended it for Jonathan. When asked which Jonathan, Phillips said Jonathan Dufton, his cousin.

Sarah, the wife of George Drought, was sworn. She said that she and Elizabeth Lansdowne went into Phillips’s room and spoke with him. She asked what he intended to do with his property. He first said he had given all his estate to “Betty”. Elizabeth Lansdowne corrected him, asking if he meant Jonathan. Phillips confirmed this and said he had already given all his estate to Jonathan. Sarah added that she warned him that children of a former marriage might claim a share, and advised him to make a written will. He refused and repeated that he had already given everything to Jonathan Dufton, whom she understood to be his cousin.

Elizabeth Lansdowne confirmed the same account.

John Alexander stated that about a year earlier he had written a deed of gift at Phillips’s request for one acre of land to be given to Mary Porter during her lifetime. He also heard Phillips say that he had given all his rights on the island to Jonathan Dufton, as he was the nearest relation he knew.

It was ordered that Andrew Phillips’s verbal will should be approved. Jonathan Dufton was to take possession of his uncle’s estate.

Jonathan Dufton then requested permission to prove that he was the son of Ann Dufton, and that she was the sister of Andrew Phillips, and also related to his sister Elizabeth Brunnock.

Interpretations

The consistent testimony of multiple witnesses supported the validity of the verbal will. Agreement between accounts strengthened its acceptance.

The identification of Jonathan Dufton showed clarity of intent. The testator named a specific individual.

The earlier deed of gift showed prior estate planning. Phillips had already begun to dispose of his property.

The reference to kinship showed importance of family ties. Inheritance followed recognised relations.

The approval of a verbal will showed legal flexibility. Spoken declarations were accepted when well attested.

The transfer of possession showed immediate execution. Estate control passed without delay.

The requirement to prove kinship showed need for legal confirmation. Relationship determined entitlement.

Speculations

Phillips’s refusal to make a written will suggests urgency or incapacity. He may not have been able to formalise it.

The confusion over the name “Betty” suggests declining health or memory. Witnesses clarified his meaning.

The warning about other potential heirs suggests risk of dispute. Others may have had competing claims.

The need for Dufton to prove kinship suggests anticipated challenge. Establishing lineage would secure his right to the estate.

94

94

Priscilla Grandy deposed upon oath, That She was the
said Jonathan Duftons mothers midwife, and god mother to
him and knowes him to be the true Son of Ann Dufton
his mother.

William Dufton Sworne Saith that his Son
Jonathan was borne of the body of his deced wife, whose
maiden name was Ann [...] before he was married to her/

Edward Crosbery sworne Saith that he knows
Elizabeth Brunnock, yᵉ said Ann Duftons Couzen To be
Gunner Philips own Sister, having lived wᵗʰ her Severall
years in England,

The said Jonaᵗʰ Dufton produced Severall Letters
which the said Elizᵃ Brunnock had sent here To his uncle
Philips by wᶜʰ it plainly appears that she was yᵉ said Andʳ
Philips owne Sister/

Whereas a warrant was delivered unto John Bagley
and John Greentree Carpenters, To view and appraise the Houses
belonging unto Jonaᵗʰ Beales orphans, late in yᵉ possession of
Gabrˡ Powells which Said Persons delivered under their hands
what the said Houses were worth as followeth./

Worshipˢ Sʳ

According To a Warrant under yoʳ worships hand that
wee viewed and apprised the Two Houses formerly belonging to
Jonaᵗʰ Beale Deceᵈ, in these particulars as hereafter Specifyed

The House in yᵉ Country wᵗʰ }
The orphans part at . . . 35” 10” 0
Madᵐ Beales part at . . . 36” 00” 0 who hath yᵉ said House
for her present Life

The House at yᵉ Fort wᵗʰ [...] at }
valued at 13” 10” 0
32” 00” 0

And we do Esteem madᵐ Beales part
To be less worth by 40 Then yᵉ orphans
part, & wants To yᵉ vallue rePoirierg wᶜʰ should be done yearly
or Else yᵉ part belonging to madᵐ Beale will Diminish
the orphans part. Witness our hands this 13ᵗʰ day of Augᵗ 1700

John Bagley
John Greentree Carpʳˢ

Margin Notes:

John Bagley and John
Greentree Carpʳˢ Report
for appraising the
two houses formerly
belonging to Jonathan
Beale deceasᵈ.

Priscilla Grandy gave sworn evidence. She stated that she had acted as midwife to Ann Dufton and was also godmother to Jonathan Dufton. She confirmed that he was the true son of Ann Dufton.

William Dufton gave sworn evidence. He stated that Jonathan was his son, born of his late wife Ann Dufton, whose maiden name he gave before their marriage.

Edward Crosbery gave sworn evidence. He stated that he knew Elizabeth Brunnock, who was related to Ann Dufton, and confirmed that she was the sister of Andrew Phillips, having lived with her for several years in England.

Jonathan Dufton produced several letters sent by Elizabeth Brunnock to his uncle Andrew Phillips. These letters clearly showed that she was Phillips’s sister.

Following this, a warrant that had been issued to John Bagley and John Greentree, carpenters, to inspect and value the houses belonging to Jonathan Beale’s orphans was carried out. These houses had previously been in the possession of Gabriel Powell. Bagley and Greentree submitted their written valuation.

They reported that the country house was valued as follows. The orphans’ share was valued at £35 10s 0d. Madam Beale’s share was valued at £36 0s 0d, which she held for her lifetime.

The house at the fort, together with its appurtenances, was valued at £13 10s 0d, bringing the total valuation to £32 0s 0d.

They also stated that Madam Beale’s portion was of lesser value than the orphans’ share by £40 0s 0d due to the need for repairs. They warned that unless regular repairs were made, her part would deteriorate and reduce the value of the orphans’ portion.

This valuation was signed by John Bagley and John Greentree on 13 August 1700.

Interpretations

The sworn testimony established Jonathan Dufton’s lineage. Kinship was confirmed through multiple witnesses and documentary evidence.

The use of letters showed written proof of family relations. Correspondence could support legal claims.

The valuation by carpenters showed reliance on practical expertise. Skilled tradesmen assessed property value.

The division of shares showed structured ownership. Life interest and orphan shares were distinguished.

The identification of repair needs showed concern for asset preservation. Property condition affected value.

The warning about deterioration showed forward planning. Maintenance was necessary to protect inheritance.

The written report showed formal procedure. Valuations were recorded and signed for accountability.

Speculations

The detailed proof of kinship suggests anticipation of dispute. Dufton’s claim may have been contested.

The reliance on letters suggests limited formal records. Personal documents filled evidentiary gaps.

The emphasis on repairs suggests neglect. The property may have already been deteriorating.

The distinction between life interest and orphan share suggests potential conflict. Maintenance obligations could affect inheritance outcomes.

95

95

Richᵈ Gurling brought and Delivered To yᵉ Governoʳ
and Councill one 21 ps of gold that came from Sterling Orphan
which gold we designed to buy her a slave but wᶜʰ as soon as
Conveniently we can to raise her a stock/

Island Sᵗ Helena.

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday The 27ᵗʰ Day of Augᵗ 1700 Att
Fort James.

Stepⁿ Poirier Governoʳ
Thomas Bright Depᵗy Govʳ
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Eleanor Leach Widow hath brought and Delivered
the Inventory of her deced husbands Estate, and John Askins
and James Wrangham were the two persons appointed to
appraise the said Estate who were on oath That yᵉ said Inventory
was True according to yᵉ best of their knowledge,

It is ordered

That the said Inventory be recᵈ and approved of, and a Coppy
thereof Delivered when Demanded./

Margin Notes:

Richᵈ Leacher
Inventory of her
Estate recᵈ and
approved of.

Richard Curling brought and delivered to the Governor and Council 21 pieces of gold that belonged to the Sterling orphan. It was intended that this gold should be used to purchase a slave for her, or otherwise, as soon as possible, to establish a stock for her support.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 27 August 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Eleanor Leach, widow, presented the inventory of her deceased husband’s estate. John Askins and James Wrangham, who had been appointed to value the estate, confirmed on oath that the inventory was accurate to the best of their knowledge.

It was ordered that the inventory should be received and approved. A copy was to be provided when requested.

Interpretations

The delivery of the gold showed enforcement of custody. Property belonging to an orphan was secured by authority.

The intention to buy a slave or establish stock showed investment practice. Assets were used to generate future support.

The involvement of the Council showed oversight of orphan property. Authorities managed resources for dependants.

The sworn appraisal of the estate showed formal procedure. Accuracy was confirmed by appointed valuers.

The acceptance of the inventory showed administrative control. Estates required official validation.

The provision of copies showed record keeping. Documentation was preserved and accessible.

Speculations

The plan to invest the gold suggests long term planning. The Council may have aimed to provide sustainable income.

The option between buying a slave or creating stock suggests flexibility. Different forms of investment were considered.

The careful handling of the inventory suggests potential disputes. Formal approval reduced later challenges.

The reliance on sworn valuers suggests concern for accuracy. Estate values may have been contested or sensitive.

96

96

At the Go[ver]no[r]
and Councill An Advertisement

Whereas according To the R[ight] Hono[urab]le
o[r]ders brought us [...] by the Armenian merchant
John Cocksedge Commander We were ready To Put them
in Execution concerning the Distillation of Arrack from Potatoes
when most Part of the Inhabitants of Said Island that had
Potatoes Planted and still, Came To us and represented to
Us that they could not yet make any Profit of the Priveledge
before Granted them, haveing been hitherto Hinderd by rise
the Crop which was in Ground when Said Ship arrived by
reason of the Perpetual shewing of Blossoms since, Whereupon
being willing To Satisfie them in Enjoying the Said Priveledge
and benefit, But to prevent any farther request from them
We have proposed To them To give them a Bondy to shift till next
new years day Ensuing on the same account formerly so that
whoe should come and subscribe within a months time That
after the said new years day, They renounce and Ingages themselves
for ever not To Distill any more, on the Penalty of Ten pound
Sterling To the R[ight] Hono[urab]le Comp[an]y according To their present agreement
And as for those persons that doth not Subscribe as afores[ai]d shall pay
from this time forward according to the Said R[ight] Hono[urab]le Comp[an]y
orders [...] 2[...] hundred for y[e] Comp[an]ys wood, and 4[...] Gallon for all
Arrack or Single Stilled Liquor.

And to prevent any fraud by the said Distillers
hereafter We have appointed Tho[mas] Booker to oversee them, and
To give us an acco[un]t of the true quantity of Arrack they Distill
that they may pay accordingly. As aforesaid

Hereunder are a list of those Distillers that Subscribed viz

Dated att Fort James this 27 day of Aug[us]t : 1700
Signed p[er] order of Govern[or] & Councill p me

Jo: Alexander

Henry Coles
William Marsh
James Rider
John Nickells
James Da[...]enier
Grace Coulson
Sarah Redwood
James Warren
mary Rosgrave
Thomas Silles

Margin Notes:
Island St. Helena

Advertisement
of Distelling of
Arrack from Potatoes

An advertisement was issued by the Governor and Council at Fort James on 27 August 1700.

Orders had been received from the Honourable Company, brought by the ship Armenian Merchant under Captain John Cocksedge, to enforce regulations concerning the distillation of arrack from potatoes. The Governor and Council were ready to put these orders into effect.

However, most of the inhabitants who had planted potatoes and operated stills came forward and explained that they had not yet been able to make any profit from the privilege previously granted to them. They stated that their crops had been hindered by continual flowering and had not produced as expected since the arrival of the ship.

The Governor and Council agreed to allow them to continue for a limited time. They offered that any person who subscribed within one month could continue distilling until the next New Year’s Day. In return, each subscriber had to bind themselves not to distil any more after that date. Anyone breaking this agreement would forfeit £10 0s 0d sterling to the Honourable Company.

Those who did not subscribe were required to pay from that time according to the Company’s orders. This included charges for the Company’s wood and duties on all arrack or single distilled liquor produced.

To prevent fraud, Thomas Booker was appointed to supervise the distillers and report the true quantity of arrack produced so that proper payment could be enforced.

The following persons subscribed to the agreement: Henry Coles, William Marsh, James Rider, John Nickells, James [...], Grace Coulson, Sarah Redwood, James Warren, Mary Rosgrave, and Thomas Silles. The notice was issued by order of the Governor and Council and signed by John Alexander.

Interpretations

The advertisement showed implementation of Company policy. Local authorities enforced metropolitan directives.

The complaint by inhabitants showed economic difficulty. Agricultural conditions affected production and profit.

The temporary extension showed administrative flexibility. Regulations could be adjusted to local circumstances.

The bond requirement showed contractual control. Future behaviour was secured through financial penalty.

The distinction between subscribers and non subscribers showed differential treatment. Compliance brought temporary advantage.

The imposition of duties showed revenue extraction. The Company controlled both production and taxation.

The appointment of a supervisor showed monitoring. Output was measured to prevent evasion.

The public list of subscribers showed transparency. Participation was formally recorded.

Speculations

The failure of the potato crop suggests environmental instability. This may have affected wider food and economic conditions.

The willingness to allow continued distillation suggests its importance. Arrack production may have been a key income source.

The penalty of £10 0s 0d suggests serious enforcement. The Company aimed to ensure eventual compliance.

The need for supervision suggests prior evasion. Distillers may have underreported production before.

97

97

Island St Helena,

Att a Consultation held
on Tuesday the 10: day of Sep: 1700 Att Fort
James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Govern[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

The John Baxter stole who lives at Lemon Valley Fort, made
Complaint against viz James Greentree Edward Bagley Richard
Gueling, Gabriel Perrie Stephen Child, and Hattor Sterling
That on the 16 Day of August Last past the said Persons aforesaid
coming by Lemon Valley Fort, stole from thence Several
Bunches of Plantons the Persons were all Summoned down
this day to answer y[e] said Complaint and also Sam[uel] Warrington
and Stephen Francis and John Goodwin, were Summoned to
Evidence against y[e] said Persons.

Hattor Sterling being Examined Saith that he acknowledges
he Eat One Bunch of Plantons.

James Greentree Saith he never Cutt downe any Plantons.

Edward Bagley Saith he was not at Lemon valley on the
day aforesaid. which he Can prove./

Richard Gueling Saith that when he was at Lemon valley
on y[e] 16 aforesaid he Cutt one Bunch of Plantons and gave it them
w[i]th y[e] rest of the party po[rt]ed there,/

Elizabeth Poole Saith that she heard James Greentree’s
Black Tell her master’s Black That his master, Edward Bagley,
and Stephen Child Cutt Each of them Two Bunches of Plantons
and brought them up from Lemon Valley besides one Bunch more
they Ra[u] there./

Which persons being called denied w[ha]t the said Eliz: Poole
hath said.

Margin Notes:
John Baxter Stole.
Information ag[ains]t
Severall Persons
for Stealing of
Plantons from Le-
mon Valley Fort.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 10 September 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

John Baxter, a soldier living at Lemon Valley Fort, made a complaint against James Greentree, Edward Bagley, Richard Curling, Gabriel Perry, Stephen Child, and Hattor Sterling. He alleged that on 16 August they had passed by Lemon Valley Fort and stolen several bunches of plantains.

All the accused were summoned to answer the complaint. Samuel Warrington, Stephen Francis, and John Goodwin were also summoned as witnesses.

Hattor Sterling admitted that he had eaten one bunch of plantains.

James Greentree denied cutting any plantains.

Edward Bagley stated that he had not been at Lemon Valley on the day in question and said he could prove this.

Richard Curling admitted that he had cut one bunch of plantains and shared it with the rest of the party present.

Elizabeth Poole gave evidence that she had heard James Greentree’s slave tell her master’s slave that his master, Edward Bagley, and Stephen Child had each cut two bunches of plantains and brought them away from Lemon Valley, along with another bunch.

Those accused were called again and denied the statement given by Elizabeth Poole.

Interpretations

The complaint showed protection of Company property. Produce at forts was treated as controlled resources.

The summoning of multiple accused showed collective responsibility. Groups could be charged together.

The mixed admissions and denials showed contested evidence. Some individuals confessed while others resisted.

The use of slave testimony showed indirect evidence channels. Information circulated through enslaved people.

The reliance on hearsay weakened the case. Statements passed between slaves were less direct.

The formal examination showed structured procedure. Each person was questioned individually.

Speculations

The small scale theft suggests everyday appropriation. Food resources may have been taken casually.

The partial admissions suggest expectation of leniency. Minor theft may not have been severely punished.

The denial by several accused suggests fear of collective penalty. Responsibility may have been disputed within the group.

The reliance on reported speech suggests limited direct witnesses. The incident may not have been clearly observed.

98

98

Sam[ue]l Wra[n]gham Saith that he being going a fishing
by Lemon Valley w[i]th Severall other persons Saw Hattor Sterling
Cutt but one Bunch of Plantons, and knowes of no more./

John Garlick Sold[ie]r who lives at Lemon Valley w[i]th the s[ai]d
Baxter Deposeth that Gabriel Porrie as he came by Lemon
Valley House with those persons afores[ai]d threw a stone at him as
he was Standing in y[e] Door, which had like to have hit him in
the face, and doth believe that some of y[e] said Persons Cutt some
Bunches of Plantons y[e] same time./

Henry Francis deposeth that he Saw the Said Gabriel
Porrie take up a Stone, but Cant Tell whether he threw it or no,

The said Wragham Saith y[e] same

Upon y[e] whole Business
It is ordered

That James Greentree Edward Bagley Rich[ard] Gueling
and Stephen Child, be acquited of and from the said Baxters
Complaint haveing not Sufficient Evidence against them. and
That Gabriel Porrie be discharged with only a Severe Repre[hen]sion
and admonished for y[e] future Acts that Hattor Sterling Upon
his free Confession discharged likewise./

John

George Hutchison made Complaint that Thomas
Sey[e]s stood indebted to him The Sume of Thirty Seven
shillings, which he denies, and refuses to pay him Therefore
The Said Hutchison desired that the s[ai]d Person
wife might be cited she haveing recei[ved] part of y[e] goods that
her Husband stands Indebted to him for, who being Called
acknowledged the Said Debt./

Margin Notes:
all y[e] Persons that
were accused for
stealing of plantons
are dismissed there
being no Proofe ag[ains]t
them as

Them: Dixon ordered
to pay Geo: Hutchison
Thirty Seaven Shillings
[...] he stood Indebted
to him

Samuel Wrangham gave evidence. He said that while going fishing near Lemon Valley with several others, he saw Hattor Sterling cut only one bunch of plantains and knew of no more.

John Garlick, a soldier living at Lemon Valley with John Baxter, stated that Gabriel Perry, as he passed the house with the others, threw a stone at him while he stood in the doorway, and it nearly struck his face. He also believed that some of the group had cut bunches of plantains at that time.

Henry Francis stated that he saw Gabriel Perry pick up a stone but could not say whether he threw it. Samuel Wrangham confirmed the same point.

After considering the whole matter, it was ordered that James Greentree, Edward Bagley, Richard Curling, and Stephen Child should be acquitted of John Baxter’s complaint, as there was not sufficient evidence against them. Gabriel Perry was discharged but received a severe reprimand and was warned against such behaviour in future. Hattor Sterling, having freely confessed, was also discharged.

George Hutchison then made a complaint that Thomas Seyes owed him £1 17s 0d, which Seyes denied and refused to pay. Hutchison requested that Seyes’s wife be summoned, as she had received part of the goods for which the debt was claimed. When she was called, she acknowledged the debt.

Interpretations

The acquittal showed reliance on sufficient proof. Without clear evidence, charges were dismissed.

The reprimand showed graded punishment. Lesser misconduct could be corrected without formal penalty.

The acceptance of confession showed mitigation. Admission could lead to leniency.

The stone throwing incident showed disorderly conduct. Even minor violence was noted and addressed.

The involvement of a wife in a debt case showed household liability. Goods received created responsibility.

The acknowledgement of debt by the wife showed practical resolution. Testimony could override denial.

The use of witness statements showed formal procedure. Multiple accounts were considered before judgment.

Speculations

The lack of strong evidence suggests limited enforcement capacity. Theft of produce may have been hard to prove.

The light outcome suggests the offence was considered minor. Food theft may not have been heavily punished.

The reprimand of Perry suggests concern over disorder more than theft. Violence may have been viewed more seriously.

The summoning of the wife suggests expectation of honesty within households. She may have been more willing to admit the debt than her husband.

99

99

Therefore It is ordered
That the said Dixon doe pay unto James Haskison y[e] said Sume
of Thirty Seaven Shillings in store cred[itt] which y[e] s[ai]d Haskison
accepted of:/

Theo: Bright
Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday
The 17: day of October, 1700 Att Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas after the decease of Katharine Freisdale
We bought of her Executors her Twenty Acres of Land &a House
and have since Exchanged Ten acres adjoyning To the R[igh]t Hono[urab]le
Comp[an]ys Pasture, with Phillip Goffey her Son, and heir ex[e]c[uto]r George
Goodwin her Husband which Exchange being made w[i]th them
Goodwin hath bin to send as To Exchange with y[e] Comp[an]ys for
some of his Land which lay betwixt the said Freisdales Land
and Bottoms, That we might have a straight Line from the
Said Freisdales Land To Bottoms frome marke, and that we
might draw another straight line from the said Bottoms Just
Corner along the Ridge which goes To Lemon Valley head

Margin Notes:
Exchange of Land
of Philip Jeffrey and
M[r] Tho: Goodwin for
some of y[e] Comp[an]ys Land

It was ordered that Thomas Dixon should pay James Hutchison the sum of £1 17s 0d in store credit, which Hutchison accepted.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 17 October 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

After the death of Katharine Freisdale, the Governor and Council had purchased from her executors twenty acres of land and a house. They had since exchanged ten acres adjoining the Honourable Company’s pasture with Philip Goffey, her son, and George Goodwin, her husband and executor.

Following this exchange, Goodwin proposed a further exchange with the Company. His land lay between the Freisdale land and Bottoms. The intention was to create a straight boundary line from the Freisdale land to Bottoms, and then another straight line from the corner of Bottoms along the ridge leading to the head of Lemon Valley.

Interpretations

The payment in store credit showed non-cash settlement. Goods or account credit were used in place of money.

The acceptance of this payment showed practical flexibility. Credit within the Company system functioned as currency.

The purchase of land from executors showed formal transfer after death. Estates could be absorbed into Company control.

The exchange of land showed boundary management. Land was rearranged for convenience and efficiency.

The effort to create straight boundary lines showed administrative planning. Clear borders reduced disputes and simplified control.

The involvement of heirs and executors showed legal procedure. Consent was required for transfers.

Speculations

The use of store credit suggests limited cash circulation. The Company economy may have depended heavily on internal accounting.

The desire for straight boundaries suggests previous irregular divisions. Earlier allocations may have been uneven or impractical.

The Company’s acquisition and exchange of land suggests consolidation. It may have aimed to strengthen control over key areas.

The cooperation of heirs suggests negotiated settlement. They may have benefited from improved land arrangements or compensation.

100

100

nigh the House formerly Thomas Allsons, and now in y[e]
Possession of the Said Comp[an]y And consequently To bring the s[ai]d
Comp[an]ys Pasture To a very perfect & usefull Square on that Side
We have also agreed with Rich[ard] Harding for his Twenty
Acres of Land in this manner vizt Ten Acres To be Exchanged
with John Greentree for Ten Acres of y[e] said Comp[an]ys waste Land
Lying in Powles Valley, and for y[e] other Ten Acres which the
Said Harding shall have Two Acres out of the Ten which
Lyes beyond y[e] road on y[e] maine Ridge towards Sandy bay
neare the gate which is now standing upon y[e] said Ridge
belonging To the said Comp[an]ys Pasture & Ten Acres of Land
which Sandy bay now in y[e] Possession of James Rider
in case he was willing To part with y[e] same for y[e] same
to y[e] said Harding, Whereupon the said Rider was Called
and askt y[e] question, who said he was very willing to do it.
Insomuch

It is ordered

That in this respect The said Ten Acres of Land
Occupied by the said Rider shall be the said Hardings owne for
and his heires for Ever In favour of this Exchange To go
and dispose of y[e] same at his will and pleasure, and also to have
the Labour of a Blackman Two months To help Inclose Part
of the said Land in Consideration that the Said Hardings Land
is partly Inclosed already./

Wee have Likewise agreed with John Coles for his Ten
Acres of Land in this manner vizt To give him In Exchange
Fifteen Acres of the Said Comp[an]ys waste Land for his, which he
hath Pitched upon with Two acres neare The Twenty Acres
belonging formerly to Peter Williams lying in Sandy-bay and
the other is Eight acres the said Peter Williams House
also in Sandy-bay by the Consent of his Executors, and likewise
of y[e] Chaplains which gave more Interest to it, And as Concerning the said Hardings House
Provision that is now planted in the Said Land That they
have Eighteen months Time from the date hereof to
Digg out y[e] said Provision./

Margin Notes:
Rich[ard] Harding
Exchanges Land
with the Hon[ourab]le Comp[an]y

John Coles Exchanged
Land with the Hon[ourab]le
Comp[an]y

The proposed boundary was to run near the house formerly belonging to Thomas Allson, now in the possession of the Honourable Company. The intention was to form a straight line so that the Company’s pasture might be shaped into a more regular and useful square on that side.

An agreement was then made with Richard Harding concerning his twenty acres of land. Ten acres were to be exchanged with John Greentree for ten acres of the Company’s waste land in Powles Valley. For the remaining ten acres, Harding was to receive two acres from the Company’s pasture on the main ridge towards Sandy Bay, near the gate, together with ten acres in Sandy Bay then occupied by James Rider, provided Rider agreed.

James Rider was called and stated that he was willing to part with the land.

It was therefore ordered that the ten acres occupied by Rider should become the property of Richard Harding and his heirs for ever. Harding was given full right to dispose of the land as he wished. He was also to receive the labour of one slave for two months to help enclose part of the land, in consideration that his original land had already been partly enclosed.

A further agreement was made with John Coles for his ten acres of land. In exchange, he was to receive fifteen acres of the Company’s waste land. He chose two acres near the twenty acres formerly belonging to Peter Williams in Sandy Bay, and a further eight acres near Williams’s house, also in Sandy Bay. This arrangement was made with the consent of Williams’s executors and with approval from the chaplain, which strengthened the claim.

It was also agreed that, for the house and provisions already planted on Harding’s former land, the occupants should have eighteen months from the date of the agreement to dig up and remove their crops.

Interpretations

The land exchanges showed active management of territory. The Company reorganised land to improve layout and control.

The aim of creating straight boundaries showed administrative efficiency. Regular shapes reduced disputes and simplified oversight.

The involvement of multiple parties showed negotiated settlement. Exchanges required consent from occupiers, heirs, and officials.

The granting of land “for ever” showed secure tenure. Some holdings were converted into permanent private property.

The provision of slave labour showed compensation in labour. Work resources formed part of land agreements.

The allocation of waste land showed expansion. Unused land was redistributed to facilitate exchange.

The requirement to remove crops within a fixed time showed protection of existing investment. Occupiers were allowed to recover value before transfer.

The involvement of the chaplain showed institutional oversight. Land transactions could involve multiple authorities.

Speculations

The effort to regularise the pasture suggests prior inefficiency. Irregular boundaries may have caused conflict or limited use.

The generous exchange to Coles suggests negotiation advantage. He may have held strategically important land.

The inclusion of labour suggests labour scarcity. Assistance may have been necessary to make new land usable.

The eighteen-month period suggests established cultivation. Crops already in the ground may have required time to mature before removal.

101

101

It is Likewise ordered accordeingly

That this Present Consultation be Entred in y[e]
Grand Councill Book, That all Persons Concerned in it
may have a Coppy thereof when desired to keep by them
as a Title To their respective Concerns aforesaid./

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Thursday the 19: day of October 1700 Att
Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Govern[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas on Tuesday last in y[e] Evening, Robort
Braine & Mary Bag & all being Drunk Addi[s] Guinne[...] Edward Brayne Joe Planter and Mary the
wife of Orlando Bagley Jun[ior] now absent from y[e] said Island
were all three found Drunk together, which y[e] Govern[or] being
made acquainted with, sent for them in y[e] Fort, who was
Imprisoned till this day, and then Examined, but said say
nothing in Excusing themselves, wherefore.

Margin Notes:
Robort Ockel[e]s, Edw:
Braine & Mary Bag
& all being Drunk
together Each of them
fined Five Shillings.

It was ordered that this consultation should be entered in the Grand Council Book. All persons concerned were to be allowed a copy when requested, to serve as legal title to their respective interests.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday 19 October 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

On the Tuesday evening before, Robert Braine, Edward Braine, Joseph [...], and Mary, the wife of Orlando Bagley Junior, were found drunk together. The Governor was informed and ordered them to be brought to the fort, where they were imprisoned until this day.

They were examined but offered no explanation or defence for their behaviour.

Interpretations

The entry in the Grand Council Book showed formal record keeping. Written records served as legal proof of ownership.

The provision of copies showed recognition of individual rights. Parties required documentation to assert claims.

The imprisonment for drunkenness showed enforcement of discipline. Public disorder was punished.

The examination of offenders showed procedure. Even minor offences were formally addressed.

The absence of defence showed limited contest. Offenders may have accepted the charge or lacked grounds to deny it.

Speculations

The need to record land agreements suggests potential disputes. Written title reduced later conflict.

The punishment for drunkenness suggests concern for order. Disorderly conduct may have been common.

The lack of defence suggests clear evidence. The offence may have been witnessed directly.

The group nature of the offence suggests social drinking. Such gatherings may have been frequent but only sometimes punished.

102

102

It is ordered.

That the said Addis Brayne, and Mary Bagley be
fined five Shillings Each for being drunk, And that the
said Mary Bagley be severely Admonished to behave her
selfe more modestly for y[e] future, not To Committ any Unseemly
Action, And for keeping ill order in her House To forfeit her
Licence and forbidden To Entertaine Matthew Frese Sold[ie]r who
hath bin y[e] chiefe cause of makeing any Difference or discontent
amongst her Children upon Paine of fine or Punishment./

The Said Matthew Frese being drunk and quarreling in
the valley on the said day w[ha]t was fetched downe in the fort James
by Corp[ora]ll of y[e] guard who refused To come, and broke y[e] Corp[ora]ll
Sword, whereupon

It was ordered

That the said Frese be Imprisoned and Ride the wooden
Horse at the Discretion of the Guard, and To Pay the Corp[ora]ll for
his Sword that was broken./

James Greentree made Complaint That the Said
Matthew Frese stood indebted To him The Sume of Twenty
Shillings, and Two dutch shirts, which he denyes To pay him
Telling him from time to time w[i]thout any manner of
Payment,

The Said Frese being asked why he did not satisfy
the Said Greentree, Said he acknowledged y[e] debt and would
make payment soone as possible he could, but being of a
Long Standing

It was therefore ordered

That y[e] Said Frese pay y[e] s[ai]d Greentree his demands afores[ai]d
within three weeks time, or To furnish a peck of Brandy for him
if he desire it within five weeks after y[e] date hereof which y[e]
said Frese Promised to do./

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Matth: Frese being
Drunke & Breaking
the Corp[ora]lls Sword to Ride
y[e] Wooden Horse and
Pay y[e] Corp[ora]ll for his
Sword

Matth: Frese denys
Paying James Green-
tree w[ha]t he Stands
Indebted him

The said Frese to pay
y[e] s[ai]d Greentree in
3 Weeks Time or to
Furnish a Cask of
Brandy in 5 Weeks

It was ordered that Addis Braine, Edward Braine, and Mary Bagley should each pay a fine of 5s 0d for being drunk. Mary Bagley was also severely warned to behave more modestly in future and not to commit any improper conduct. For keeping disorder in her house, she was threatened with loss of her licence and was forbidden to entertain Matthew Freese, a soldier, who had been a principal cause of disputes among her children. Any breach would result in further punishment.

Matthew Freese had been drunk and quarrelling in the valley on the same day. When the corporal of the guard attempted to bring him to Fort James, he refused to comply and broke the corporal’s sword.

It was ordered that Matthew Freese should be imprisoned and made to ride the wooden horse at the discretion of the guard. He was also required to pay compensation for the broken sword.

James Greentree then complained that Matthew Freese owed him £1 0s 0d and two Dutch shirts, which Freese had repeatedly refused to pay.

When questioned, Freese admitted the debt and said he would pay as soon as he was able, though it had been outstanding for a long time.

It was therefore ordered that Freese should pay Greentree within three weeks. If he failed to do so, he was to supply him with a peck of brandy within five weeks from the date of the order. Freese agreed to these terms.

Interpretations

The fines for drunkenness showed routine enforcement of discipline. Public intoxication was regulated.

The warning to Mary Bagley showed concern with moral conduct. Women’s behaviour and household order were monitored.

The threat to revoke her licence showed control over domestic and commercial activity. Permission to host or trade could be withdrawn.

The prohibition against entertaining Freese showed targeted regulation. Individuals seen as disruptive could be restricted.

The punishment of riding the wooden horse showed corporal discipline. Military-style penalties were applied to disorderly soldiers.

The requirement to pay for the broken sword showed restitution. Damage to authority property had to be compensated.

The settlement of debt showed practical enforcement. Payment could be made in goods as well as money.

The acceptance of delayed payment showed flexibility. Economic realities were taken into account.

Speculations

The focus on Mary Bagley’s household suggests it was a known site of disorder. Authorities may have been responding to repeated complaints.

Freese’s repeated misconduct suggests habitual behaviour. His actions may have strained military discipline.

The option to pay in brandy suggests scarcity of cash. Goods may have circulated more readily than money.

The relatively light financial penalties suggest minor offences. The main concern may have been maintaining order rather than severe punishment.

103

103

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held
on Tuesday the 24: day of October 1700 Att
Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas William Marsh free Planter
made Complaint That he had suffered great Losses by haveing
daily some goates stolen and killed out of his flock and being
on Tuesday hunting for hoggs found a place where some Goats had
bin killed, and as he was going home went To Sutton Isaacks house
where he saw a goate Skin black one that he lost And the next day
haveing the said Isaacks Black wench To worke Examined her what
goates the master had killed lately, who Mistrusting he knew something
of a goate That William Hayes Black had stolen and given him, where she
Presently after home which the said Marsh perceiving sent for
his neighbours Edward Brayne and went to Search y[e] Isaacks
House, haveing shew[en] from y[e] Governor before To Search any House
they had Suspicion of and as they were Searching found severall
Quarters of goats, which y[e] said Isaacks said he knew nothing of.
Wherefore the Said Marsh desired To have y[e] Evidences hereafter
mentioned Called and Examined./

Dorothy the wife of William Hayes Saith that that day as
the Said Marsh and Brayne Searched the said Isaacks house her
Children was at Schoole there, who told her when they Came home
they heard young Sutton Isaacks say father father there is Mr Marsh
and Mr Brayne a Coming downe the hill, what shall wee do with
the Goate that is in the powdering Tub, his father answered make
haste and throw it under the Bed./

Margin Notes:
W[illia]m Marsh Infor-
mation of looseing
Severall Goates out
of his Flock and ha-
ving a Warrant to Search
found Severall
quarters of Goates
in Sutton Isaack house
The Decission of
this matter referred
to the Jury

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 24 October 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

William Marsh, a free planter, complained that he had suffered repeated losses from goats being stolen and killed from his flock. While out hunting hogs on Tuesday, he found a place where goats had recently been killed. On his way home, he went to the house of Sutton Isaack and saw the skin of a black goat which he recognised as one he had lost.

The following day, while Isaack’s slave woman was working for him, Marsh questioned her about goats recently killed by her master. She appeared uneasy and seemed to suspect that he knew something about a goat that had been stolen by William Hayes’s slave and given to Isaack. Observing this, Marsh sent for his neighbour Edward Braine and obtained prior permission from the Governor to search Isaack’s house.

During the search, they found several quarters of goat meat. Isaack claimed he knew nothing about them.

Marsh then requested that witnesses be called and examined.

Dorothy, the wife of William Hayes, gave evidence. She stated that on the day of the search, her children had been at school at Isaack’s house. When they returned home, they reported that they had heard Sutton Isaack Junior say to his father, “Mr Marsh and Mr Braine are coming down the hill. What shall we do with the goat in the salting tub?” His father replied that they should quickly throw it under the bed.

Interpretations

The complaint showed protection of livestock as property. Animals were a key economic resource.

The prior warrant to search showed legal procedure. House searches required authority.

The discovery of butchered meat showed physical evidence. Carcasses were used to support suspicion.

The reliance on slave testimony showed indirect information channels. Enslaved people were central to knowledge of events.

The use of children’s statements showed broad evidentiary practice. Informal testimony could be admitted.

The denial by Isaack showed contested claims. Accused individuals could reject evidence despite discovery.

The involvement of neighbours showed communal enforcement. Individuals assisted each other in investigation.

Speculations

The repeated theft suggests ongoing local conflict. Livestock may have been a frequent target.

The concealment of meat suggests awareness of wrongdoing. Efforts were made to hide evidence.

The reliance on children’s reports suggests lack of direct witnesses. Events may have occurred privately.

The formal escalation to witnesses suggests seriousness. Marsh may have sought stronger proof to secure conviction.

104

104

Moll a black wench of Sutton Isaacks being Examined
Saith That as she was Grinding the night before Marsh and
Brayne Searcht her masters house William Hayes Black named
Merry man, Came to her and told her that as he was going
to pound y[e] Goates their dogg killed one of Mr Marshes goates
that he was afraid To Carry it home for his master would
beat him To See how it lay on y[e] Side of the Hill above Lemon
Brayes, and bid her fetch it at night when twas dark, and to
boyle some y[e] same night, and the next come and Eat some w[i]th
her, and to call y[e] selfe. Who did as he bid her, which was part
of that goate y[e] Said Marsh and Brayne found under her
masters Bed./

Merryman being Examined Saith, that as he went To pound
his masters and Mr Marshes goates, and as he was going w[i]th him
after y[e] said goates, and killed one which he gave to Mr Isaacks
Moll afores[ai]d./

William Hayes Jun[ior] Saith That the night after
the goate was found at y[e] afores[ai]d Sutton Isaacks House, his
wife told him Brother Marshes House where was his father
Sutton Isaack and his wife, and after he had bin there a little
while, he heard Edward y[e] s[ai]d Marshes son say that his
father & Mr Isaack had agreed aboute y[e] goate, and the s[ai]d
Isaack was To give his father five or six pound, and further-
more heard y[e] said Isaack forwarne his father not To let
his Black come in Company any more w[i]th his black
wench for it had cost him six pound already./

Simon Whally Saith that Will[iam] Hayes Jun[ior]
told him that Will[iam] Marsh and Sutton Isaack had agreed upon
the business aboute y[e] goate, and was To give y[e] Said Marsh
Six pound and Two goates

Dorothy the Said Hayes wife Saith she heard Either
her Husband or son William Say that y[e] Said Isaack had agreed
with Marsh, and was To give him six pound./

Moll, a slave belonging to Sutton Isaack, was examined. She said that on the night before Marsh and Braine searched the house, she was grinding when a slave named Merryman, belonging to William Hayes, came to her. He told her that while driving goats, their dog had killed one of William Marsh’s goats. He said he was afraid to take it home because his master would beat him. He showed her where the goat lay on the hillside above Lemon Valley and told her to fetch it at night when it was dark. He told her to boil some of it that night and that he would return the next day to eat with her. She did as he said. The meat found under Isaack’s bed by Marsh and Braine was part of that goat.

Merryman was examined. He said that while driving his master’s goats together with Marsh’s goats, a dog killed one. He then gave the goat to Moll, Isaack’s slave.

William Hayes Junior stated that on the night after the goat was found at Isaack’s house, his wife told him to go to Marsh’s house, where his father Sutton Isaack and Isaack’s wife were present. After he had been there a short time, he heard Edward, Marsh’s son, say that Marsh and Isaack had reached an agreement about the goat. Isaack was to pay Marsh £5 0s 0d or £6 0s 0d. He also heard Isaack warn his father not to let his slave associate with Isaack’s slave woman again, as it had already cost him £6 0s 0d.

Simon Whalley stated that William Hayes Junior told him that Marsh and Isaack had settled the matter, and that Isaack was to pay Marsh £6 0s 0d and two goats.

Dorothy, the wife of William Hayes, stated that she heard either her husband or her son say that Isaack had agreed with Marsh and was to pay him £6 0s 0d.

Interpretations

The testimony identified the immediate cause of the loss. The goat was killed by a dog, not initially stolen.

The subsequent handling of the carcass showed unlawful appropriation. The animal was taken and used without the owner’s consent.

The involvement of slaves showed their central role in events. They carried out actions and provided key evidence.

The consistency between Moll and Merryman strengthened the account. Their statements aligned on the main facts.

The reported agreement showed informal settlement. Disputes could be resolved privately through compensation.

The variation in the amount suggests uncertainty. Exact terms of the agreement were not formally fixed.

The warning about slave interaction showed social control. Contact between slaves was monitored to prevent further issues.

Speculations

The agreement suggests Marsh preferred compensation over prosecution. Recovery of value may have been more important than punishment.

The involvement of multiple households suggests shared grazing practices. Livestock may have mixed, leading to disputes.

The reliance on slave testimony suggests limited direct oversight by masters. Much activity occurred beyond immediate supervision.

The emphasis on preventing further contact suggests concern about repeated incidents. Authorities or owners may have feared ongoing conflict.

105

105

The Said Marsh and Isaack both denys that there was
any agreement made between them, but were only Balan[ce]-
ing acco[un]ts on old Standing wherein y[e] Said Isaack stood
Indebted to y[e] said Marsh y[e] Sume of Six pound odd mony/

Upon the whole business afores[ai]d
It is ordered.

That the decision of this matter be Referred To y[e] Jury
at the next General Session/

And that Edward Brayne for not appearing as an Evidence
in y[e] aforesaid Businesse be fined fourty Shillings. But Since
he Came in a very Submissive manner and gave an acco[un]t of his
lawfull Impediment, who was therefore Excused for this time/

Whereas dick a black man Slave of Mary Powells
having bin for some Time Run away hath killed Severall
Sheggs and Severall persons making Demand for payment
were Summoned to appear this day of haveing Satisfaction
allowed them accordingly./

Serj[ean]t Dixon made demand of payment for a Sow y[e] Said
black Saith he killed of his, who was allowed y[e] Sum of Two
Dollars./

John Greentree made demand also for a shoate, which y[e]
Said black Confest he killed for which was allowed y[e] Sume of Six
Shillings./

Mary French made demand likewise for a Barrow
the Said Black told her he killed who was allowed y[e] Sume of
Ten Shillings./

Theo Bright

Margin Notes:
Edw[ar]d Brayne fined
40shill[ings] for not ap-
peareing as an Evi-
dence after being
Summoned

a Black Slave of
Mary Powells having
Run for some time
Run away Severall
people demanded
Satisfaction for the
Damage y[e] s[ai]d Black
had done them &c.

William Marsh and Sutton Isaack both denied that any agreement had been made between them. They stated that they had only been settling long-standing accounts, in which Isaack already owed Marsh a sum of a little over £6 0s 0d.

After considering the whole matter, it was ordered that the case should be referred to a jury at the next General Sessions for final decision.

Edward Braine, who had failed to appear as a witness after being summoned, was fined £2 0s 0d. However, he later appeared in a submissive manner and gave a valid explanation for his absence, and he was excused from paying the fine on that occasion.

It was then reported that Dick, a slave belonging to Mary Powell, had been absent for some time and, while away, had killed several hogs. Various people came forward to claim compensation and were heard.

Sergeant Dixon claimed payment for a sow which the slave had killed and was awarded 2 dollars.

John Greentree claimed for a shoat which the slave admitted killing and was awarded 6s 0d.

Mary French claimed for a barrow which the slave said he had killed and was awarded 10s 0d.

Interpretations

The denial of agreement showed dispute over liability. Informal settlements could be contested.

The referral to a jury showed escalation. Unresolved matters were passed to formal trial.

The initial fine for non-attendance showed enforcement of summons. Witnesses were required to appear.

The later excuse showed flexibility. Valid reasons could cancel penalties.

The case of the runaway slave showed responsibility for damage. Owners were liable for losses caused by their slaves.

The awarding of compensation showed practical justice. Losses were valued and repaid.

The use of different monetary units showed mixed currency. Payments could be made in dollars or sterling.

Speculations

The denial of agreement suggests concern over legal consequences. Isaack may have wished to avoid formal liability.

The referral to a jury suggests uncertainty in evidence. Testimony may not have been decisive.

The repeated claims for killed animals suggest extended absence of the slave. Damage may have accumulated over time.

The variation in compensation suggests informal valuation. Prices may have depended on circumstance rather than fixed rates.

106

106

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Wednes-
day, The 9: day of October 1700 Att Fort James,

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Governour
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas Mary Oliver a black free-
woman hath bin lately delivered of a Bastard Child, who being
Examined on oath Saith that M[r] Sam[ue]l Blacke Surgeon
declared Toby with whome she lives is y[e] Father of her child,

Whereupon It is ordered.

That the said Mary Oliver be severely whipt on her naked
body att the Flagstaff, and To be Transported off y[e] Said Island To
Bencoolen or some other parts of India, by the first outward
bound Ship that shall arrive here, To serve y[e] R[igh]t Hon[ourab]le Comp[an]y
four years./

Information now given y[e] Governour that William
Child being very drunk Cursed y[e] holy Scriptures, who being brought
could but acknowledge his offence, and beggd pardon for y[e] Same
and being very Penitent withall We have pardoned him with
a Severe admonition never to Committ y[e] like any more on
Paine of being proceeded against To y[e] utmost rigour of the
Law./

Margin Notes:
Mary Oliver a black
freewoman being
of a Bastard Child
to be severely whipt
& to be Sent off
spoken by y[e] first Ship

W[illia]m Child being very
Drunk cursed y[e] Holly
Scriptures be confessing
his fault & being very
Penitent withall was
pardoned &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Wednesday 9 October 1700. [Note this is out of date order]. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Mary Oliver, a free black woman, had recently given birth to an illegitimate child. When examined on oath, she stated that Mr Samuel Black, surgeon, had declared that Toby, with whom she lived, was the father.

It was ordered that Mary Oliver should be severely whipped on her naked body at the flagstaff. She was also to be transported from the island to Bencoolen or another part of India by the first available outward-bound ship, where she would serve the Honourable Company for four years.

It was then reported that William Child, while very drunk, had cursed the Holy Scriptures. When brought before the Governor, he admitted the offence, asked pardon, and showed clear repentance.

He was pardoned but given a severe warning not to commit the same offence again, on pain of being punished with the full severity of the law.

Interpretations

The punishment of Mary Oliver showed strict control over sexual conduct. Illegitimacy was treated as a punishable offence.

The whipping showed corporal discipline. Public punishment was used to enforce social norms.

The order for transportation showed use of penal labour. Offenders could be removed and put into Company service elsewhere.

The identification of the father showed concern with responsibility. Paternity was formally noted.

The case of William Child showed regulation of speech and behaviour. Religious offence was taken seriously.

The pardon showed discretion. Repentance could mitigate punishment.

The warning showed conditional leniency. Future misconduct would bring harsher penalties.

Speculations

The severity of Mary Oliver’s punishment suggests social anxiety about disorder. Illegitimacy may have been seen as a threat to discipline.

The transportation to Bencoolen suggests labour demand. Punishment may also have served economic needs.

The lighter treatment of William Child suggests difference in offence type. Religious misconduct may have been seen as less disruptive than social or sexual disorder when repentance was shown.

The naming of Toby without recorded punishment suggests uneven enforcement. Responsibility may not always have led to equal consequences.

107

107

James Greentree son y[e] behalfe of Margaret Gueling his sister
Presented a Petition to us Humbly desireing that he
might have Leave To dispose of her House which is almost
ready To fall downe, and also Ten Acres of Land whereon the Said
House Stands./

It is ordered.

That considering the Said House is much decayed, That
The Said Greentree sell the said House and Land for only Cattle
and Put them into her Stock, and give an acco[un]t thereof att y[e]
next Orphans Court./

Whereas y[e] decission of William Marshes & Sutton Isaack
business was Referred to y[e] Jury at y[e] next Court, but wanting
sufficient Evidence, We have thought fitt not To trouble y[e] Country
haveing no other business, but to decide it our selves on Edward
Braynes oath as followeth./

The Said Edward Brayne being Sworne Saith that he
doth really think in his Conscience that y[e] said Isaack knew nothing
of y[e] goate that was found in his house, before he and y[e] said Marsh
made search for it, and as for y[e] agreement that is reported they
made he knowes nothing of, wherefore

It is ordered

That both the said Isaack and Wm. Hayes blacks be severely
whipt on their naked bodys at y[e] flagstaffe and y[e] said Isaack
To pay court Charges./

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
James Greentree
hath leave to sell in
his sisters in Law
house and Land
nowe and Land
for Cattle and putt
into her Stock &c.

There being no other
Business to decide
at a Gen[er]all Court
y[e] [...][...]peopple
W[illia]m Marsh &
Sutton Isaack &c
haveing not sufficient
Evidence had to decide
it our Selves on Edw:
Braynes Oath &c.

Sutton Isaack & Wm.
Hayes blacks to be
severely whipt &c.

James Greentree presented a petition on behalf of his sister Margaret Curling. He requested permission to dispose of her house, which was in a ruinous condition, and the ten acres of land on which it stood.

It was ordered that, because the house was greatly decayed, Greentree should sell the house and land for cattle only. The cattle were to be added to Margaret Curling’s stock, and he was required to give an account of the transaction at the next Orphans’ Court.

The dispute between William Marsh and Sutton Isaack had previously been referred to a jury. However, as there was not sufficient evidence and no other business required a full court, the Governor and Council decided to determine the matter themselves based on the sworn testimony of Edward Braine.

Edward Braine stated on oath that, in his judgement, Sutton Isaack had no knowledge of the goat found in his house before the search by Marsh. He also said that he knew nothing of any agreement said to have been made between them.

It was therefore ordered that the slave of Sutton Isaack and the slave of William Hayes should both be severely whipped on their naked bodies at the flagstaff. Sutton Isaack was also ordered to pay the court charges.

Interpretations

The permission to sell property showed management of orphan assets. Decayed property could be converted into productive stock.

The requirement to accept cattle showed economic practice. Livestock was a preferred form of wealth.

The obligation to account at the Orphans’ Court showed oversight. Guardians were monitored in handling estates.

The decision to bypass a jury showed administrative discretion. The Council could resolve cases directly when evidence was limited.

The reliance on a single oath showed flexibility in proof. Formal standards could be adjusted.

The punishment of slaves showed attribution of responsibility. Enslaved people bore direct physical penalties.

The order for Isaack to pay costs showed indirect liability. Masters could be charged for matters connected to their household.

Speculations

The sale of land for cattle suggests a shift in asset value. Livestock may have been more useful than deteriorating buildings.

The decision not to convene a jury suggests efficiency concerns. Authorities may have sought to avoid delay or inconvenience.

The reliance on Braine’s opinion suggests weak evidence. The case may have lacked clear proof.

The punishment of the slaves rather than Isaack suggests practical enforcement. Responsibility may have been placed on those directly involved rather than on the master.

108

108

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Mon-
day The 14: day of October 1700 Att Fort
James.

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Governour
Thomas Bright dep[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas Severall Seamen belonging
to the good Ship Scepter Cap[tain] John Shinney Commander
lying in To the aforesaid harbour, and bound Setting forth therein,
applyed To us the Governour and Councill Setting forth
That the Said Commander did not allow them Victualls Enough
Insomuch they were of necessity forced to Eate hoggs that did not belong
to them and to cutt cow hides of the Ship yard to fry or else they should starve
and if not Rescued their Commander not Victualling y[e] Shipp when he Came
into any Port so Plentifully as he ought to have done, Whereupon
most humbly begged that we would cause y[e] said Cap[tain] Shinney to
lay in good store of Provisions for their homeward bound voyage
otherwise they could not performe their voyage to Secure y[e] Said Ship
and cargo on board.

The Said Cap[tain] Shinney being present did acknowledge
most part of y[e] said Petition to be true, but without alleges that
he could not by no means buy any more stores or other Provisions
at y[e] Merchant, dureing his stay there, Provisions being then
very scarce, and if he had stayed any longer there, he should
have lost his Passage But doth promise us on his word
to buy as much provisions here as he can sufficient for his
voyage and To give his men as good an allowance of Provision
as any Ship in y[e] road doth both whilst in y[e] harbour, and
going home for England.

Margin Notes:
Sev[er]all Seamen belonging
to the Ship Scepter
Cap[tain] John Shinney
Commander Complaine
y[t] they were almost
starved & if not Re-
medied y[e] Seamen
were not able to Carry
the Ship home &c.

Capt[ain] Shinney being
Present Says that his
Men shall have as
good allowance of
provisions as any
Ships now in y[e] Road
hath

A consultation was held at Fort James on Monday 14 October 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

Several seamen belonging to the ship Scepter, commanded by Captain John Shinney, then lying in the harbour, petitioned the Governor and Council. They stated that their commander had not provided them with sufficient food. They said that they had been forced to eat hogs that did not belong to them and to cut pieces from cow hides in the shipyard to fry, in order to avoid starving. They further complained that their commander had failed to supply the ship properly when calling at ports. They asked that he be required to take on sufficient provisions for the homeward voyage, otherwise they would not be able to manage the ship and cargo safely.

Captain Shinney was present and admitted that much of the complaint was true. He stated that he had been unable to purchase sufficient provisions at the previous port because they were scarce, and that remaining longer would have caused him to miss his passage. He promised, however, to buy as much food as possible at St Helena and to provide his crew with as good an allowance as any other ship in the harbour, both while there and on the voyage home to England.

Interpretations

The complaint showed the vulnerability of seamen. Provisioning failures could threaten survival.

The admission by the captain showed acknowledgment of responsibility. Commanders were accountable for crew welfare.

The reference to scarcity showed supply limits. Ports could not always provide adequate provisions.

The petition to local authority showed external oversight. Island government could intervene in maritime affairs.

The promise to match other ships showed informal standards. Provisioning was judged comparatively.

The concern for the voyage showed operational risk. Underfed crews could not safely manage ships.

Speculations

The extreme measures described suggest severe shortage. Conditions on board may have been close to starvation.

The captain’s admission suggests limited defence. The situation may have been widely known.

The reliance on St Helena for resupply suggests its strategic role. The island functioned as a key provisioning point.

The emphasis on safety suggests potential mutiny or failure. Crew distress may have risked discipline or voyage completion.

109

109

Upon which faire Promise We ordered the Said Seamen
to Repaire on board, which they did very Chearfully./

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

Island St Helena,

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday the 22: day of october 1700 Att
James,

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas a Seaman belonging to the Ship
Norris, haveing Runnaway from y[e] said Ship when in this
Road hath Sett his Love and affection on a young woman
named Mary Orchard or orther, But y[e] Govern[or] being Informed
that he had a wife and Child in England Examined him, Who
denyed, that he hath wife or Ever was married and offers to
make oath of y[e] same./

Margin Notes:
Jo[hn] Miller a Sea-
man who Runn away
from his Ship Norris
sett his Love & Affec-
tion on a young woman
but was proved by
Witnesses y[t] he was a
Married man &c.

On the strength of Captain Shinney’s promise, it was ordered that the seamen should return on board the ship, which they did willingly.

A consultation was held at Fort James on Tuesday 22 October 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

A seaman belonging to the ship Norris, who had run away from his vessel while it lay in the road, had formed an attachment to a young woman named Mary Orchard. The Governor, having received information that the man already had a wife and child in England, examined him. He denied that he was married or had ever had a wife, and offered to swear to this.

Evidence was then produced that he was in fact a married man with a wife and child in England.

Interpretations

The return of the seamen showed authority of the Council. Orders were obeyed once assurance was given.

The case of the runaway seaman showed control over mobility. Sailors were not free to leave their ships without consequence.

The investigation into marital status showed concern with moral order. Relationships were regulated.

The use of witness evidence showed verification of claims. Statements could be tested against testimony.

The attempted oath showed importance of sworn truth. False swearing would carry serious implications.

The intervention of the Governor showed oversight beyond local inhabitants. Visiting seamen were also subject to authority.

Speculations

The willingness of the seamen to return suggests trust in the Governor’s intervention. They may have believed conditions would improve.

The seaman’s denial suggests intent to remain on the island. Attachment to the woman may have motivated desertion.

The production of contrary evidence suggests communication networks. Information about individuals could travel between England and the island.

The case suggests concern over bigamy. Authorities may have aimed to prevent unlawful marriage or settlement.

110

110

Thomas Mills being Sworne Saith that the Cooke was
mate of the s[ai]d Ship Norris a very Honest sober Civil man, haveing
some discourse with him aboute y[e] Said Miller Told him that
he was married to a cooks daughter in England and had one Child

The s[ai]d Mills his wife being Sworne Saith the same
as her Husband hath./

Margaret Manning declares that she heard a Seaman
belonging To some of the East India Ships Say that he had heard
the said Miller Talke about his wife she left in England
severall times./

Whereupon It is ordered

That y[e] said John Miller be committed into y[e] Marshalls
Custody there to Continue till the Ships are ready to Saile, and
then To be sent on board y[e] Scepter Cap[tain] Shinney Commander

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
John Miller committed
into y[e] Marshalls Custody
to be Sent on board
y[e] Ship Scepter when
ready to Sayle

Thomas Mills was sworn. He said that the cook’s mate of the ship Norris, whom he described as an honest and sober man, had told him in conversation that John Miller was married in England to a cook’s daughter and had one child.

Mills’s wife also gave sworn evidence and confirmed the same account.

Margaret Manning stated that she had heard a seaman from one of the East India ships say that he had often heard Miller speak about his wife in England.

It was therefore ordered that John Miller should be committed to the marshal’s custody. He was to remain there until the ships were ready to sail, and then be sent on board the ship Scepter, commanded by Captain John Shinney.

Interpretations

The consistent testimony confirmed Miller’s marital status. Multiple witnesses supported the same claim.

The reliance on indirect statements showed flexible evidence standards. Reported speech was accepted.

The decision to imprison Miller showed enforcement of maritime discipline. Runaway seamen were detained.

The order to return him to a ship showed restoration of authority. Desertion was not permitted.

The use of another vessel showed practical handling. He was reassigned rather than returned to his original ship.

Speculations

The choice to send Miller to the Scepter suggests convenience. That ship may have been departing sooner.

The reliance on reputation of the cook’s mate suggests trust in character. Credibility influenced judgement.

The repeated references to Miller speaking of his wife suggest he had not concealed it consistently. His denial may have been opportunistic.

The intervention suggests concern over improper relationships. Authorities may have aimed to prevent bigamy or disorder on the island.

111

111

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
thursday The 7th: day of november 1700 Att Fort
James.

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas Mr George Carne Presented To us a
writing called a Declaration or rather a Protest, wherein were
very Injurious words full of injustice and disrespectfullnes against the
Governor, and of such prejudecant designes were Permitted to be used
by the Seamen a Governor could not Exist but in y[e] future some
of them on y[e] least pretence would spitt in his face, Wherefore,/

It is ordered

That the said Carne be fined five Shill[ings] To y[e] Poor
for writeing Disrespectfully To y[e] Gov[er]n[or] &c: And in case of his
relapse againe as he hath done lately, which was hutt up and
forbidden to do y[e] like any more That the R[ight] Hono[urab]le Comp[an]ys
orders be then Executed against him accordingly, and also pay
Charges of Councill./

The said Carne brought and Delivered To us y[e] George’s Childrens
Inventory according to his due for y[t] may appeare by the afores[ai]d writing
The Portion of Catherine Keelings Children’s Estate according to
Inventory being four hundred & seaven pounds twelve shilling
and Ten pence

Margin Notes:
Geo: Carne Paper
wrote very Injurious
and disrespect-
full to y[e] Gov[er]n[or]

Geo: Carne fined 5s
for writeing Disres-
pectfull to y[e] Gov[er]n[or] &c.

An Inventory of Geo[rge]
Keeling Children
Estate sent by George
Carne

A consultation was held at Fort James on Thursday 7 November 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, ensign.

George Carne presented a written declaration, described as a protest. It contained language considered highly offensive, unjust, and disrespectful towards the Governor. It was judged that such expressions, if allowed, would undermine authority and encourage further insolence.

It was therefore ordered that George Carne should pay a fine of 5s 0d to the poor for writing in this manner. He was warned that if he offended again, as he had done recently, the full penalties laid down by the Honourable Company would be enforced against him. He was also required to pay the costs of the Council.

George Carne then delivered an inventory relating to the estate of the Keeling children. According to this account, the portion belonging to Catherine Keeling’s children amounted to £407 12s 10d.

Interpretations

The punishment showed protection of authority. Written criticism of the Governor was treated as a serious offence.

The fine to the poor showed a standard penalty form. Fines could be directed to community use.

The warning of harsher punishment showed escalation. Repeat offences would bring stronger action.

The reference to Company orders showed higher authority. Local governance operated within wider rules.

The submission of the inventory showed administrative responsibility. Estates were formally accounted for.

The large sum recorded showed significant wealth. Some estates were substantial in value.

Speculations

The strong reaction suggests sensitivity to dissent. Authority may have been fragile or frequently challenged.

The mention of previous misconduct suggests ongoing tension. Carne may have had a history of conflict with officials.

The detailed accounting of the estate suggests complexity. Management of such wealth may have required close oversight.

The combination of punishment and administrative business suggests routine governance. Discipline and record keeping were handled together.

112

112

Island St Helena

Anno of Provision as yams Potatoes &c
prayed this 8th day of October 1700 being the Estate of
Mr George Keeling

Celerys Flower & yams . . . 19 01 0
Suckors now Planted . . . 4 10 0
Potatoes . . . 3 12 10
The Cabbage land . . . 59 00 0
Total £4 06 06 00

Wittness
John Humphryes
James Greentree
Rich: Gurling

Valued by John Packnald
and Sam[ue]l Defountaine } appraisers

The Said Carne Debtor To George Keelings Children
for 3 1/2

Doll[ar]s
To cash . . . 600
Paid more then rec[ei]d . . . 187 4/6
Paid more to y[e] appraisers . . . 9
403 2 at 6pdollar . . . 121 00 00

Inventory amounts To . . . 450 10 08
Plantacon Provisions not in y[e] Inventory but }
now appraised att . . . 46 06 00

An account was taken on 8 October 1700 of provisions growing on the plantation belonging to George Keeling’s estate.

The valuation was as follows. Celery, flour and yams were valued at £19 1s 0d. Succory then planted was valued at £4 10s 0d. Potatoes were valued at £3 12s 10d. The cabbage land was valued at £59 0s 0d.

The total value of these provisions was £406 6s 0d.

This valuation was witnessed by John Humphreys, James Greentree, and Richard Curling. It was appraised by John Facknall and Samuel Defontaine.

George Carne was recorded as debtor to George Keeling’s children for 3½ dollars.

An account of cash and payments was then stated. £600 0s 0d had been received. £187 4s 6d had been paid out in excess of receipts. A further £9 0s 0d had been paid to the appraisers.

A balance of £121 0s 0d was calculated at a rate of 6d per dollar.

The full inventory amounted to £450 10s 8d.

In addition, plantation provisions not previously included in the inventory were now valued at £46 6s 0d.

Interpretations

The detailed valuation showed systematic accounting. Agricultural produce was formally assessed as part of estate value.

The inclusion of growing crops showed recognition of future yield. Standing provisions were treated as assets.

The use of appraisers showed reliance on appointed expertise. Valuation required trusted individuals.

The mixed currency entries showed complex accounting. Sterling and dollars were used together.

The recording of debts showed financial obligation. Carne was accountable to the children’s estate.

The separation of inventory and later additions showed ongoing revision. Estate values could be updated as new information appeared.

Speculations

The high value of cabbage land suggests its importance. Certain crops may have been more profitable or reliable.

The adjustment of accounts suggests prior imbalance. Payments exceeding receipts may indicate mismanagement or necessary expenditure.

The additional valuation of provisions suggests earlier omission. Some assets may not have been fully recorded at first.

The conversion between currencies suggests practical exchange. Values may have fluctuated depending on availability and use.

113

113

The Said Carne desired To have y[e] one and Tuition of the
Said Children, which is granted him. he finding them sufficient
meate drink washing lodging and apparrell Att y[e] Rate of
Seaven Pound p Annum Each

Per Contra Cred[it]

By Cash Dollars . . . 1358 1/2 at 10d. amo[un]ts To . . . 407 12 10
By his wife 30 y[e] whole Estate . . . 203 16 1
being y[e] Sum of . . . Total £631 09 2

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

George Carne requested the care and guardianship of the children. This was granted. He was required to provide them with sufficient food, drink, washing, lodging and clothing at £7 0s 0d per year for each child.

The credit side of the account was then entered.

Cash of 1,358½ dollars was recorded at 10d per dollar and stated as £407 12s 10d.

His wife’s third part of the whole estate was recorded as £203 16s 1d.

The total was stated as £631 9s 2d.

Interpretations

The grant of guardianship tied custody to maintenance. Carne could care for the children only on fixed terms.

The allowance of £7 0s 0d per child each year set a clear charge for upkeep. Food, clothing, lodging and washing were all included.

The account used both dollars and sterling. This shows that estate values were converted across currencies.

The entry contains arithmetic problems. The stated conversion and total do not reconcile cleanly, so the figures were preserved as recorded rather than silently corrected.

Speculations

The fixed yearly allowance suggests concern over estate depletion. The Council probably wanted the children’s maintenance charged in a controlled way.

The separate entry for Carne’s wife’s third suggests that her claim affected the children’s estate. The account appears to divide family interests before setting the balance.

114

114

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day The 19: day of November 1700 Att Fort
James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas Mary orchard orphan being very desirous
To go off the said Island on the good Ship Advice Capt[ain] Pystian
Romand Commander had leave accordingly, who offerd To take us
her stock of Cattle Consisting in Eight Cowes, one Bullock, Two heifers
five young and one Calf being in all Seaventeen head which
we bought of her for the Sume of Fifty Three Pound fifteen Shill[ings]
and was paid accordingly in Cash, taking discharge for y[e] same from
her and orlando Bagley her Guardian,/

And whereas Governor Keelings Children haveing no Cattle
and we haveing their money in our Possession, have bought y[e]
for their Profit so let them have the said Cattle being appraised
by Two men, att y[e] same price afores[ai]d./

The said Orlando Bagley desired To have the milk of
the said Cattle for looking after them, which was granted
him, and To give an acco[un]t Every orphans Court of their Increase,

John Nickels free planter Presented To us a Petition Setts
forth therein That the R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y had in their Possession
Fifty Acres of Land and a House Standing In Fort James Valley
which belonged To his father S[im]on Nickels dec[ease]d, Wherefore Humbly
desired that we would allow him y[e] Possession of y[e] House &c

Margin Notes:
Cattle bought of Mary
Orchard orphan she
being very desirous
to go off the Island

The aforesaid Cattle
Sold to Gov[er]nor Keelings
Children

Orlando Bagley to have
the milk of the aforesaid
Cattle for looking
after them

Jno: Nichols Petitioned
that we would be pleased
to let him have y[e] house
and Fifty acres of
Land belonging to his
father Simon Nicholas
dece[ase]d or so

A consultation was held at Fort James on 19 November 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

Mary Orchard, an orphan, asked to leave the island on the ship Advice, commanded by Captain Pystian Romand. Permission was granted. She offered to sell her livestock before departure. The stock consisted of eight cows, one bullock, two heifers, five young cattle, and one calf, making seventeen head in total. These were bought for £53 15s 0d. The full amount was paid in cash. A formal discharge was taken from Mary Orchard and from her guardian, Orlando Bagley.

The children of Governor Keeling had no cattle, and their money was held by the authorities. The same livestock was therefore assigned to them for their benefit. Two men valued the animals at the same price of £53 15s 0d.

Orlando Bagley asked to keep the milk from the cattle in return for caring for them. This request was approved. He was required to present an account of any increase in the herd at each Orphans’ Court.

John Nickels, a free planter, submitted a petition. He stated that the Right Honourable Company held fifty acres of land and a house in Fort James Valley that had belonged to his father, Simon Nickels, deceased. He asked to be granted possession of the house and the land.

Interpretations

The purchase of Mary Orchard’s livestock and the immediate reassignment to Governor Keeling’s children showed how orphan property could be converted into liquid assets and then redirected under official control. The involvement of a guardian and the formal discharge indicated that such transactions required legal validation to protect the interests of the orphan.

The reference to the Orphans’ Court showed a structured system for supervising the property of minors. Orlando Bagley’s obligation to report the increase of the cattle demonstrated that guardians were held accountable for managing assets and were expected to preserve or grow their value.

The arrangement that allowed Orlando Bagley to keep the milk in exchange for tending the cattle reflected a practical labour contract. Payment in kind rather than cash suggested a local system where resources and services were directly exchanged under official oversight.

The Company’s possession of land formerly owned by Simon Nickels indicated that property could revert to corporate control after a death. John Nickels’s petition showed that heirs needed formal approval to reclaim such property, which placed ultimate authority over land tenure in the hands of the Company administration.

115

115

store books [...] here [...] from her request
which desired that we would send the said Petition To the R[igh]t
Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y in England that they might do him the Justice
they think fitt,

It is therefore ordered

That the said Nickels his Petition shall be Sent According
ly To our said Hono[ura]ble masters in England./

Whereas Mary Bagley, who in the Con-
sultation Held the 19: day of october last was strictly forbidden
To retaine any more Strong Liquors and not To Entertaine any more
Souldiers, and chiefly Matthew Frese Sold[ie]r being a Drunken fellow, and
caused much difference amongst her Children, but Contrary thereunto
hath Entertained the said Frese againe, Wherefore

It is ordered

That the said Mary Bagley according To her owne desire
go off the said Island in y[e] Ship Advice first now in y[e] road, bound
for Fort S[t] George, and in case of not getting her passage in s[ai]d Ship,
That Then to be sent To her Husband in England by y[e] first
homeward bound Ship, that shall arrive here./

And whereas the afores[ai]d Matthew Frese being a Drunken
quarrelsome fellow always troublesome To y[e] Governm[en]t, and Inha-
bitants also, and having bin Severall times Punished and
fined To no purpose.

It is ordered

That the Said Frese be Sent off the Said Island in y[e] aforesaid
Ship Advice frigot bound for Fort S[t] George, There To serve the
R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y as a Souldier The remainder of his Time being
three years and four months./

Margin Notes:
The s[ai]d Nickels Petition
be sent home accor-
to his desire.

Mary Bagley acc-
ording to her owne
desire have Liberty
to goe to Fort S[t] George
in y[e] Ship now in the
Roade

Matthew Frese sent
off to Fort S[t] George in
the Advice Freget & to
serve them There
three & four Months
being the Remainder
his Time.

The petition of John Nickels was considered further. He asked that his case be sent to the Right Honourable Company in England so that they might judge it and grant him justice as they saw fit. It was ordered that his petition should be sent to the Company accordingly.

Mary Bagley had previously been ordered, on 19 October 1700, not to keep strong liquor or receive soldiers into her house, especially Matthew Frese, who was known for drunkenness and had caused conflict among her children. She acted against these orders and received Frese again. As a result, and in line with her own request, it was ordered that she should leave the island on the ship Advice, then lying in the road and bound for Fort St George. If she failed to secure passage on that ship, she was to be sent to her husband in England on the first available homeward-bound vessel.

Matthew Frese was described as habitually drunk and quarrelsome. He had caused repeated trouble for the government and the inhabitants, and earlier punishments and fines had failed to correct his behaviour. It was therefore ordered that he should be sent from the island on the same ship, Advice, bound for Fort St George. He was to serve the Right Honourable Company there as a soldier for the remainder of his term, which was three years and four months.

Interpretations

The decision to send John Nickels’s petition to the Company in England showed that ultimate authority over land disputes rested with the central administration. Local officials acted as intermediaries rather than final arbiters when ownership claims required higher approval.

The removal of Mary Bagley from the island reflected the enforcement of social discipline through expulsion. Her breach of earlier orders, especially in hosting a disruptive soldier and keeping liquor, indicated that household conduct fell under direct government control when it threatened order within the community.

The treatment of Matthew Frese demonstrated a system in which labour obligations to the Company could be enforced through relocation rather than imprisonment. His transfer to Fort St George converted a disciplinary problem into continued military service, showing how the Company maintained control over soldiers by redirecting them to other parts of its network rather than releasing them from duty.

The repeated mention of drunkenness and disorder highlighted the administration’s concern with maintaining stability among both soldiers and civilians. Behaviour that disrupted households or public order triggered escalating responses, moving from fines and punishment to forced removal from the island.

116

116

[...] here [...] from her request
which desired that we would send the said Petition To the R[igh]t
Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y in England, that they might do him the Justice
they think fitt,

It is therefore ordered

That a Proclamation be once more Published To Command
all persons to pay their Respective Debts that they are indebted for
y[e] said R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]ys Store books of acco[un]ts here by y[e] Time
Limitted Therein./

Theo Bright
Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
A Proclamation to
be issued out for Every
persons to pay their
Respective debts ac-
cording to y[e] Comp[an]ys orders.

Thus Farr all y[e] Consultations
orders that the R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y ordered
sent to y[e] R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y in y[e] good
Shipp Tavistack Cap[tain] Matthew
Mullin Commander, who sett saile
y[e] 30th of July 1700

A further order was made concerning debts owed to the Right Honourable Company. It was directed that a proclamation should be issued again. This proclamation required all persons to pay the debts they owed on the Company’s store account books within the time limits already set.

The consultation record ended with the names Theo Bright and Thomas Goodwin.

A concluding note recorded that all consultations and orders intended for the Right Honourable Company were sent to them in the ship Tavistock, commanded by Captain Matthew Mullin. That ship sailed on 30 July 1700.

Interpretations

The order to publish a proclamation for debt repayment showed that the Company relied on formal public notices to enforce financial obligations. This method ensured that all inhabitants were clearly informed and placed under a fixed deadline, which strengthened administrative control over credit and repayment.

The reference to the Company’s store account books indicated a system in which goods were issued on credit and recorded centrally. Debts owed to the Company formed part of its economic structure on the island, and repayment was actively managed through official intervention rather than left to private arrangement.

The dispatch of consultation records to England in the ship Tavistock demonstrated a regular administrative link between the island and the Company’s central authority. Decisions and proceedings were formally reported, which allowed oversight and ensured that local governance remained accountable to the Company’s directors.

117

117

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday
the 3d day of Decemb[e]r 1700 Att Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Bright dep[ut]y Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensigne

M[r] George Carne presented to Govern[or] & Councill the Last Will
and Testament of his Brother in Law Eleanor Beale wid[ow] dec[ease]d In order
of haveing y[e] same proved which was accordingly done by the oathes
of Mat[thew] Barrett & Sam[ue]l Wrangham who made oath that y[e] said
Will now produced was y[e] Said Eleanor Beale last will & Testament and
that they knew of no other by her made Either in word or writing./

It is ordered

That y[e] Said Eleanor Beales Last will & Testament now produced be
recd and approved of accordingly, and Coppy delivered when required./

Richard Gurling haveing appoint to his brother John Gurling
to sell a House belonging to his said Brother Presented his Petition that whereas
he was in possession of a House belonging to his said Brother which is so un-
tennantable y[t] he cannot Live in it therefore desired to have leave for
selling y[e] said house downe, or else it would prove a great Loss to y[e] whole but
upon Consideration.

It is ordered

That y[e] said Richard Gurling shall not presume to Pull downe y[e] Said
house untill further consideration.

Rowland Peterson Seaman who was left sick ashore out of y[e] Ship
Severn Humbly desired that we would be pleased to Entertaine him in y[e]
R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]ys Service as a Sold[ie]r for y[e] Terms of five years at Least
which being granted him, his pay commenced from Thursday
next Ensuing

Whereas

Margin Notes:
Elenor Beales
last Will & Testament
recd & approved of

Rich[ard] Gurling not
to pull his Brothers
House downe
till further orders

Rowl[an]d Peterson Enter-
tained in y[e] Comp[an]ys Service
as a Sold[ie]r for five Years.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 3 December 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

George Carne presented the last will and testament of his sister-in-law, Eleanor Beale, widow, deceased, so that it could be proved. Matthew Barrett and Samuel Wrangham gave sworn evidence that the document presented was her final will. They stated that they knew of no other will made by her, either spoken or written. The will was accepted and approved. A copy was to be provided when required.

Richard Gurling, acting on behalf of his brother John Gurling, submitted a petition. He stated that he held a house belonging to his brother but that it was so unfit for habitation that he could not live in it. He asked for permission to pull down and sell the house, arguing that failure to do so would result in significant loss. After consideration, it was ordered that Richard Gurling was not to pull down the house until further orders were given.

Rowland Peterson, a seaman who had been left ashore sick from the ship Severn, asked to be taken into the service of the Right Honourable Company as a soldier for a term of at least five years. This request was granted. His pay was set to begin on the following Thursday.

Interpretations

The formal proving of Eleanor Beale’s will showed the use of sworn testimony to validate inheritance documents. Witnesses confirmed its authenticity and exclusivity, which allowed the authorities to recognise it as legally binding and to regulate the transfer of her property.

The restriction placed on Richard Gurling demonstrated that buildings, even when privately owned, fell under administrative oversight. Permission was required before demolition, which suggests that property decisions could affect broader settlement planning or economic interests.

The acceptance of Rowland Peterson into Company service showed how labour needs were met by recruiting individuals already present on the island. His transition from seaman to soldier indicated flexibility in employment roles within the Company’s system, while the fixed term and start of pay reflected formal contractual control over service and wages.

118

118

Whereas Thomas Harper and Rob[er]t Leech haveing failed for
Securitie according To Law made by y[e] approbation of y[e] Govern[or] Councill
and their names [...] in prison past y[e] Inhabitants of Said Island being
to a Jury next Sessions.

It is therefore ordered

That y[e] decision of this matter be referred to the Jury at the next
quarterly Sessions./

Whereas on fryday y[e] 22 day of november last past the wife of John
Field Serj[ean]t came and made Complaint to y[e] Govern[or] That Gabriell Powell of the
said Island free planter had moved against Randall wife y[e] whole evening and
that Deborah Sharwood belonging to y[e] Ship Scepter lying
in England that y[e] woman was her speckle wife belonging to y[e] W[illia]m
33 years of age, and that y[e] Deacon after done the y[e] oath of Ted Fisher Saith
that Mr Barrett told her but that day that she heard y[e] said Powell say that
it was ordinary another woman who accuses himselfe Since y[e] first came
in Saying it was a black woman that he Saw y[e] said Sharwood lye with.

The said Gab[riel] Powell Saith that he never reported it was a white woman
but a black one and that behind John Stephens house and saith further
he is sure y[e] said Mr Barrett would Say that she heard him Say it was a
white woman before his face, whereupon she was sent for.

Anno being sworne saith she being at y[e] house of Sam[ue]l Wrangham
the Tuesday night following asked y[e] Said Powells who it was he saw with Mrs
Dorcas saying it was sure it must be some black whore or another, whereupon
he Said Sure Sure twas a white woman for she came out of the same house
and that lives in y[e] same street.

Matthew Barrett Saith y[t] she being w[i]th his wife at y[e] said Wranghams
house at y[e] time aforesaid heard y[e] said Powell tell his wife what she hath
declared, and that he inquired of him whether y[e] woman was a woman
wife or if her husband belonged to y[e] Garrison, who answered it was an English
wife belonging to y[e] Garrison./

George Hutchinson Saith that he heard y[e] said Powell Say at Sam[ue]l Wham-
hams house That he being a sleep in his bed Saw woman and a man come
out of a house together, and they man they had [...] and take her up againe
and had not [...] to rise whilst they were in y[e] action being so ashamed
further Saith y[t] he asked y[e] Said Powell if y[e] man could tell blood or no
haveing a suspicion that y[e] said Dorcas who replyed yes he could.

Sam[ue]l Wrangham Saith that Gab[riel] Powell being at his house
with severall other persons, heard him Say, that he Saw a man by a woman
downe and take her up againe, and did a very unseemly action and among

Margin Notes:
Thomas Harp[er] & Rob[er]t
Leech for Killing a
goate Cow unlawfully
Sammade to Referrd
to a Jury next
Sessions.

Mary Field Sen[ior] In-
formation against
Gab[riel] Powell for Scan-
delizing all y[e] white
women of y[e] Garrison.

Thomas Harper and Robert Leech were brought under consideration for failing to provide the required security under the law approved by the Governor and Council. Their names were entered, and they were held in custody pending further process. It was ordered that the matter should be referred to a jury at the next quarterly sessions.

On Friday 22 November 1700, the wife of Sergeant John Field made a complaint to the Governor. She stated that Gabriel Powell, a free planter, had spent the evening making accusations about Randall’s wife and had also spoken about Deborah Sharwood, who was connected with the ship Sceptre and was then in England. The statements suggested that a woman had engaged in improper conduct. Conflicting claims followed about whether the woman involved was white or black.

Gabriel Powell denied that he had ever said the woman was white. He insisted that he had referred to a black woman and claimed that the incident took place behind John Stephens’s house. He added that Matthew Barrett would confirm that he had spoken only of a white woman in a different context. Matthew Barrett was then called to give evidence.

Anne, who was sworn, stated that she was at the house of Samuel Wrangham on the Tuesday night following the alleged incident. She asked Powell who the woman was that he had seen with Mrs Dorcas. She suggested that it must have been a black woman. Powell replied that it was a white woman, as she had come out of the same house and lived in the same street.

Matthew Barrett confirmed that he was present with his wife at Wrangham’s house at the same time. He heard Powell repeat the account described by Anne. Barrett stated that he asked Powell whether the woman was married and whether her husband belonged to the garrison. Powell replied that she was an English wife belonging to the garrison.

George Hutchinson stated that he heard Powell say at Samuel Wrangham’s house that, while lying in bed, he saw a man and a woman come out of a house together. He described them engaging in an indecent act. Hutchinson added that he asked Powell whether the man could identify the woman, suspecting it might be Dorcas. Powell replied that he could.

Samuel Wrangham stated that Powell, while at his house in the company of several others, said that he saw a man and a woman lying together and then rising again, and that the act was highly improper.

Interpretations

The referral of Thomas Harper and Robert Leech to a jury at the quarterly sessions showed that criminal matters, including unlawful killing of livestock, were formally tried before a jury rather than decided solely by the Council. This reflected a structured legal process that incorporated community participation in judgement.

The requirement for security indicated a system in which accused individuals had to provide guarantees for their appearance or behaviour. Failure to do so led to detention, which functioned as a means of enforcing compliance before trial.

The complaint against Gabriel Powell revealed the importance placed on reputation and moral conduct within the garrison community. Allegations of sexual misconduct, especially involving married women, were treated as serious matters because they affected social order and discipline among both soldiers and settlers.

The examination of multiple witnesses under oath showed the use of testimonial evidence to establish truth. Contradictions about whether the woman was white or black highlighted how identity and status influenced the seriousness of the accusation, particularly where it involved an English wife connected to the garrison.

The setting of testimony in private houses, such as that of Samuel Wrangham, indicated that informal social spaces served as key locations for the spread and verification of information, which could then be brought into formal legal proceedings.

Speculations

Gabriel Powell’s shifting account about whether the woman was white or black suggested an attempt to reduce the seriousness of his accusation after it began to circulate. The evidence showed that he first described the woman as white and connected to the garrison, then later claimed she was black. This change probably reflected an effort to avoid the consequences of defaming a married English woman, which carried greater social and legal weight within the settlement.

The formal complaint brought by the wife of Sergeant John Field indicated that the accusations had already caused tension within the garrison community. The escalation from private conversation to official inquiry suggested that the matter risked wider conflict among soldiers’ households, which required intervention by the Governor and Council to contain it.

119

119

that we never heard some body ask y[e] said Powell whether twas a white
woman or a black one, who made no answer that he heard./

It is ordered

That y[e] determination of y[e] business afores[ai]d be referred to y[e] Jury at the
next General Sessions./

Simon Whalley made Complaint to y[e] Governour and Councill
that John Hemmons Cattle continually in his Plantation, and had destroyed much of his provision
and that his black had fetchd part of his fence away, of all which he had acqua-
inted y[e] said Hemmons w[i]th who would not use any means to hinder such
unneighbourly doings, wherefore desired us to take y[e] same into our Consideration
and to cause y[e] said Hemmons to make him some satisfaction for these
damages.

The said Hemmons denys that his Cattle hath done any dommages to
the said Whalley, or his black to fetch away his fence, biding him
prove it, and he would satisfy him for what damages was done,/

Then y[e] said Whalley desired that Leah Barnard might be Examined
on oath, who being Sworne Saith That as she was going home one day
from her fathers Saw y[e] said Hemmons black take some wood up within
Two or three yards of y[e] said Whaleys fence, but Cant Say he tooke it
from off y[e] fence./

Thomas Burnham Sen[ior] Saith that he hath seen the
said Hemmons Cattle severall times close by y[e] said Whaleys Plantation
but did never See them within it, neither doth he know whose Cattle they
were that destroyed y[e] said Whaleys Provisions./

It is ordered

That y[e] Said Whaley haveing not Sufficient Evidence be Cast and
pay Charges of Councill.

John Mudge Sould[ie]r desired that we would be pleased to dismiss him
from y[e] R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]ys Service, which was granted him accordingly.

James Easthope Humbly desired y[t] we would let him Hire y[e] House
formerly Smouts, which y[e] minister lately had in his possession.

Margin Notes:
The determination of
y[e] Business afores[ai]d
Referred to y[e] next
Sessions

S[i]mon Whaley
of S[t] John Hemmons
of Whaley Complaining
that y[e] afores[ai]d Hemmons
Cattle were alway in
his plantation &c.

John Mudge dismis-
sed of y[e] Comp[an]ys Service

James Easthope desired
he might hire Smouts
house

A witness stated that he never heard anyone ask Gabriel Powell whether the woman was white or black, and that Powell gave no answer on that point in his hearing. It was ordered that the matter should be decided by a jury at the next general sessions.

Simon Whalley complained to the Governor and Council that cattle belonging to John Hemmons repeatedly entered his plantation and destroyed a large part of his crops. He also stated that Hemmons’s slave had taken away part of his fence. He said that he had informed Hemmons of these matters, but that no steps were taken to prevent further damage. He asked that the Council consider the case and require Hemmons to make compensation.

John Hemmons denied that his cattle caused any damage to Whalley’s plantation or that his slave removed any part of the fence. He challenged Whalley to prove the claims and stated that he would pay for any damage if it were shown.

Leah Barnard was called and sworn. She stated that, while returning home from her father’s house, she saw Hemmons’s slave pick up wood within two or three yards of Whalley’s fence, but she could not say that the wood was taken from the fence itself.

Thomas Burnham senior stated that he had seen Hemmons’s cattle several times near Whalley’s plantation, but never inside it. He added that he did not know whose cattle had destroyed the crops.

As Whalley failed to provide sufficient evidence, his claim was dismissed. He was ordered to pay the costs of the Council.

John Mudge, a soldier, asked to be discharged from the service of the Right Honourable Company. This request was granted.

James Easthope asked for permission to rent the house formerly known as Smouts, which had recently been occupied by the minister.

Interpretations

The referral of the accusation against Gabriel Powell to a jury confirmed that disputes involving reputation and moral conduct were treated as matters for formal trial. The Council deferred judgement where witness testimony was inconsistent or incomplete.

The dispute between Simon Whalley and John Hemmons showed that damage caused by livestock fell under regulated responsibility. A claimant was required to prove both ownership of the animals and the specific act of damage. Without clear evidence, compensation could not be enforced.

The use of sworn testimony from Leah Barnard and Thomas Burnham senior demonstrated reliance on direct observation. Testimony that only placed cattle near a plantation, or a slave near a fence, was not sufficient to establish liability.

The order that Whalley should pay the costs of the Council indicated that unsuccessful claims carried financial penalties. This discouraged weak or unproven accusations and protected administrative resources.

The dismissal of John Mudge from Company service showed that soldiers could be released upon request with official approval, which suggests that service was regulated but not always strictly enforced to completion.

The request by James Easthope to rent Smouts house showed that housing, including property formerly used by officials such as the minister, was allocated or leased under administrative control rather than left to informal occupation.

Speculations

Simon Whalley’s failure to prove his case probably reflected the difficulty of establishing responsibility for roaming livestock in an open or weakly enclosed landscape. The lack of clear boundaries or effective fencing may have made such disputes common, but hard to resolve without direct evidence.

Gabriel Powell’s case was sent to a jury after conflicting testimony about what was said and heard. This suggests that the Council chose to avoid making a judgement in a socially sensitive matter that involved accusations against women of the garrison, and instead placed responsibility on a broader body to reach a verdict.

120

120

It is ordered

That y[e] said James Easthope have y[e] said house at y[e] rate of five
pounds p ann[u]m commencing from y[e] 25 day of march Ensuing./

Whereas John Harris Gunner makeing leave to go off the
Said Island in y[e] good Ship Advice Frigott bound for Fort S[t] George was our
consent of another man to succeed his place of Gunner mate We have thought
fitt to grant Thomas Harper Guns in his stead and Stephen Child Soldier to be
Gunners groom in y[e] said Harpers place whose pay commencing from
y[e] 5th Instant./

M[r] Thomas Goodwin and James Rider Executors
of y[e] last will and Testament of Katherine Freisdale Presented to Governor and
Councill her Inventory of Land and Negroes her Estate who made oath to
y[e] said Inventory each true according to y[e] best of their knowledge and the
same being produced in Councill Amounting unto Five Pounds Cash
which was thought full reasonable and accordingly allowed out of the said
Estate by Governor and Councill./

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Ja: Easthope to have y[e]
afores[ai]d house at five
pounds p annum

Thomas Harper made
Gunn[er]s mate &
Ste[ph]en Child made
y[e] s[ai]d Harpers

M[r] Tho[s] Goodwin and
James Rider presented
to Gov[er]n[or] & Councill the
Inventory of Katherine
Freisdale dece[ase]d estate

It was ordered that James Easthope should be granted the house formerly known as Smouts at a rent of £5 0s 0d per year, with the term to begin on 25 March 1701.

John Harris, gunner, requested permission to leave the island on the ship Advice, bound for Fort St George. This was agreed on condition that a replacement was appointed. Thomas Harper was assigned as gunner’s mate in his place. Stephen Child, a soldier, was appointed as gunner’s groom in place of Harper. Their pay was set to begin from 5 December 1700.

Thomas Goodwin and James Rider, executors of the last will and testament of Katherine Freisdale, presented an inventory of her estate to the Governor and Council. The estate included land and slaves. They swore that the inventory was accurate to the best of their knowledge. The costs presented amounted to £5 0s 0d in cash, which was judged reasonable and allowed from the estate.

Interpretations

The leasing of Smouts house at a fixed annual rent showed that property under Company control was formally allocated through regulated tenancy agreements. The specified start date of 25 March reflected the use of a standard administrative year for rents and contracts.

The reassignment of roles following John Harris’s departure demonstrated how technical and military positions were managed within a structured hierarchy. Each vacancy triggered a chain of appointments, ensuring that essential functions, such as artillery service, continued without interruption.

The presentation and approval of Katherine Freisdale’s estate inventory showed that executors were required to account formally for assets, including land and slaves. The sworn declaration confirmed legal responsibility for accuracy, while the Council’s approval indicated oversight of estate administration and the authorisation of expenses charged against it.

Speculations

The condition that John Harris’s departure required a replacement before approval suggested that skilled roles such as gunner could not be left vacant without risk to the island’s defence. This requirement probably ensured continuity in artillery readiness, which was critical for a fortified settlement.

The allowance of £5 0s 0d from Katherine Freisdale’s estate, described as reasonable, may have reflected standard administrative or funeral expenses that executors were permitted to recover. The Council’s approval implied a need to control deductions from estates to prevent misuse or excessive claims.

121

121

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day 17: day of December 1700 Att Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Bright dep[ut]y Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensigne

Mr Carne brought and delivered an Inventory of Eleanor
Beales estate, and that y[e] said Inventory was taken according to the
best knowledge of him and John Packman and Sam[ue]l Wrangham appraisers made
oath that y[e] goods and effects belonging to the said estate is appraised according
to y[e] best of their knowledge and skill./

It is ordered

That the said Inventory be approved of and recd, and Coppy given when
demanded.

Whereas Gabriel Powell who married y[e] widow of Jonas Beales
haveing in his possession Thirty acres of Land w[hi]ch belonged to his said deceased wife
and haveing also a boy borne by his said wife Consent of y[e] said Land untill y[e]
said boy in England who being convicted of haveing no title to the same but being only
his wifes, and Land hath thereon grown pro[...]es according to y[e] said
Land some of whereof being to take them out being going planted
and likewise desires to keep Fifteen acres of y[e] said Thirty Land whereon his said
House and plantation upon Consideration

It is ordered

That y[e] said Gab[rie]l Powell have fifteen months time to digg his said provisions
out of y[e] said Land and that he have for three years Land for y[e] same of Three
years at y[e] rate and price of Fifteen shillings p annu[m] beginning to begin from the
25 day of march 1701 But to pay twenty shilling y[e] first year besides
the acco[un]t of Governor & Revenue./

Margin Notes:
Mr Carne brought an Inven-
tory of Eleanor Beales
Estate which was recd

Gab: Powell to have
fifteen months time
to Digg up [...]
out of y[e] Plantation
w[hi]ch formerly belonged
to Jon: Beale widow
Deceased.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 17 December 1700. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

Mr Carne presented an inventory of the estate of Eleanor Beale, deceased. He stated that it had been prepared to the best of his knowledge. John Packman and Samuel Wrangham, acting as appraisers, swore that the goods and effects belonging to the estate had been valued according to their best knowledge and skill. It was ordered that the inventory should be accepted and approved. A copy was to be provided when requested.

Gabriel Powell, who married the widow of Jonas Beale, held thirty acres of land that had belonged to his late wife. A son had been born to her, and the land was considered to belong to that child. Powell was found to have no legal title to the land, as it formed part of his wife’s estate. Crops had been planted on the land, and he asked for time to remove them. He also asked to retain fifteen acres of the land, including the house and plantation he occupied.

It was ordered that Gabriel Powell should have fifteen months to remove his crops from the land. He was also granted the use of fifteen acres for a term of three years at a rent of 15s 0d per year, beginning on 25 March 1701. For the first year, he was required to pay 20s 0d, in addition to the usual payments due to the Governor and the revenue.

Interpretations

The approval of Eleanor Beale’s estate inventory showed that estates were formally assessed through sworn appraisers. This process ensured that property could be accounted for and distributed under official supervision, which protected the interests of heirs and creditors.

The finding that Gabriel Powell had no title to the land demonstrated that property rights followed inheritance rules rather than marital possession. Land belonging to a deceased wife could pass to her child, even if the husband remained in occupation.

The grant of time to remove crops recognised the practical value of labour already invested in the land. Allowing a fixed period to harvest or recover produce balanced legal ownership with economic reality.

The lease of fifteen acres to Powell at a set rent showed how disputed or inherited land could be regularised through tenancy. The higher payment in the first year indicated an adjusted rate, perhaps to account for prior occupation or to secure compliance with the new terms.

Speculations

The decision to allow Gabriel Powell fifteen months to remove his crops probably reflected concern that immediate eviction would waste cultivated provisions. The extended period suggests that the crops were already established and formed a significant part of his subsistence or income.

The requirement that Powell pay a higher rent in the first year may have been intended to compensate for his earlier occupation of the land without clear legal title. This arrangement allowed the authorities to enforce ownership rules while avoiding direct conflict or disruption to agricultural production.

122

122

Mr Carne desires that he may have y[e] other fifteen acres of Land
that lyes said Powells land in his possession and also to hire the Hilly acre
that belongs to Jonathan Beale orphans take in y[e] Possession of
Eleanor Beale dec[ease]d,

It is ordered

That y[e] said M[r] Carne have y[e] said 15 Acres of Land at y[e] same rate
aforesaid & also to hire halfe land the said 30 Acres at y[e] same rate as
John Johnson hath y[e] other halfe due to y[e] R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y./

Whereas y[e] groomy[n] Marsh in their possession Seventy Seven Shill[ings] odd
which cannot take John Johnson to buy her some Cattle and accordingly got her
Brother in Law John to receive her by some for her aforesaid acco[un]t ask could
this allowance on acco[un]t of four head, whereof Two heifers and one horse
Colt that he had bought of Rich[ard] Harding for y[e] Sume of fifteen pounds fifteen
shill[ings] but y[e] said debt amounting but to Ten pounds Sixteen Shill[ings] the
remainders being Two pounds nine Shill[ings] was paid in store Creditt due to her/

Robert Leech and Thomas Harper Presented their Petition
Humbly desireing that we would be so favourable as to accept of four goates
that they have killed being rather willing to pay what Fine than to
suffer y[e] Law and disgrace of haling up their heeles at y[e] said Theowor./

It is ordered

That our first result of Councill be Executed, according to y[e] Consultation
Held on Tuesday y[e] 3d of Instant, it being a thing that Concerns y[e] whole
Island.

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
M[r] Carne desires he
may have y[e] other
Land of Powells
Possession & 30 Acres
y[t] belong to Jon Beale
Orphans

M[r] Carne to have y[e] 15 ac-
res of land at y[e] same rate
as Powells and y[e] 30
acres at y[e] Rate as John
Johnson hath y[e] other halfe

John Johnson bought
some Cattle for Eleanor
Steveng &c.

Rob[er]t Leech & Thomas
Harper offered four
goates to Gov[er]n[or] & Councill
for y[e] goates they killed
but not granted.

Mr Carne asked to take possession of the remaining fifteen acres of land that had been held by Gabriel Powell. He also asked to rent the “Hilly Acre” and the thirty acres that belonged to the orphans of Jonathan Beale, which had been in the possession of Eleanor Beale, deceased.

It was ordered that Mr Carne should have the fifteen acres at the same annual rate previously set. He was also allowed to rent half of the thirty acres at the same rate as that paid by John Johnson for the other half, with the rent due to the Right Honourable Company.

An account was presented concerning money held for a woman, recorded as 77s 0d in total. This sum had been entrusted to John Johnson so that he could purchase cattle on her behalf. He arranged for her brother-in-law to receive the animals. Four head were bought from Richard Harding, consisting of two heifers and one horse colt, for £15 15s 0d. The amount actually due from her funds was £10 16s 0d, and the remaining £2 9s 0d was settled in store credit in her favour.

Robert Leech and Thomas Harper submitted a petition. They admitted to killing four goats and asked that their offer of payment should be accepted in place of the legal punishment, so that they might avoid public disgrace.

It was ordered that the earlier decision of the Council, made on 3 December 1700, should be enforced. The matter was stated to concern the whole island.

Interpretations

The allocation of land to Mr Carne showed that land formerly held under uncertain or disputed tenure could be redistributed through formal lease arrangements. The matching of rent to existing agreements, such as that held by John Johnson, indicated an effort to standardise charges and maintain consistency in land valuation.

The reference to land belonging to Jonathan Beale’s orphans confirmed that property was held in trust for minors and managed under supervision. Leasing such land generated income while preserving the underlying ownership for the heirs.

The cattle transaction demonstrated the use of intermediaries to manage funds and purchases. The mixture of cash accounting and store credit showed that the Company’s store functioned as a parallel financial system, where balances could be settled without direct payment in coin.

The refusal to accept compensation from Robert Leech and Thomas Harper indicated that certain offences, such as the unlawful killing of livestock, were treated as matters of public concern rather than private settlement. Enforcement of the earlier order showed that penalties could be imposed to uphold general discipline rather than negotiated away.

Speculations

The decision to let Mr Carne take over land previously held by Gabriel Powell probably reflected a need to stabilise control over property that had been subject to dispute. Assigning it to a different tenant under clear terms reduced the risk of continued conflict over ownership.

The rejection of Leech and Harper’s offer to pay for the goats suggested that the authorities intended to make an example of them. Their request to avoid public humiliation indicated that the punishment involved visible disgrace, and the refusal implied that deterrence for the wider community was considered more important than restitution alone.

123

123

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Wednesday the 1 day of Jan[uar]y 1700/1 Att
Fort James.

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Gov[er]n[or]
Thomas Bright d[e]p[ut]y
Thomas Goodwin, Ensigne

Whereas the time being this day fully Expired, y[t]
was granted to Severall Inhabitants of this Island that understood
to Distill any more arrack from potatoes but being Informed that
Contrary to their agreement, and Some of them begun to Continue to
Distill againe Therefore for preventing y[e] Same and have thought fitt
and accordingly ordered That y[e] following advertisement the next
day should out as followeth

By the Govern[or] & Councill
An Advertisement

Whereas by the R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]ys Instructions bearing
date y[e] 15th day of december 1698, We have Express orderd to do out
Endeavour to putt an End to y[e] Distilling of Liquors on this Island which
hitherto we have done as y[e] bottle & Rum[ed] pref[e]r In allowing any Person
to pay Excise money for Every hundred weight of y[e] Comp[an]ys wood, and four
pence a gallon on Single Liquore w[hi]ch is more that Large might had
in y[e] paragraph of y[e] said Instructions a coppy thereof being Inserted next
and as both in July ceases in reality ready to put the s[ai]d Hon[oura]ble
in Execution, But y[e] most part of y[e] free Planters y[t] had

Margin Notes:
The Time for dist-
illing y[e] arrack is
Expired &c.

An Advertise-
ment about distil-
ling of arrack &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 1 January 1701. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

The period previously allowed to several inhabitants to distil arrack from potatoes had expired on that day. It was reported that, contrary to their agreement, some had begun to continue distilling. To prevent this, it was ordered that an official notice should be issued the following day.

The notice, issued by the Governor and Council, stated that the Right Honourable Company had given instructions dated 15 December 1698 requiring all efforts to be made to end the distilling of liquor on the island. Until that point, the practice had been regulated rather than stopped. Permission had been given for individuals to pay excise duties, set at a charge for each hundredweight of the Company’s wood used and 4d per gallon on single liquor. This arrangement had been allowed even though it extended beyond what was authorised in the instructions. A copy of the relevant instruction was to be included in the notice. Despite earlier measures, most free planters had continued the practice.

Interpretations

The expiry of the permitted period for distillation showed that the authorities used temporary licences to control activities that were officially discouraged. Once the term ended, continued production became a breach of regulation.

The reference to Company instructions from 15 December 1698 demonstrated that local policy was directed by central authority. The Governor and Council were responsible for enforcing these instructions, even when they had previously allowed limited exceptions.

The system of excise payments on wood and distilled liquor indicated a regulated economy in which prohibited activities could be temporarily tolerated in return for revenue. This approach balanced enforcement with financial benefit to the Company.

The decision to issue a public advertisement showed reliance on formal proclamation to enforce policy. By publishing both the rule and its authority, the administration reinforced compliance and justified stricter enforcement.

Speculations

The continuation of distilling after the permitted period expired suggested that inhabitants depended on arrack production either for income or consumption, making enforcement difficult. The earlier decision to allow excise payments may have been a compromise to manage widespread non-compliance while still extracting revenue.

The move to reissue the Company’s instructions and publish them formally probably reflected a shift from tolerance to stricter enforcement. The authorities may have judged that continued leniency undermined their authority, especially when most free planters ignored the limits previously set.

124

124

Island Presented to us their Humble Petitions, To the End we would be
so kinde Considering that had taken a great deale of Pains vines before
they had brought to perfect thereat Humbled To permit them to Distill
liquor of that planted, and grant them time to doe it, which was agreed to
upon by y[e] the 15 day of august last past ensueing untill y[e] 15th of this instant
and y[e] said Planters nott desiring any more, Wee (although by their
Impealing our masters displeasure) To but the Right hon[oura]ble the Court of Directors
whose orders we had undertooke to [...] said request, but
matters haveing been [...] us, that some of them do Intend to Continue
Distilling against those their agreements aforesaid, mee[...] considering
there being others that may of Course for their shipps And if through y[e] Coward
now here should by their Example should thinke Distilling here, more then
have accorded and Wee the Governour and Councill do hereby declare
that if any person whatsoever do offer to Distill Directly or indirectly the
first time forfeits Ten pounds for y[e] Second Six pounds, & if
Said persons shall presume at third time shall be severely punished according
thereof, and also that whatsoever should presume not to offer or sum
one Another Business into any persons whatsoever upon paine of
the above fines.

By y[e] Governour and Councill ordered y[e] p[re]sident in Distilled Rum
as other Liquors which had before ou[...][...] our maine intention is to prevent distill
ing of all Liquor whatsoever The Governour shall grant to y[e] great destruction of
Plantation [...] to b[...][...] branches Shrubbs wanting their Roots & Including
Inasmuch prevent Excess drunkenness through place or [...] the Inhabitants of this
Island by all their many [...] taken that the Comp[an]ys wood and you [...] but
for Necessary Occasions and more wholesome [...] lying we
being [...] by Experience being [...] through y[e] use of Sugar./

Dated att Fort James
this 15th day of Jan[uar]y 1700/1
Signed p[er] order of Govern[or] & Councill

Jo: Alexander

Margin Notes:
their persons that Sub-
scribed and agreed
not to Distill any more
Arrack &c

Henry Coles
William Marsh
Thomas Nickels
James Rider
Josiah Sciller
James Briscoe
Mary Rosgrave
James Warrin
John Woodget
Grace Coulson
William Huck
James Sherwood

The inhabitants of the island had earlier submitted petitions asking for permission to distil liquor from crops they had already planted. They stated that they had taken considerable labour to bring these plants to maturity and asked for time to complete the process. This request had been granted on 15 August 1700, allowing them to continue distilling until 15 January 1701. At that time, the planters did not ask for any further extension.

The Governor and Council agreed to this arrangement, although it risked displeasing the Right Honourable Company, whose instructions required the practice to be stopped. This concession was made in response to the planters’ circumstances. It was then reported that some intended to continue distilling beyond the agreed period. There was concern that others, including those supplying ships, might follow this example and extend the practice further.

The Governor and Council declared that any person who attempted to distil liquor, whether directly or indirectly, would face penalties. A first offence would incur a fine of £10 0s 0d. A second offence would incur a fine of £6 0s 0d. A third offence would result in severe punishment. Anyone who assisted or encouraged others to distil would face the same penalties.

The order applied to all forms of distilled liquor, including rum. The stated aim was to end distillation entirely. The measure also aimed to prevent damage to plantations caused by cutting wood, branches, and shrubs for fuel. It further sought to reduce excessive drunkenness among the inhabitants. The Governor was instructed to restrict the use of the Company’s wood to necessary purposes and to discourage the misuse of resources. The order stated that experience had shown harm arising from the production of liquor from sugar.

The order was dated at Fort James on 15 January 1701 and was issued by command of the Governor and Council, signed by John Alexander.

A list of inhabitants was recorded as having agreed not to distil arrack. These included Henry Coles, William Marsh, Thomas Nickels, James Rider, Josiah Sciller, James Briscoe, Mary Rosgrave, James Warrin, John Woodget, Grace Coulson, William Huck, and James Sherwood.

Interpretations

The temporary licence granted in August 1700 showed that the authorities allowed limited continuation of distillation to protect the value of existing crops. This reflected a balance between enforcing Company policy and avoiding immediate economic loss for planters.

The structured system of escalating fines demonstrated a formal enforcement mechanism designed to deter repeated offences. The increase from £10 0s 0d to £6 0s 0d, followed by unspecified severe punishment, showed that financial penalties were combined with the threat of harsher sanctions to ensure compliance.

The inclusion of those who assisted or encouraged distilling extended liability beyond direct offenders. This widened the scope of enforcement and prevented indirect support for prohibited activity.

The restriction on the use of the Company’s wood revealed that control of natural resources formed part of governance. Wood was treated as a regulated asset, and its use for distillation was seen as wasteful and damaging to plantations.

The naming of individuals who agreed not to distil showed that compliance could be recorded publicly. This created accountability within the community and allowed the authorities to identify those bound by agreement.

Speculations

The decision to grant a temporary extension in August 1700 probably reflected concern that immediate enforcement would destroy crops that had already required significant labour. Allowing time to complete distillation preserved their value while delaying strict compliance.

The strong penalties introduced after January 1701 suggest that the authorities faced persistent resistance from planters. The combination of fines, broader liability, and public naming indicates that earlier voluntary agreements had failed, and stricter measures were needed to reassert control.

The emphasis on protecting wood resources and reducing drunkenness suggests that distillation created both environmental strain and social disorder. The authorities may have judged that continued tolerance risked long-term damage to the island’s economy and discipline, especially if the practice spread further among inhabitants and those supplying ships.

125

125

Island St Helena

Att a Court of Justice Held
on Monday the 8th day of Jan[ua]ry 1700/1
Att y[e] R[igh]t Hon[oura]ble Comp[an]ys Fort Rome near
Fort James.

Step: Poirier Govern[or] & Judge
Thom[a]s Bright d[e]p[ut]y Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensigne

Then the Court was opened according to y[e] usuall manner and
those persons appointed for Jurors were as followeth./

John Greentree . . . one
William Reeve . . . 2
John [...] . . . 3
James Rider . . . 4
Thomas [...] . . . 5
John Ward . . . 6
Eadw[ar]d Brayne . . . 7
Will[iam] Milley . . . 8
Joseph [...] . . . 9
John Goodwin . . . 10
Rich[ard] [...] . . . 11
Edward Brayne . . . 12

Who being all called over answered to their names, except James [...]
the defendant if he had any objection to make against any of them who
answered no, Wherefore the Court was opened and y[e] said defendant George
Powell of y[e] said Island free planter had his Declaration read against
him preferred by John [...] and John [...] church wardens
for that he y[e] said Gabriel Powell had Induced a good Scandall upon
all white woman on y[e] said Island, in reporting that he saw y[e] Governour
of y[e] good Ship Scepter w[i]th y[e] Monyer [...] and with a woman
but changed into y[e] open Street and there f[...] her, and when they
had done their wicked action, went into y[e] house hand in hand

Margin Notes:
Gabriell Powells
Tryall for Scande-
lizing y[e] White
women on y[e] Island

A Court of Justice was held at the Company’s Fort at Ruperts, near Fort James, on 8 January 1701. Stephen Poirier presided as Governor and Judge, with Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

The court was opened in the usual manner. The jurors appointed were John Greentree, William Reeve, John [...], James Rider, Thomas [...], John Ward, Edward Brayne, William Milley, Joseph [...], John Goodwin, Richard [...], and Edward Brayne. All were called and answered to their names, except James [...]. The defendant was asked whether he objected to any of the jurors. He raised no objection. The court then proceeded.

Gabriel Powell, a free planter, was brought to trial. A formal declaration was read against him, submitted by the churchwardens, John [...] and John [...]. He was accused of spreading a serious scandal against the white women of the island. The charge stated that he had claimed to see the master of the ship Sceptre with a woman. He described them as moving into the open street, where they committed an indecent act, and then returning into a house together.

Interpretations

The convening of a Court of Justice with a jury showed that formal criminal and civil cases were tried through a structured legal process. The Governor acted as judge, but the jury played a central role in determining the outcome.

The involvement of churchwardens as complainants indicated that offences relating to reputation and morality fell within their responsibility. Their role extended beyond church matters into the regulation of behaviour within the community.

The charge of scandal against the white women of the island showed that reputation was treated as a collective concern. An accusation affecting one woman could be framed as an offence against a wider social group, especially within a small settlement.

The procedure of asking the defendant to object to jurors demonstrated an established right to challenge the composition of the jury. This suggests a recognised standard of fairness in the legal process.

Speculations

The framing of the accusation as a scandal against all white women suggests that the authorities sought to elevate the seriousness of the case. By presenting it as a collective offence, the prosecution increased the weight of the charge and reinforced social boundaries within the settlement.

The involvement of churchwardens in bringing the case indicates that the matter had already caused public concern. Their action probably reflected pressure to address rumours that threatened the standing of households connected to the garrison and maritime community.

126

126

The said Powell being asked what he had to say for himself
answered that he sayd that twas he said it was a white woman
he saw y[e] said woman, whose name is Sherwood Deborah
of the Scepter, and that he was not afraid to make oath named
woman which he accordingly take his oath of./

Mary Woodman were called & sworne

Mary the wife of John Wood being sworne saith as in her
[..] declaration made in y[e] Consultation Held on Tuesday y[e] 8 day of
December 1701./

Bridget wife of Matthew Barrett being sworne saith that
Gabriel Powell being at their house some time ago w[i]th severall
other persons a [...] on against aboute Two of y[e] clock in y[e] morning and
there an hour or something after came into y[e] house againe and
said he had seen a man and a woman come out of their owne house
as he was going through y[e] Alley by Mr Littlers, and Saw him Lay her
downe, and Commited a very unseemly action, and afterwards tooke her up
againe, and went into y[e] house hand in hand, further adding as in
her former declaration in y[e] Consultation Held y[e] 8 day of Decem[be]r afores[ai]d./

Matthew Barrett being sworne saith he being at
Sam[ue]l Wranghams house, heard some of y[e] company that was with
him asked y[e] said Powell who was the lady who it was he Saw [...]
in y[e] road, and therefore if a woman was a freemans wife or that he
husband belonged to y[e] Garrison who answered god he belong to the
Garrison./

George Hutchison being sworne saith that he being
at Sam[ue]l Wranghams house w[i]th severall other persons heard some of the
Company that was there asked y[e] Said Gab[riel] Powell who it was he had
seen lye in y[e] Street y[e] night before, who said he would not tell them
but a little after heard him say that he Saw a man and woman come
by him as he was easing himselfe and Saw him Lay her downe and
take her up againe, and that he had not power to get up againe till they
had done, and amongst this discourse this deponent asked y[e] said Powell
if y[e] man could tell blood or no, who replyed yes I believe he can
but one that you are very well acquainted withall. John the Carpenter
answered he promised to lye w[i]th me that night.

Gabriel Powell was asked to answer the charge. He stated that he had said the woman was white and identified her as Deborah Sherwood of the ship Sceptre. He declared that he was prepared to swear to this and then took an oath to that effect.

Mary Woodman, the wife of John Wood, was called and sworn. She confirmed the account she had already given in her earlier declaration made at the consultation held on 8 December 1701.

Bridget, the wife of Matthew Barrett, was sworn. She stated that Gabriel Powell had been at her house some time earlier with several other people. He went out at about two o’clock in the morning and returned roughly an hour later. He then said that he had seen a man and a woman come out of a house as he passed through the alley near Mr Littler’s. He said that he saw the man lay the woman down and commit an indecent act, then lift her up again, after which they went back into the house together holding hands. She added further details consistent with her earlier declaration made on 8 December 1700.

Matthew Barrett was sworn. He stated that he was at the house of Samuel Wrangham when others present asked Powell who the woman was that he had seen. Powell replied that she belonged to the garrison and was the wife of a freeman or a man connected to it.

George Hutchinson was sworn. He stated that, while at Samuel Wrangham’s house with several others, he heard members of the company ask Powell who he had seen lying in the street the previous night. Powell first refused to say. Shortly afterwards, he described seeing a man and a woman pass by him while he was relieving himself. He said he saw the man lay the woman down and then raise her again, and that he was too ashamed to move until they had finished. During this conversation, Hutchinson asked Powell whether the man could identify the woman. Powell replied that he believed he could, and that it was someone well known to those present. John the carpenter then said that the woman had promised to lie with him that night.

Interpretations

Gabriel Powell’s sworn statement identifying Deborah Sherwood showed that testimony under oath carried legal weight and exposed the speaker to serious consequences if false. By naming a specific woman, he moved from general accusation to a direct claim that could be tested in court.

The repeated use of earlier declarations demonstrated that evidence gathered in prior consultations could be formally incorporated into judicial proceedings. This created continuity between administrative inquiry and trial.

The questioning of Powell in a social setting before formal proceedings showed how information moved from informal discussion into legal scrutiny. Statements made in private gatherings could become the basis of public prosecution when they affected reputation.

The emphasis on whether the woman belonged to the garrison or was a freeman’s wife reflected the importance of status in determining the gravity of the accusation. Allegations involving women connected to the garrison carried heightened concern because they touched on the honour and discipline of the settlement.

Speculations

Gabriel Powell’s decision to name Deborah Sherwood under oath suggests that he chose to commit fully to a specific version of events rather than retreat from his earlier statements. This may have been an attempt to maintain credibility in the face of multiple witnesses who had already reported his claims.

The witnesses’ accounts show that Powell initially hesitated to identify the woman but later gave more detail when pressed. This pattern suggests that his story developed under social pressure during conversation, which may have contributed to inconsistencies that the court could examine.

127

127

Sam[ue]l Wrangham being Sworne Saith That y[e] said Gabriell
Powell and severall others being at his house, heard some of y[e] compan[y]
aske him what passages he had seen y[e] night before, who answered them
he Saw a man Lay a woman downe and take her up againe, and heard
Doctor Hutchison ask James his Carpenter if man could tell blood
or no, who answered yes I believe he Can, whereupon y[e] Said Hutchison ask
if he was to lye w[i]th me that night. But heard no woman named by the
Said Powell.

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed aboute halfe an houre
then returned and delivered their Verdict as followeth./

That y[e] Said Gabriell Powell was guilty of the accusation
in Scandalizing y[e] white woman of this Island and fined Ten dollars.

ordered by y[e] Court

That the Said Powell be fined five shillings more to y[e] R[igh]t Hon[oura]ble
Company

Then

Thomas Harper and Robert Leach
being called into Court To answer to their Indictment for Unlawful-
ly killing four of y[e] R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]ys Tame goats Vnder
pretence of being wild, The Jury Judged that we would be favourable
as to pardon them, haveing committed y[e] Crime unwillingly and being
but raw young men, In this one offence, and not to proceed against
them to y[e] rigour of y[e] Law made To this purpose Upon mature
Consideration. It is ordered at y[e] Jurys request

That y[e] Said Thomas Harper and Robert Leach do pay four Goats for
those Goats they killed as followeth, That y[e] Say Eight Dollars To the
R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y and four dollars more to y[e] use of y[e] Church besides
paying Court Charges, and admonished for y[e] future.

Margin Notes:
Gab[rie]ll Powell fined
10 Doll[ar]s for y[e] Church in
Scandele[zi]ng y[e] white
women

Thom[as] Harper &c
Rob[er]t Leech to pay
four fold for the
Goates they killed

Samuel Wrangham was sworn. He stated that Gabriel Powell and several others were at his house when members of the company asked Powell what he had seen the previous night. Powell replied that he saw a man lay a woman down and then lift her up again. Wrangham heard Doctor Hutchinson ask James the carpenter whether the man could identify the woman, to which the answer was that he believed he could. Hutchinson then asked whether the woman had agreed to lie with him that night. Wrangham stated that he did not hear Powell name any woman.

The jury withdrew for about half an hour. They then returned and delivered their verdict. Gabriel Powell was found guilty of scandalising the white women of the island. He was fined 10 dollars. It was further ordered that he should pay an additional 5s 0d to the Right Honourable Company.

Thomas Harper and Robert Leech were then called to answer their indictment for unlawfully killing four of the Company’s tame goats under the claim that they were wild. The jury recommended that they should be treated with leniency, as they had acted without intent and were young and inexperienced, and that the full severity of the law should not be applied.

After consideration, it was ordered, in accordance with the jury’s request, that Thomas Harper and Robert Leech should make restitution at fourfold value for the goats. They were to pay 8 dollars to the Right Honourable Company and a further 4 dollars to the use of the church. They were also required to pay the costs of the court and were formally warned against future offences.

Interpretations

The verdict against Gabriel Powell showed that reputational offences were punishable by financial penalties. The fine, divided between a general sum and an additional payment to the Company, reflected both a moral judgement and a formal breach of order within the settlement.

The jury’s role in determining both guilt and recommending leniency demonstrated that community judgement influenced not only the outcome but also the severity of punishment. Their input shaped the final decision of the court.

The case of Thomas Harper and Robert Leech showed that unlawful taking of Company property, even when claimed to be accidental, remained a serious offence. However, the court accepted mitigating factors such as youth and inexperience.

The requirement to pay fourfold compensation indicated a structured penalty designed to exceed simple restitution. This reinforced deterrence while compensating both the Company and the church, showing that penalties could be distributed between institutional bodies.

The formal warning issued alongside financial penalties demonstrated that discipline combined punishment with correction, aiming to prevent repeated offences.

Speculations

The jury’s relatively quick deliberation suggests that the multiple consistent witness statements carried strong weight against Gabriel Powell, even though some testimony differed on whether a woman was named. The decision to convict indicates that the court prioritised the overall effect of his statements on public reputation rather than precise consistency in detail.

The lenient treatment of Thomas Harper and Robert Leech probably reflected the jury’s assessment that their actions did not threaten wider order in the same way as deliberate theft or repeated offences. By imposing financial penalties instead of harsher punishment, the court balanced discipline with the retention of young labourers within the settlement.

128

128

Island St Helena

Whereas at a Court held on Monday the 6th of this
Instant Edward and Sam[ue]ll Gourlay appointed to determine se[ver]all
cases in action entred in y[e] Court who the day after Richard Gurling
preferred his Petition against the s[ai]d Edward Gourlay who purchased
of Gabriell Powell twenty acres of Land Lying on the Hills neare James
Valley the same of whereas the said Gourlay gave a bond to pay the
said Gurling twenty pounds which he is ready to
make as by bargain made [...] by bond appeared which he is ready to
perform but Edward Gourlay endeavoured by his Petition shewing that in
his treaty Gurling pay the said James it cant be both motherwise but to be
part of his Estate being removed there and consequently he as haveing
found that out in the warrantee ought to have his third part of the 20
which Richard Gurling made over to him therefore his father made the
Richard Gurling other would be ready and willing being what he made
is made for the said agreement but y[e] said Gurling being not may have
agreed to [...] the business set by the said Bond doth this day
[...] acknowledge neither [...] to end in this case and seeing what his father did shall
be accounted in his power and consequently had his former paid [...] him
the said twenty pounds although the bond delivered and returned to the
said Richard Gurling, provided always that neither y[e] said Gurling nor
his heirs present shall not at y[e] Law hereafter wrong this
because Gurling [...] having formally signed the said
bond to [...] when they are pleased to require it./

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
A Bargaine ab[ou]t
30 acres of Land
between Richard
Gurling & Gabriell
Powell

A court had been held on Monday 6 January 1701, at which Edward Gourlay and Samuel Gourlay were appointed to determine several cases then entered. On the following day, Richard Gurling submitted a petition concerning a dispute with Edward Gourlay.

The matter concerned twenty acres of land near James Valley that Edward Gourlay had purchased from Gabriel Powell. Richard Gurling held a bond from Gourlay for £20 0s 0d, which Gourlay was prepared to pay according to their agreement. However, Gourlay argued that the land formed part of an estate to which he had a further claim. He maintained that, under the terms of the transaction and the circumstances of the estate, he was entitled to a third share of the twenty acres that had been transferred.

Gurling disputed this position and sought enforcement of the bond as originally agreed. After consideration, it was accepted that the bond for £20 0s 0d remained valid and should be honoured. Gourlay acknowledged the obligation and agreed to fulfil it.

It was further agreed that the bond, once satisfied, would be returned to Richard Gurling. A condition was set that neither Gurling nor his heirs should bring any further legal action on this matter. The agreement was to stand as a full settlement, and both parties were to adhere to its terms when required.

Interpretations

The use of a bond for £20 0s 0d showed a formal contractual mechanism to secure payment in land transactions. Such bonds created enforceable obligations and could be brought before the court if disputed.

The involvement of Edward and Samuel Gourlay in determining cases indicated that delegated judicial authority could be granted to individuals to manage caseloads. This reflects a flexible administrative structure in which responsibility could be distributed beyond the central court.

The dispute over whether the land formed part of an estate revealed the complexity of property rights where inheritance and sale overlapped. Claims based on estate entitlement could challenge completed transactions, requiring formal adjudication.

The condition that no further legal action should be brought demonstrated an effort to produce finality in disputes. By binding both parties to accept the outcome, the court limited the risk of ongoing litigation and preserved administrative stability.

Speculations

Edward Gourlay’s claim to a third share of the land suggests that he discovered a potential inheritance interest after entering into the purchase agreement. His attempt to assert this right may have been an effort to reduce his financial obligation under the bond.

The requirement that the bond be honoured while preventing future claims indicates that the court sought to balance competing interests by enforcing the original agreement while closing off further dispute. This approach probably aimed to prevent prolonged conflict over land ownership in a small and closely managed settlement.

129

129

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day y[e] 23 day of January 1700/1 Att Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Tho[mas] Bright dep[ut]y Govern[or]
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas on friday y[e] 18 Instant, Widow Beloved
and Robert Leach were fightting in y[e] fort valley which the
Governour being made acquainted w[i]th sent y[e] Serj[ean]t of y[e] Guard and
Two Sold[ie]rs to fetch them downe into y[e] Fort who were Examined
and to prevent any more quarelling were both bound over to y[e] Peace
till this day, and were further Examined and their Evidence also./

Robert Leach Saith that he being persuading his mother to make
over some part of her thirds of his deceased father’s Estate to his Brothers and
Sister before she was married to y[e] said William Beloved which he bearing
being below staires came running up and tooke by his necker the
Shoulders Saying Sarah what have you to doe with who replyed yes he
had, whereupon y[e] said Beloved struck him a fist to fighting./

The Said Beloved saith upon his demanding of y[e] said Rob[er]t
Leach what he had to doe w[i]th his mothers thirds told him he had and
so struck him first which was y[e] cause of their fighting./

William Marsh being sworne Saith That he and y[e] said Rob[er]t
Leach came downe to y[e] fort to persuade Mrs Leach to make over
Something to her youngest Children before she was married, and accor-
dingly afore as they came downe the said Rob[er]t Leach desired his mother
to make over Something of her thirds of his fathers Estate To some of her
his Brothers and Sisters, before she was married to y[e] said Beloved w[hi]ch
he hearing swore by his maker she should not then y[e] said Rob[er]t Leach
answered what have you to do w[i]th it who replyed I have and called y[e] Said Leach
severall names, upon which fell to fighting./

Margin Notes:
W[illia]m Beloved
& Robert Leech
fell out over
to y[e] Peace for
quarelling one
with the other &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 January 1701. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

On Friday 18 January 1701, Widow Beloved and Robert Leech were involved in a fight in the valley near the fort. The Governor was informed and sent the sergeant of the guard with two soldiers to bring them into the fort. They were examined and, to prevent further disturbance, were bound over to keep the peace until this day. They were then examined again, along with witnesses.

Robert Leech stated that he had been urging his mother to transfer part of her share of his deceased father’s estate to his brothers and sister before her marriage to William Beloved. When Beloved heard this, he came upstairs, seized him by the shoulders, and challenged his right to interfere. Leech replied that he had a right, and Beloved struck him, which led to the fight.

William Beloved stated that he asked Robert Leech what right he had to involve himself in his mother’s share of the estate. He claimed that Leech answered that he did have a right, and that Leech struck him first, which caused the fight.

William Marsh, who was sworn, stated that he and Robert Leech went to the fort to persuade Mrs Leech to assign part of her share of her late husband’s estate to her younger children before her marriage to William Beloved. He confirmed that Leech made this request to his mother. Beloved, hearing this, declared strongly that it would not be allowed. Leech replied by questioning his authority, and Beloved answered that he had a right and called Leech several insulting names. The dispute then led to fighting.

Interpretations

The act of binding both parties over to keep the peace showed a preventative legal measure used to control disorder. Individuals involved in conflict were required to give security for good behaviour, which allowed authorities to manage disputes without immediate punishment.

The dispute over the widow’s share of her late husband’s estate revealed the importance of marriage in altering property control. A remarriage could affect how assets were distributed among children, which prompted intervention from family members before the union took place.

The involvement of witnesses and repeated examination demonstrated a structured approach to resolving personal disputes. Testimony from those present was used to establish the sequence of events and responsibility for the conflict.

The Governor’s immediate intervention through military personnel showed that maintaining order, even in private disputes, was treated as a matter of public authority within the settlement.

Speculations

Robert Leech’s attempt to persuade his mother to transfer part of her share before her remarriage suggests concern that William Beloved would gain control over the estate once the marriage took place. This indicates an effort by the children to secure their inheritance in advance.

William Beloved’s strong reaction and claim of authority imply that he expected to exercise control over his future wife’s property. The confrontation probably arose from this clash between family claims and the anticipated rights of a new husband, which quickly escalated into physical conflict.

130

130

[...] being Sworne Saith that he being upon y[e] valley
[...] would go in but refused to doe
[...] as to the said what mayst come in, in
[...] being [...] Shillings heard anger in y[e]
[...] William Beloved and Rob[er]t Leach
fighting, and William [...] thrust wife pull y[e] said Beloved by
[...] he had made Robert Leach strike him twice before

It is ordered

That y[e] said William Beloved and Rob[er]t Leach be fined five
shillings y[e] R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y for breach of y[e] Peace, and to pay Charges of
Councill jointly between them./

Whereas Complaint was made by y[e] Govern[or] That Gabriell Powell
and Mary Pouncey his wife did while the collecting of Jonathan Beale
and Mary Pouncey accounts be [...], and denying of haveing done any such thing
deposing of records, Then

Gabriell Powell being sworne Saith that Mary Pouncey on whom
being asked about a reckoning Read her say that her Brother Gabriel
had many friends and anybody would come and what he brought [...]
with the receipt here, and now Mary Pouncey found it, but knows of their
[...] to keep or care but y[e] [...] immediately, and that what
[...] Mr [...] asked him
that one of the Mr [...] one who was on his hand ask that she might
be sent out of y[e] Cabinet and did not question Randall brought home was
[...] always keeping there./

Mary Pouncey being Sworne Saith that about Six months agoe
y[e] Said Mary came to her mothers to buy Some Points for her, other
things asking of her owne meaning of hard things but she stayed very
[...] having of Friends would not would have one of them such a [...]
who desired y[e] should not for which he leans and Pickt y[e] stuff up
and how y[e] said one should deceive, who her Sister Christiana [...]
went to Mr Carne’s house who missed her y[e] mark that was on y[e] stuff
for h[...] takes and that Mr James on somebody at Thomas [...]

The said Mary Pouncey being Examined Saith that when she
was at Mr Carne they asked her severall questions, who told them
as they have already declared.

Margin Notes:
Gabriell Beloved & Rob[er]t
Leech fined 5s Each

Complaint made
ag[ain]st Gab[rie]l Powell and
Mary Pouncey his
wife for y[e] Stealing
and altering Some
Beales Orphans

A further witness was sworn and gave evidence that he was in the valley at the time of the disturbance. He heard anger and saw William Beloved and Robert Leech fighting. He stated that Beloved’s wife attempted to pull him away, and that Beloved had caused Leech to strike him more than once before the struggle continued.

It was ordered that William Beloved and Robert Leech should each be fined 5s 0d to the Right Honourable Company for breach of the peace. They were also required to pay the costs of the Council jointly.

A complaint was then raised by the Governor against Gabriel Powell and Mary Pouncey, his wife. They were accused of interfering with and altering accounts belonging to Jonathan Beale’s orphans, and of denying that they had done so.

Gabriel Powell was sworn. He stated that when Mary Pouncey was questioned about the accounts, she said that her brother Gabriel had many friends and that people would come and assist him. He referred to receipts and stated that the items in question had been found, but gave no clear admission of wrongdoing. He added that the matter concerned items kept in a cabinet and that they had been handled or removed, though he denied improper intent.

Mary Pouncey was sworn. She stated that about six months earlier, Mary had come to her mother’s house to buy certain items. She described handling goods and mentioned that markings on them were later missed or altered. She referred to movement between houses, including that of Mr Carne, and stated that questions had been put to her there. She confirmed that she had already given the same account when previously examined.

Interpretations

The fines imposed on William Beloved and Robert Leech showed that breaches of the peace were punished with standard monetary penalties. Even where fault was disputed, both parties could be held responsible for engaging in violence.

The complaint against Gabriel Powell and Mary Pouncey indicated that the property of orphans, including goods and financial accounts, was subject to strict supervision. Any interference with these assets was treated as a serious matter requiring formal inquiry.

The references to receipts, accounts, and stored goods suggested a system in which property was documented and tracked. Altering or removing such items risked undermining the administration of estates, especially those held for minors.

The repeated examinations of Mary Pouncey showed that testimony could be taken multiple times to test consistency. Movement of goods between houses and the involvement of several individuals indicated that property disputes could extend across households and require broader investigation.

Speculations

The unclear and shifting explanations given by Gabriel Powell and Mary Pouncey suggest that they were attempting to avoid direct admission while responding to specific accusations. The emphasis on receipts and recovered items indicates that some discrepancy had already been detected, prompting closer scrutiny.

The involvement of Mr Carne’s house and the reference to marked goods imply that the case may have turned on identifying specific items belonging to the orphans. The concern over altered or missing marks suggests that the dispute involved distinguishing ownership, which could have been obscured by handling or movement of goods between different households.

131

131

The Said Henry Francis Wife being Sworne Saith she saw Richard
one of y[e] Said Childrens backs bruised by blows, but how it came she Cant tell
and as to y[e] Front that she was in y[e] Study room and did not allow them
victualls Enough twas but a false and Lying accoun[t]

M[r] Wrangham Saith that Richard Beale came by their house
and haveing a black Eye, asked him how it Came who told her her second cousin
and did it, but afterwards told her Children, that Gab[r]i[e]ll Powell his father
in Law did it./

Mary y[e] Said Mr Wranghams daughter Saith that mattaw
y[e] said childrens black wench, told her aunt that Gab[r]i[e]ll Powill beat y[e]
Child because he would not touch y[e] turtle w[hi]ch Mr marks were on his
back made after, which M[r] Francis her aunt offered to Charles Steward
wife./

Charles Steward Saith that his wife told him that she had seen
one of Jonas Beales Childrens backs black and blue./

The Said Mr Francis further Saith that above two or three months
ago, she and her Husband William Riding and when they came home
towards the Castle went told them that Gab[r]i[e]ll Powell had Scolded Several times
the words not know y[e] truth, and he Said damn on his knees, saying he would
Say his prayers and do any thing but touch y[e] W[...] and her Sister Ellen being
there told her y[e] Same y[e] French hall, and who she Asked y[e] Child Saw
his back black and blue. Whereupon

It is ordered

That y[e] Said Gabriell Powell for abusing y[e] Said Beals Powell
Children be fined the Sume of twenty Shillings for the use and five shill[ings]
more to y[e] Comp[an]y, and forbidden to Strike Said Children any more directly
or indirectly on paine of Severe Punishment, and to pay Charges of Councill.

And that y[e] Said Mr Francis be acquitted of what is Laid to her
Charge in misusing y[e] Said Children./

M[r] Hacknald made Complaint that Richard Alexander shut one
of his Blacks and broake his head in his Plantation The Said Alexander
Denys it, but before how proceedings any further y[e] Said Hacknald desired y[t]
he would not do So any more, and upon promises they became friends.

Whereas

Margin Notes:
Gab[rie]ll Powell fined
20s to Beals Orphans
and 5s to y[e] Company

M[r] Hacknald Com-
plained ag[ain]st Rich[ar]d
Alexander for stri-
king his black &c.

Henry Francis’s wife was sworn. She stated that she saw bruises on the back of Richard, one of the Beale children, but could not say how they were caused. She denied claims that the children were not given enough food, describing that accusation as false.

Mr Wrangham stated that Richard Beale came past his house with a black eye. When asked how it happened, the child first said that a cousin had done it, but later said that Gabriel Powell, his father-in-law, had struck him.

Mary, daughter of Mr Wrangham, stated that the children’s slave girl told her aunt that Gabriel Powell had beaten the child because he refused to touch a turtle. She said that marks were later seen on the child’s back, which her aunt showed to the wife of Charles Steward.

Charles Steward stated that his wife told him she had seen one of the Beale children with a back that was black and blue.

Mrs Francis further stated that two or three months earlier she and her husband, along with William Riding, returned home and were told that Gabriel Powell had often scolded the child. She reported that the child had said he would do anything rather than touch the object in question and that others present confirmed seeing his back marked with bruises.

It was ordered that Gabriel Powell should be fined 20s 0d for the use of the Beale orphans and a further 5s 0d to the Right Honourable Company for abusing the children. He was forbidden to strike the children again, directly or indirectly, on pain of severe punishment. He was also required to pay the costs of the Council. Mrs Francis was cleared of the accusations made against her regarding mistreatment of the children.

Mr Hacknald then complained that Richard Alexander had struck one of his slaves and broken his head on his plantation. Alexander denied the charge. Before further proceedings were taken, Hacknald stated that he did not wish the matter to continue provided the behaviour ceased. On this basis, both parties agreed to settle the matter.

Interpretations

The fine imposed on Gabriel Powell showed that the mistreatment of orphaned children under supervision was subject to formal penalty. The payment directed to the orphans indicated that compensation could be awarded directly to those harmed, while the additional sum to the Company reflected a breach of authority.

The prohibition against further striking of the children demonstrated that guardians or those in authority over minors were subject to limits enforced by the Council. Physical punishment beyond accepted bounds triggered official intervention.

The reliance on testimony from multiple witnesses, including indirect reports through household members and a slave, showed that evidence could be built from a range of sources. Statements did not need to be based solely on direct observation if they formed a consistent pattern.

The dismissal of the case against Mrs Francis indicated that accusations of neglect or mistreatment required proof and could be formally cleared when unsupported.

The complaint involving Richard Alexander and the injured slave showed that violence against slaves could be brought before the authorities, but resolution could also occur through private agreement if the complainant chose not to pursue the case.

Speculations

The repeated references to bruising and conflicting explanations from the child suggest that fear or pressure may have influenced his initial account. The later attribution of the injury to Gabriel Powell indicates that the child may have changed his statement after further questioning or reassurance.

The decision by Hacknald to withdraw his complaint after receiving a promise suggests that maintaining working relationships within the plantation system was sometimes prioritised over formal punishment. The settlement indicates that practical cooperation between parties could outweigh the pursuit of legal action in cases involving labour and discipline.

132

132

Whereas Richard Ray s[ol]d[ie]r haveing contracted a marriage with
Eleanor Sterling but y[e] Governour being Informed that he had a wife
and Children in England Summoned him to appear this day before Governour
and Councill who being Examined, denys that Ever he was married, and offerd
to make oath to y[e] contrary.

John Hemmon Corp[ora]ll being Sworne Saith that y[e] Said Rich[ard] Ray
Told him aboute two months after he came to this Island, That he left a wife
and two Children in England, and that he left her four score pound upward
which he had w[i]th her./

Thomas Cortis being Sworne Saith that he being at y[e] s[ai]d
Hemmons house some time ago, they was a talking aboute some body
that was going to be married, the said Ray being there Sayd I thanke
God before I am married, to w[hi]ch replyed the said Hemmons wife remember
what wife and two Child, Sayes he shall nothing more overthrown hath had the
said Ray wife severall times he was with his wife and two Child meaning
his wife and two Children in England./

It is therefore ordered

That y[e] said Ray and Elin[or] Sterling be discharged and cleared
from Each other, and y[e] said Ray be whipt for offering such a thing./

Priscilla Grandy made Complaint that Richard Craven
stood indebted to her The Sume of fourty shill[ings] and Sixpence which he
refuses to pay her The said Craven being Called Saith he owes her but thirty
Shillings, which she accordingly made appeare by Contrary of her due./

It is ordered

That y[e] said Richard Craven pay y[e] said Priscilla Grandy only y[e] said
Sume of thirty Shillings aforesaid but he paid.

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Rich[ard] Ray & Elin[or]
Sterling haveing Con-
tracted a Marriage
together but proved
y[t] he hath a wife
Ray is married

Ray and Elin[or] Sterling
discharged & Cleared
from Each other.

Priscilla Grandy
complaines ag[ain]st Rich[ard]
Craven for money owing
her debt to her Confessed

The s[ai]d Craven to pay
Priscilla Grandy 30s
to her.

Richard Ray, a soldier, had arranged to marry Eleanor Sterling. The Governor received information that Ray already had a wife and children in England and ordered him to appear before the Council. When examined, Ray denied ever being married and offered to swear to this.

John Hemmons, a corporal, was sworn. He stated that about two months after Ray arrived on the island, Ray told him that he had left a wife and two children in England and that he had left her more than £80 0s 0d.

Thomas Cortis was sworn. He stated that while at Hemmons’s house, a conversation took place about someone intending to marry. Ray said that he thanked God he was not yet married. Hemmons’s wife reminded him of his wife and two children, to which Ray gave no proper denial. Cortis added that he had heard on several occasions that Ray had a wife and two children in England.

It was ordered that Richard Ray and Eleanor Sterling should be released from their intended marriage and cleared from any obligation to each other. Ray was to be whipped for attempting to enter into such a marriage.

Priscilla Grandy complained that Richard Craven owed her £2 0s 6d and refused to pay. When called, Craven admitted that he owed her £1 10s 0d. This amount was confirmed. It was ordered that Richard Craven should pay Priscilla Grandy the sum of £1 10s 0d, which he then paid.

Interpretations

The investigation into Richard Ray’s intended marriage showed that marital status was subject to official scrutiny. Entering into a second marriage while a spouse was still living was treated as a serious offence, and the authorities intervened to prevent it.

The reliance on sworn testimony from fellow inhabitants demonstrated that personal declarations could be tested against community knowledge. Statements made in private conversation could be used as evidence in formal proceedings.

The punishment of whipping indicated that attempting an unlawful marriage was treated not only as a civil matter but as a moral offence requiring physical correction.

The settlement of the debt between Priscilla Grandy and Richard Craven showed that monetary disputes were resolved through admission and verification of the amount owed. The court enforced payment once the correct sum was established.

Speculations

Richard Ray’s denial of his prior marriage despite multiple witnesses suggests that he attempted to conceal his existing family in order to remarry on the island. This may have been driven by the opportunity to establish a new household, but the risk of exposure was high in a small community where personal histories were often shared.

The immediate enforcement of payment by Richard Craven after the court’s decision suggests that his earlier refusal may have been an attempt to dispute or reduce the amount rather than a complete denial of the debt. Once the sum was fixed by authority, compliance followed without further resistance.

133

133

Att a Consultation held on
day y[e] 4: day of February 1700/1 Att Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Tho[mas] Bright dep[ut]y Govern[or]
Tho[mas] Goodwin Ensigne

William Marsh made Complaint
to y[e] Govern[or] and Councill that Clement y[e] wife of William Beloved hath reported
that he was forsworne in taking an oath against him to throw away
Severall goats of Mr Marshes for what Will[ia]m Beloved had done in his Colonelship
Leach and Matthewshurt had desired that Robert
what he knowes be brought to court

The said William Beloved and his wife being present acknowledged
that they told y[e] said Marsh on good ground and would prove it by the said
Robert Leach and Katherine Hunt on oath.

Rob[er]t Leach being Sworne Saith that what y[e] Said Marsh had
Sworne for a Difference between him and y[e] said Beloved was nothing
but truth.

Katherine Hunt being Sworne Saith that y[e] Said Will[ia]m Marsh
had sworne nothing but y[e] truth in y[e] Businesse had y[e] day afores[ai]d
between her husband y[e] said Beloved, he being in these confused that
time as they quarrelled.

After Mature Consideration
It was ordered

That y[e] Said William Beloved and his wife who y[e] said Marsh forgives, and
be fined to him y[e] Sume of five Pounds, and twenty Shillings more to y[e] R[igh]t
Hono[ura]ble Comp[an]y and to pay Charges of Councill./

Margin Notes:
Will[ia]m Marsh Complaint
ag[ain]st Clem[en]t y[e] wife
W[illia]m Beloved on
saying y[e] s[ai]d Marsh
had forsworn himself

Clem[en]t Beloved fined
to Marsh & 5s to
y[e] Compan[y].

A consultation was held at Fort James on 4 February 1701. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

William Marsh complained that Clement, the wife of William Beloved, had accused him of giving false evidence under oath in a dispute concerning the loss of several goats belonging to him. William Beloved and his wife appeared and admitted that they had made this accusation. They claimed they had good grounds for it and said they would prove it through the testimony of Robert Leech and Katherine Hunt.

Robert Leech was sworn and stated that the evidence previously given by William Marsh in the dispute with Beloved was entirely true.

Katherine Hunt was sworn and confirmed that William Marsh had spoken truthfully in that matter. She added that William Beloved had been in a confused and quarrelsome state at the time of the earlier dispute.

After consideration, it was ordered that William Beloved and his wife should be fined £5 0s 0d to William Marsh, whom they had defamed, and a further £1 0s 0d to the Right Honourable Company. They were also required to pay the costs of the Council.

Interpretations

The case showed that false accusations of perjury were treated as serious offences. Claiming that a man had lied under oath directly challenged the authority of the court and required formal resolution.

The use of sworn testimony to test the truth of the accusation demonstrated that the court relied on corroboration from multiple witnesses to establish credibility. Statements were weighed against prior evidence given in earlier proceedings.

The fine paid directly to William Marsh indicated that reputational harm could result in compensation to the injured party. The additional payment to the Company reflected the wider offence against public order and judicial authority.

The involvement of both William Beloved and his wife showed that responsibility for defamatory statements could extend to those who repeated or supported them, not only the original speaker.

Speculations

William Beloved and his wife’s attempt to prove that Marsh had lied under oath suggests that the earlier dispute over the goats had created ongoing hostility. Their accusation may have been an effort to undermine Marsh’s credibility after losing that earlier case.

The court’s imposition of a substantial fine, despite Marsh’s stated forgiveness, indicates that the authorities aimed to discourage public challenges to sworn testimony. Maintaining trust in oaths was essential for the functioning of the legal process, and this penalty probably served as a warning to others.

134

134

[...] [...] gave Information against John Leach and Thomas
[...] [...] of them, which he cant deny./

It is ordered

That y[e] said William pay unto y[e] afores[ai]d John Hammon and
Rob[er]t Leach Two dollars Each for their Shirts and neckcloths./

John Feller Planter being much in drinke last night
abused y[e] Govern[or] and Council very grossly in calling them Scoundrell names
Came rudely Crying and Swearing after a most wicked manner

It is ordered

That y[e] Said Feller be pardoned during our Pleasure and be
fined ten Shillings to y[e] use of the Church./

John Hammon Corp[ora]ll made complaint That Nathan
[...] of y[e] Said Island did very grossly Scandalize him after receiving
[...] which they were agreed, the Said Ham[mon] that
was to deliver him [...] before us touching the authority

Richard Gurling of y[e] said Island free Planter
came before Govern[or] and Councill that Thomas Gargon Sould[ie]r
threatened him the night he would stab him with his own weapons or
in danger of his Life Wherefore desired to have y[e] Law against him
and that he may be Secured in Custody./

It is therefore ordered

That the said Thomas Gargon be Committed to Prison and there
to Continue till next Sessions, or else to give Sufficient Bayle for his
good behaviour and appearance at y[e] said Sessions And according-
ingly John Alexander and Henry Crabb offered to be y[e] said Gargon’s
who were accepted, and accordingly Entred into Recognizance of

Margin Notes:
[...] [...] Hammon [...]
[...] Leech [...]
[...] Dollars Each for
their Shirts & Neck-
cloths

Jno: Feller being
much in drinke abus-
ed y[e] Govern[or] & Coun-
cill grossely &c.

John Feller fined ten
shillings for y[e] use of
the Church

Jno: Hemmon Complain
ag[ain]st Nath[an] Huth[...] for
defaming him &c.

Rich[ard] Gurling Inform
y[t] Tho[mas] Gargon might be
bound over to y[e] Peace
for saying he would
Stab him with his
sword.

Tho[mas] Gargon committed
to prison untill he
find securety for
his good behaviour.

Information was given that William had wrongfully taken or withheld items belonging to John Hammon and Robert Leech. He did not deny the claim. It was ordered that he should pay John Hammon and Robert Leech 2 dollars each in compensation for their shirts and neckcloths.

John Feller, a planter, had been heavily drunk the previous night. He behaved in a disorderly manner and used abusive language towards the Governor and Council, calling them insulting names and shouting and swearing openly. It was ordered that he should be pardoned at the Council’s discretion but fined 10s 0d for the use of the church.

John Hammon, a corporal, complained that Nathan [...] had defamed him after receiving something that had been agreed between them. The matter was brought forward for consideration, though no immediate order was recorded in this entry.

Richard Gurling, a free planter, appeared before the Governor and Council and stated that Thomas Gargon, a soldier, had threatened to stab him with his own weapon. He said that he feared for his life and asked that legal action be taken and that Gargon be secured.

It was ordered that Thomas Gargon should be committed to prison and remain there until the next sessions, unless he provided sufficient bail for his good behaviour and appearance at that time. John Alexander and Henry Crabb came forward as sureties for Gargon. They were accepted and entered into a recognisance to guarantee his conduct.

Interpretations

The order requiring payment for shirts and neckcloths showed that personal property disputes were resolved through direct compensation. Admission of the offence led to a fixed monetary remedy without further punishment.

The handling of John Feller’s conduct demonstrated that public disorder, especially when directed at authority, was punishable even when caused by drunkenness. The fine directed to the church reflected a moral as well as administrative response.

The complaint of defamation by John Hammon indicated that reputation remained a protected interest across different ranks, including non-commissioned officers. Such matters could be brought formally before the Council for redress.

The commitment of Thomas Gargon to prison, with the option of bail, showed the use of preventive custody to manage threats of violence. Recognisance by named individuals created a legal guarantee that tied others to the accused’s behaviour, extending responsibility beyond the individual.

Speculations

The decision to fine rather than imprison John Feller suggests that the Council judged his offence as a temporary lapse caused by intoxication rather than a sustained threat to order. The use of a conditional pardon allowed the authorities to retain discretion over future action if his behaviour continued.

Richard Gurling’s request for protection indicates that threats of violence were taken seriously enough to justify immediate restraint. The willingness of John Alexander and Henry Crabb to act as sureties suggests that Gargon retained some standing within the community, which allowed his release under guarantee rather than continued imprisonment.

135

135

Charles Steward and Gab[riel] Powell made demand
of Matthew Bagett of Four Pounds odd money, which the said Richard
Garram left them [...] of money his going off this Island, who stood
Indebted to their father [...], as by an obligation
under his hand for y[e] Same made appeare./

The Said Matt: Bagett Saith that y[e] Said Garam when he went
off gave him some money that severall Persons owed him, which
he could not get that anyway appeare by any writing under his hand
and Seale, which he Can produce hoping [...] as he [...] gives./

It is ordered

That y[e] said demand be referred to y[e] Jury at y[e] next Sessions and
in y[e] mean time y[e] said Bagett be in recognizance to appear at y[e] said
Sessions.

Whereas Richard Gurling and Gabriell Powell haveing
agreed aboute Thirty Acres of Land whereon y[e] said Powell is to have
bought of Gabriel Powell for Lewis one of y[e] said Gutlinds Son it doth
appeare by y[e] Bill of Sale dated y[e] 18th of January 1689 for y[e] Sume of Fifteen
Pounds, but also appears by y[e] Bond delivered to y[e] said Powell the said Rich[ard]
Gurling Jun[ior] desires that y[e] Govern[or] & Councill would give an order
to cause his mother to raise state, and also his Brothers and Sisters begotten
of y[e] said Richard Gurling Snr former wife, to pay share to the said Powell
w[i]th their dividend y[e] said Gurling Estate [...] their father
lately raised sold and obtained by the said Gurling their father./

Upon Consideration It is ordered

That y[e] Executors of y[e] said Richard Gurling dec[ease]d widow Drake as
y[e] Bill of account of his goeing whereof the whole his late wife Connor
which have had any Share [...] or otherwise in y[e] said Gurling Estate do
pay for y[e] said Gurling Children their Respective shares of y[e] Said twenty pounds
to y[e] said Rich[ard] Gurling Jun[io]r what he may make Payment according to his
fathers Contract to Gabriell Powell Senior

Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Char: Stew: & Gab[riel]
Powell made demand
of Matt: Bagett for
4£ w[hi]ch Garram left
in his hands.

Matt: Bagett says
y[e] Garram gave him
some money that
severall persons
owed him &c.

The above said De-
mands Referred to
a Jury at y[e] next
Sessions.

Charles Steward and Gabriel Powell demanded a sum of a little over £4 0s 0d from Matthew Bagett. They stated that this money had been left in Bagett’s hands by Richard Garram when he departed from the island, to settle a debt owed to their father. They produced an obligation under Garram’s hand as proof of the debt.

Matthew Bagett replied that when Garram left the island, he entrusted him with certain sums owed by various persons, which Bagett had been unable to recover. He stated that these claims were not supported by written instruments under seal, though he said he could produce some evidence of them.

It was ordered that the dispute should be referred to a jury at the next sessions. In the meantime, Bagett was required to enter into recognisance to appear before that court.

A further matter concerned an agreement between Richard Gurling and Gabriel Powell regarding thirty acres of land. It appeared from a bill of sale dated 18 January 1689 that the land had been sold for £15 0s 0d for the benefit of Lewis, one of Gurling’s sons. A bond relating to the transaction was also produced. Richard Gurling junior asked the Governor and Council to order that his mother, together with his brothers and sisters by his father’s former wife, should contribute their shares towards payment owed to Powell, in accordance with their portions of their father’s estate, which had recently been raised and distributed.

After consideration, it was ordered that the executors of Richard Gurling deceased, together with the widow Drake, should ensure that all those who had received shares from the estate contributed their respective portions towards the payment of £20 0s 0d owed under the agreement. This payment was to be made to Richard Gurling junior so that he could satisfy the obligation entered into by his father with Gabriel Powell.

Interpretations

The demand against Matthew Bagett showed how debts left unsettled by departing individuals could be pursued through intermediaries. Obligations under hand served as formal evidence of debt, while disputes over recovery required jury determination.

The requirement that Bagett enter into recognisance ensured his attendance at court and secured the continuation of the case. This reflects a procedural mechanism to prevent avoidance of legal responsibility.

The dispute over the Gurling estate demonstrated how contractual obligations attached to land transactions could extend across heirs. Financial responsibility was distributed among those who benefited from the estate, rather than resting solely on a single individual.

The involvement of executors and the widow Drake showed that estate administration required coordinated action to settle outstanding liabilities. The Council enforced proportional contribution, ensuring that obligations were met according to each heir’s share.

Speculations

Matthew Bagett’s defence suggests that he attempted to offset the claimed debt by referring to uncollected sums owed to Garram. This may have been an effort to delay payment or reduce liability until the validity of those claims could be examined.

The order requiring all heirs to contribute towards the £20 0s 0d indicates that the estate may not have been evenly liquid or readily divisible. By compelling shared payment, the Council probably aimed to resolve a lingering obligation that could otherwise create prolonged dispute among family members and creditors.

136

136

Island St Helena

The Examination of Priscilla Grandy
and Severall other Persons as Evidences Taken
before y[e] worshipfull Stephen Poirier Esq[r] Govern[or] of
y[e] Said Island this 6th Day of February 1702
Att Fort James

Priscilla y[e] wife of James Grandy free Planter
made Complaint this morning that last night aboute two of y[e] clock
Severall Persons came and threw stones in y[e] Fort valley and brake
open her doors, and one window by throwing great Stones against them
Inasmuch she Can make Oath having an opportunity to go out from
y[e] room where she Lay, she saw James French, Richard Gurly & Joseph
Elson whose names she heard not but that others was there
she could never that gathering Evidences might be Examined./

James Stephens Sold[ie]r being sworne Saith that he
being downe yesterday in y[e] Evening about four of y[e] clock went to
Johns his fathers house where he found Thomas [...] Come
and was [...] w[i]th y[e] Said him to sit downe and drink w[i]th him that
having a little after they were come did see Sarah [...] house
and seeing some of the persons there [...] towards that house about y[e] middle
which came and [...] y[e] house and d[...]d at y[e] door w[i]th
two or three basketts or both open and Hops wh[...] doors and he
stood with them as they were staring at y[e] said door saying Command
that willing to offer that y[e] Said Door had a stake at his hand and
went out to them who tooke it from him afternoone as he went out and
then putting him through the window put it from him againe, and y[e]
said continuing knowing there but at that and y[e] next that was about
spears went out and lay hold on a Samphire bush to discover who was
there y[e] people heard to Put being darke he could not discerne who they were
and afterwards coming into y[e] house found a stone upon the window and
bin told them, which broke their window upon the old and perceived
they which he knew it was and told y[e] said Elson into y[e] house againe
then two men there was supposed to be y[e] said Coom wounded and told him
being much bruised, who accordingly came, and stayed there about halfe an
houre, and after he was gone home againe y[e] said Stephens hearing a noise
lookt over y[e] wall that is between this house aforesaid and y[e] said Grandys and
the Said Harkison standing in his balcony talking w[i]th two persons more

Margin Notes:
Priscilla Grandy
and Severall other
Persons declaration
ag[ain]st Severall Persons
for getting broken
being gone James
Grandy house in
Fort James valley

The examination of Priscilla Grandy and several other witnesses was taken before Stephen Poirier, Governor, at Fort James on 6 February 1702.

Priscilla Grandy, the wife of James Grandy, a free planter, complained that at about two o’clock the previous night several people came into the valley near the fort. They threw stones at her house, broke open her doors, and shattered a window with large stones. She stated under oath that she left the room where she lay and saw James French, Richard Gurling, and Joseph Elson among those present. She said that others were involved but could not identify them and asked that further evidence be taken.

James Stephens, a soldier, was sworn. He stated that on the previous evening at about four o’clock he went to his father John Stephens’s house. Thomas [...] was there, and they sat together drinking. Later, he saw several people moving towards the house. They came to the door and struck it with force, using objects to break it open. He went out towards them with a stake in his hand, but it was taken from him. He said that someone thrust it through the window and then withdrew it again. Because it was dark, he could not clearly identify those present.

He went outside again and took hold of a samphire bush to try to see who was there, but the darkness prevented recognition. When he returned inside, he saw that a stone had broken the window. He stated that he believed Joseph Elson was among those involved. He said that one man appeared to be injured and remained there for about half an hour before leaving. After returning home, Stephens later heard further noise and looked over a wall between the houses. He saw Harrison standing in his balcony speaking with two other persons.

Interpretations

The sworn complaint and supporting testimony showed that acts of night-time violence against property were treated as serious offences requiring formal investigation. The use of multiple witnesses helped establish a pattern of behaviour even when identification was uncertain.

The reference to breaking doors and windows with stones indicated a direct attack on a household, suggesting that domestic security fell under the protection of public authority. Such actions were not treated as private disputes but as breaches of order.

The inability to identify all participants due to darkness demonstrated the limits of evidence based on observation. Even so, partial identification and circumstantial detail were considered sufficient to justify continued inquiry.

The involvement of named individuals alongside unknown participants showed that group actions could be investigated collectively, with responsibility assigned where evidence allowed.

Speculations

The coordinated nature of the attack, involving several individuals arriving together at night and using force against the house, suggests that the act may have been planned rather than spontaneous. The targeting of doors and windows indicates an intention to intimidate or threaten the occupants rather than merely cause damage.

James Stephens’s attempt to confront the group and the removal of the stake from his hand suggest that the attackers were prepared for resistance. Their continued presence for some time after the initial attack indicates that they did not immediately withdraw, which may imply confidence in acting as a group under cover of darkness.

137

137

the Said Elsons who perceiving him looking over y[e] wall threw dirt in
his face and as he was getting his breech against one of those two persons
Ran after him to the door, where he took hold of by the hand had [catched]
Joseph Stephens was in [stopped] to help him, and before he came got
away from him from help by his Companions, and Sam[ue]l Gomersall aforesaid
he should be knockt in y[e] head that night went to Thomas Harkisons
house where he Lay that morning. further Saith that he heard those
Persons Say to his mother Grandy you may you old whore [...][...]
in an unfit time [...] much And did really believe
that Charles Steward and Ashton Good was two of them/

Thomas Box Saith that he being at y[e] said Grandys house
last night w[i]th Company attend haveing answ[er]d w[i]th shrews thrown at y[e] doors
and within y[e] house went out w[i]th a Stick in his hand to see who they were that
threw y[e] Said Stones but being darke could not see them, but they threw
dirt upon him who went into y[e] house againe, and they pulling y[e] Same
hold of it and came from y[e] Window and they continuing throwing
Stones [...] went out of y[e] house againe, and came downe to y[e] Street
and heard Captain Mannering and Mr. Haskison Saith they have throws
of both hands which wounded him on y[e] hand and body./

George Haskison Sworne Saith that last night he being abed
hearing a noise arose and went into his Gallery from whence he
saw two men between y[e] Said Grandys door, Captain Mannering, and
heard them throw stones against y[e] lower windows, and urged the other
Hickman for he thought by that matter and Immediately after y[e] said stones
flying came to him to come and See y[e] Said Grandys door as he would desir[e]
being come to y[e] Same they persuaded him to hin who accordingly went
and found y[e] Said Coomes bleeding which he took and willing to have the Said
Grandys window mended whose bricks through y[e] window where their light
fell upon him, and hearing severall throw stones into y[e] house and
after he had been there a little while came stones against was had not long
being in y[e] said house afterward and them went to strike him who called there
other who had heard and shew he told into his house where Thomas
Box told them went away further and that y[e] said James Grandy was
something in drinke at y[e] same time.

before a further Examination Entred into this business

It is ordered.

That James Grandy be fined the sume of fourty Shillings
for

Joseph Elson and others saw James Stephens looking over the wall and threw dirt in his face. As Stephens moved away, one of the men ran after him to the door and caught hold of him by the hand. Joseph Stephens tried to assist, but before he could intervene, the man escaped with the help of his companions. It was reported that Samuel Gomersall had said that Stephens would be struck on the head that night. Stephens later went to Thomas Haskison’s house, where he stayed until morning. He also stated that the attackers shouted abuse at his mother, calling her offensive names. He believed that Charles Steward and Ashton Good were among those involved.

Thomas Box stated that he was at the Grandy house that night with others. Stones were thrown at the doors and into the house. He went outside with a stick to see who was responsible, but the darkness prevented identification. Dirt was thrown at him, and he returned inside. The attackers continued throwing stones. He later went into the street and reported that he heard Captain Mannering and Mr Haskison speak of the disturbance. He stated that he was struck by stones, which caused injuries to his hand and body.

George Haskison was sworn. He stated that he was in bed when he heard noise and went to his gallery. From there he saw two men near the Grandy house and heard stones being thrown at the lower windows. He was called to come and see the damage. When he arrived, he found Coomes bleeding. He remained there while stones continued to be thrown into the house. He reported that the attackers persisted for some time before leaving. He also stated that James Grandy had been somewhat drunk at the time.

Before proceeding further in the examination of the matter, it was ordered that James Grandy should be fined £2 0s 0d.

Interpretations

The continued testimony confirmed that the attack on the Grandy household involved multiple participants acting together over an extended period. The use of stones, physical confrontation, and verbal abuse indicated a serious breach of public order.

The difficulty in identifying individuals due to darkness showed the limits of direct evidence, yet the court accepted belief and partial recognition as part of the evidential process.

The injury to Thomas Box and the presence of a wounded man demonstrated that the disturbance escalated beyond property damage into physical harm, increasing the gravity of the offence.

The fine imposed on James Grandy for drunkenness, despite him being a victim of the disturbance, showed that personal conduct was judged independently of circumstance. Intoxication during such an event was treated as a separate offence requiring punishment.

Speculations

The sustained nature of the attack, including repeated returns to the house and continued stone-throwing, suggests that the group intended not only to damage property but to intimidate and provoke those inside. The insults directed at the household support the idea that the incident arose from a personal grievance rather than random disorder.

The fine imposed on James Grandy indicates that his behaviour may have contributed to the escalation of the disturbance. His intoxication may have reduced his ability to respond calmly or may have encouraged confrontation, which the authorities sought to discourage by penalising him despite his role as the target.

138

138

James Grandy fined
40s to y[e] Govern[or]
& councell

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day y[e] 13 day of February 1700/1 Att Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Bright dep[ut]y Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas yesterday happened a quarrell between Will[ia]m Child
and [...] Ralltson for which y[e] Said Ralltson was Imprisoned
and both Examined to know y[e] reason of it./

Will[ia]m Child came called y[e] Govern[or] under y[e] Fort [...] saith that y[e]
said Ralltson had him that he would not obey his orders when he went
to Century without advice of sale./

The said Ralltson denyed it only said he desired to have a bottle
of sack, to show him what he did deserve at Century./

Margin Notes:
A Drunken
quarrell between
W[illia]m Child & [...]
Ralltson

James Grandy was fined £2 0s 0d, payable to the Governor and Council.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 13 February 1701. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

On the previous day, a quarrel occurred between William Child and [...] Ralltson. As a result, Ralltson was imprisoned, and both men were examined to establish the cause of the dispute.

William Child stated that he was called to the Governor under the fort. He said that Ralltson had behaved improperly and refused to obey his orders when he went on sentry duty without proper direction.

Ralltson denied this account. He stated that he only asked for a bottle of sack and intended to show Child what he deserved while on sentry.

Interpretations

The imprisonment of Ralltson immediately after the quarrel showed that disturbances involving soldiers could lead to prompt detention before full examination. This reflects a system of rapid intervention to maintain discipline.

The dispute over sentry duty indicated the importance of military order within the settlement. Refusal or perceived refusal to obey instructions in such roles was treated as a serious matter.

The reference to a bottle of sack suggested that alcohol played a role in the conflict. Requests for drink during duty could undermine discipline and contribute to disorder.

The examination of both parties demonstrated that the Council sought to establish responsibility through direct testimony before determining further action.

Speculations

The mention of alcohol in Ralltson’s statement suggests that the quarrel may have been fuelled by drinking or disagreement over access to drink while on duty. This could explain the escalation from a verbal dispute to imprisonment.

The conflicting accounts indicate that authority between the two men may have been unclear or contested. The dispute over obedience suggests tension within the chain of command, which the Council needed to resolve to maintain effective control over sentry duties.

139

139

Thomas Dixon Serj[ean]t Sworne Saith that as he was
standing at y[e] Guard y[e] Dep[ut]y Gov[er]n[or] came to him and said as for what
Will[ia]m Child [...] the Said Dixon said why did y[e] said
do you offer that however I gave you my Charge to call me Either, but
if he do I shall rather be Punished or words to that purpose which y[e] said
Ralltson hearing said y[e] Child what you are one of y[e] two for
aboute five he find some time after being with [...] come
the said Child the Ralltson turning toward him aboute y[e] prisoners
the Said Ralltson could not asked had a bottle sack or else he could not
know what to make be, whereupon the said Child swore an oath
and offered to draw his Sword and Said I[...] give you aboute y[e] nose
before y[e] said Dixon spoked to y[e] said Child to be Civil, for he should not
draw his sword there y[e] Said Child replyed you be damned you have no
Command over me./

Ripin Hill Corp[ora]ll Saith he being in y[e] Said Guard room w[i]th y[e]
said Child and Ralltson have some words about y[e] Ralltson
and that he desired a bottle of sack or Else he did not know what he had
to do as Centry, thereupon the said Child drew his Sword halfe out
and said he would allow him y[e] [...] of sack at y[e] point of it./

It is therefore ordered

That y[e] Said Thomas Ralltson be discharged out and
the said Will[ia]m Child to be fined five Shillings for being drunk and
offering the breach of y[e] Peace.

Margin Notes:
W[illia]m Child fined 5s
for being drunk

Thomas Dixon, sergeant, was sworn. He stated that while he was on guard, the Deputy Governor spoke to him about William Child. Dixon said that he had given orders that he should be called if needed and that he would take responsibility if anything went wrong. Ralltson, hearing this, spoke to Child in a confrontational manner. Some time later, as the situation developed near the prisoners, Ralltson asked for a bottle of sack, saying he did not know how to proceed with his duty without it. William Child then swore an oath and attempted to draw his sword, threatening to strike him. Dixon intervened and told Child to behave properly and not to draw his sword there. Child replied angrily that Dixon had no authority over him.

Ripin Hill, corporal, was sworn. He stated that he was in the guard room with Child and Ralltson when they argued. Ralltson again asked for a bottle of sack, saying he did not know how to carry out his sentry duty otherwise. Child partly drew his sword and said he would give him sack at the point of it.

It was ordered that Thomas Ralltson should be released. William Child was fined 5s 0d for being drunk and for attempting to breach the peace.

Interpretations

The testimony showed that conduct within the guard was closely supervised and that disorder among soldiers was subject to immediate investigation. The presence of multiple witnesses ensured that behaviour could be assessed against consistent accounts.

The act of drawing a sword, even partially, during a dispute was treated as a serious escalation. This indicated that the use or threat of weapons within the garrison was tightly controlled.

The intervention of a sergeant to restrain Child demonstrated the enforcement of discipline through rank structure. Child’s refusal to accept that authority revealed a breach not only of order but of military hierarchy.

The fine imposed for drunkenness showed that intoxication was recognised as a contributing factor to disorder but did not excuse the behaviour. Financial penalties were used to correct such conduct.

Speculations

The repeated references to a request for sack suggest that alcohol played a central role in the dispute. Ralltson’s claim that he could not perform his duty without it may have provoked Child, leading to the escalation.

Child’s defiance of the sergeant’s authority indicates that his behaviour may have been influenced by intoxication to the point of undermining discipline. The decision to fine him rather than impose harsher punishment suggests that the Council judged the incident as a lapse in conduct rather than a deliberate challenge to command.

140

140

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday the 16 day of march 1700/1 Att
Fort James

Pres[ent] Step: Poirier Govern[or]
Thom[a]s Bright dep[ut]y Gov[er]n[or]
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensigne

Whereas complaint was made by George Haskison that
Ripin Wills had catched a Black of his named Peter some days agoe
and Sold some Sweet [...] which were his Masters werein who
was Summoned to appeare before us this day, and Said Peter being Exa-
mined Saith that when he came from Rockwood Hills he went into y[e]
prisoners house and asked for about a peck of starch, who accordingly
gave [...] and after he was paid Gammersall Smith asked him for
y[e] money who said y[e] he had none of his, but as soon as he gott
he would pay him but the young unwilling to trust him so long
did beat him and gave him three or two stabbs Rather that shew
said Mr Wills drank part of y[e] said bottle of drink and also Wills wife
making for said where was the master, he went to Barnards and
after he lay all night being oversett and staid there most part of the
next day following then went home as his master Plantation and
he lost all night being afraid to go in y[e] house Except his master
should beate him for staying out so long./

Then y[e] Said Ripin Wills being Examined but deny but he
Whipt y[e] said Black and struck till both deny that she had still
sackett in payme wh it him Leaveing there till he come by that
way againe for he said he should sellt might as he went home

William Melling being Sworne Saith that he was at
said Ripin Wills house when the Said Peter came there and as
he had a bottle of a punch of Mr Wills, who demanded money

Margin Notes:
Geo: Haskison Com-
plaint ag[ain]st Ripin
Wills for Entertain-
ing of his Black
and misuseing him
Drunk &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 16 March 1701. Those present were Stephen Poirier, Governor, Thomas Bright, Deputy Governor, and Thomas Goodwin, Ensign.

George Haskison complained that Ripin Wills had taken his slave, Peter, some days earlier and had sold him sweet [...] that belonged to his master. Wills was summoned to appear, and Peter was examined.

Peter stated that he came from Rockwood Hills and went to Wills’s house, where he asked for about a peck of starch. Wills supplied it. When payment was requested, Peter said he had no money at that time but would pay when he obtained it. Another man present refused to trust him and beat him, inflicting several blows. Peter stated that Wills drank part of the drink that had been given. He also said that Wills’s wife asked where his master was, and that he went to Barnard’s house and stayed there overnight after becoming drunk, remaining there for most of the following day. He then returned to his master’s plantation, having stayed away because he feared being beaten for his absence.

Ripin Wills was examined and denied mistreating the slave beyond whipping him. His wife also denied wrongdoing. They claimed that the goods had been given with the expectation of later payment and that the slave had been allowed to leave with the arrangement unsettled.

William Melling was sworn. He stated that he was present at Wills’s house when Peter arrived and that Peter had a bottle of punch belonging to Wills. He confirmed that payment was demanded from Peter.

Interpretations

The complaint showed that slaves were treated as property under the authority of their owners, and that interference by others, including trading with or detaining them, could be brought before the Council. Control over a slave’s movement and transactions remained with the master.

The examination of Peter under oath indicated that slaves could give evidence in proceedings, especially in matters directly affecting them. Their testimony contributed to establishing the facts, even though their status remained subordinate.

The dispute over payment for goods revealed that informal credit arrangements existed between inhabitants and slaves. However, refusal to extend trust or uncertainty over payment could lead to immediate violence.

The acknowledgment of whipping as acceptable, contrasted with denial of further harm, showed that some level of physical punishment was considered permissible, but excessive or unjustified violence could be challenged.

Speculations

Peter’s account suggests that he sought goods on credit without authority or means to pay, which placed him in a vulnerable position. The refusal to trust him and the resulting violence indicate that such transactions carried risk, especially when involving slaves acting independently.

The mention of drink and Peter’s intoxication suggests that alcohol may have contributed to the escalation of events. His absence overnight and fear of punishment from his master imply that the situation extended beyond a simple transaction and created wider consequences for his position within the plantation system.

141

141

he Should be said money he [...] that you may leave y[e] sticke
there till you come away which he did as aforesaid./

Benjamin [...] Saith the Said Peter
came to his house and demanded him to let him Lye downe
there all night [...] being fearfull he should come to any mischance
offering Peter lodging [...].

It is ordered

That y[e] Said Ripin Wills pay y[e] Said George Haskison
as a fine fourfold for Entertaining his black, Contrary to Law
and Commands for that purpose being the debt, and Eight Shillings more
for abusing y[e] Said Black, being what his master seems to agree
it being in the money due to [...] and four shillings more to y[e] R[igh]t Hon[oura]ble
Comp[an]y accordingly to y[e] Said Law, and to pay Charges of Councill, And
the Said Black shall Receive on his body Thirty Nine Stripes.

Anne Meade Informeth us that this present morning
came to the Govern[or] that on about 12 of y[e] Clock last night William Marsh
and his wife Katherine came to their house at Rockwood, forced open their
doors and that Mr Haskison was found carrying him y[e] said Thomas Aron
who was mightily Drunk to said room and bed

The said Thomas Aron being Examined denyed what y[e] Said
Meade hath charged against him.

Mary Pouncey was Examined as an Evidence against
them both, she deposed that the said Marsh & Thomas Aron
drunk at Mr Haskisons and that y[e] said Marsh’s wife carried off y[e]
Punch, but Mr Marsh stayed behind some with Thomas Fether, and
Marsh the Said Marsh was broke with carrying drinke out,
swearing at the door to Mark, and moreover the Deponent calls go in
and out y[e] Said House severall times being drunk.

William Hayes Sen[ior] Saith that he heard the said Will[ia]m Trevion
and Aron talking in y[e] Said Marsh’s house, and drink to one another
as if they were drunk and heard y[e] said Marsh’s wife Say to her

Margin Notes:
Ripon Wills fined
for Entertaining
Mr Haskison black
y[e] black to be
whipt at y[e] Flagstaf[f]

Ann Meade Infor-
med y[e] Govern[or] that
W[illia]m Marsh field
and Thomas Aron came
in time who was might
Drunke &c.

Benjamin [...] was sworn. He stated that Peter came to his house and asked to lie there for the night. He agreed, fearing that Peter might otherwise come to harm, and gave him lodging.

It was ordered that Ripin Wills should pay George Haskison a fourfold fine for entertaining his slave contrary to law and established orders. He was also required to pay 8s 0d for abusing the slave, in accordance with what the master accepted as compensation, and a further 4s 0d to the Right Honourable Company. He was to pay the costs of the Council. The slave Peter was to receive thirty-nine lashes on his body.

Anne Meade reported that early that morning she informed the Governor that at about midnight William Marsh and his wife Katherine came to her house at Rockwood and forced open the doors. She stated that Mr Haskison had brought Thomas Aron there in a heavily drunken state and placed him in a room and bed.

Thomas Aron was examined and denied the accusation made by Anne Meade.

Mary Pouncey was examined as a witness. She stated that William Marsh and Thomas Aron had been drinking at Mr Haskison’s house and that Marsh’s wife carried away the punch. She added that Marsh remained behind for some time with Thomas Fether and that he was seen repeatedly going in and out of the house in a drunken condition, shouting and swearing at the door.

William Hayes senior stated that he heard William Trevion and Thomas Aron speaking together in Marsh’s house and drinking as if they were drunk. He also heard Marsh’s wife speaking to them during this time.

Interpretations

The penalty imposed on Ripin Wills showed that entertaining another person’s slave without permission was a punishable offence, with fines scaled to exceed the original value involved. This reinforced the master’s exclusive authority over the slave.

The additional payment for abuse, agreed in part by the master, indicated that compensation for mistreatment could be negotiated but still required formal approval. The separate fine to the Company reflected the breach of general regulation.

The order that the slave receive thirty-nine lashes demonstrated that punishment extended directly to the enslaved individual, even when he was also a victim of mistreatment. Discipline of slaves was treated as part of maintaining overall order.

The complaint involving William Marsh and others showed that forced entry and drunken disorder were subject to investigation. The use of multiple witnesses reflected a structured process to establish facts where accounts conflicted.

The repeated references to alcohol in the testimonies indicated that drinking was closely associated with disturbances and was monitored as a source of disorder within the community.

Speculations

The decision to impose both a financial penalty on Ripin Wills and corporal punishment on the slave suggests that the authorities aimed to reinforce control at multiple levels. Wills was punished for interfering with another man’s property, while the slave was punished for acting outside his master’s authority, even though he sought goods and shelter.

The account of forced entry and removal of drink implies that the incident involving William Marsh may have arisen from a gathering that escalated through intoxication. The removal of punch and repeated movement in and out of the house suggest that control over alcohol became a point of conflict, leading to disorder and complaint.

142

142

Husband was not upon a Stand to doe, o dont you know what
day it is to make them another better day y[e] better bed, and
a day believe in his Character that they stole Punch of y[e] s[ai]d Marsh./

Whereupon it is ordered

That upon y[e] Evidences Given in Evidence That y[e] said Marsh &
his wife and Thomas Aron doe Each of them be fined Six Shillings and
eight pence being for being Drunk, and also that Thomas Aron
be fined and pay three Shillings for being drunk and
having his Boxe broake and one Shilling for Swearing and
to pay charges of Councill.

And also if y[e] future any Person or Persons doth Enter-
tain any Person or Persons to come drinking in their houses [...]
[...] be fined at the discretion of Councills Pleasure./

Thomas Burnham Jun[ior] made Complaint that his
apprentice John Mudge abused him and that it was on Sunday last
with a [...] of Purpose went to Jonathan
and that said Leach who abused him and that
y[e] said Leach struck him and also threatened him.

John Mudge and Sam[ue]l Dixon denyed what they was
charged Burnham and Leach Saith that y[e] Said Thomas Burnham
struck him out of revenge of former words had betwixt him before answer

William [...] being Sworne Saith that he being with
[...] George Dawson, and Frank Leach, who stayed
at house for a considerable time and as they were playing said y[e] said Thomas
Burnham sent two for Mason thinking who assaulted him, and did come
downe where he was and afterwards came to them, Sobs and hath William
and when they had done [...] there with
Leach who then upon him [...] get up and said Will be while I gave
of you, and next to Thomas Burnham and said him below and heard
y[e] said Mudge tell Frank Said Leach againe and fall to fighting and
y[e] said Burnham throwing said Leach downe under him, and Sitting him
by the haire of his head y[e] said Mudge said Leach you stand not off his haire
he is much you, but did not strike him at all, neither did he have
any body threaten him.

Hatton

Margin Notes:
Marsh & Mary his
wife & Tho: Aron
fined 6s 8d
and also Tho: allis
Rich: [...] & Joseph
[...] Leach for being
Drunk

There Burnham Jun[ior]
Complained ag[ain]st John
Mudge & Rob[er]t Leech for
his being & Threat-
ening him &c.

It was ordered, on the basis of the evidence given, that William Marsh, his wife Katherine, and Thomas Aron should each be fined 6s 8d for being drunk. Thomas Aron was further fined 3s 0d for additional drunken behaviour, 1s 0d for swearing, and required to pay the costs of the Council.

It was also declared that if any person in future allowed others to gather and drink in their house in a disorderly manner, they would be fined at the discretion of the Council.

Thomas Burnham junior complained that his apprentice, John Mudge, had abused him and that this occurred on the previous Sunday. He stated that Robert Leech was also involved, and that Leech struck him and made threats.

John Mudge and Samuel Dixon denied the accusations. Leech stated that Burnham struck him first out of resentment from earlier disagreements.

A witness, William [...], was sworn. He stated that he was present with George Dawson and Frank Leech and that they remained together for some time. During this period, Thomas Burnham came to them after sending for assistance. An argument followed. Frank Leech challenged Burnham, and the two began to fight. Burnham threw Leech to the ground and held him down by the hair. John Mudge was heard telling Leech to defend himself but did not strike Burnham or threaten him.

Interpretations

The fines imposed for drunkenness showed that disorderly conduct linked to alcohol was subject to standardised penalties. Additional fines for swearing indicated that offensive language was treated as a separate offence.

The warning against allowing gatherings for drinking demonstrated that householders were held responsible for behaviour within their homes. This extended accountability beyond individuals to those who hosted such activity.

The complaint by Thomas Burnham junior showed that disputes between masters and apprentices could be brought before the Council. Such relationships were subject to oversight, particularly where allegations of violence or disobedience arose.

The conflicting testimonies and reliance on witnesses reflected a process of weighing evidence to determine responsibility. The distinction made between active participation in violence and mere presence or encouragement showed that degrees of involvement were considered.

Speculations

The imposition of fines on multiple individuals for drunkenness suggests that the disturbance was not isolated but part of a wider gathering where alcohol led to collective disorder. The Council’s additional warning indicates concern that such gatherings were becoming frequent.

The account of the fight between Burnham and Leech suggests that the incident may have been driven by an existing grievance rather than a sudden quarrel. The involvement of others as observers or encouragers implies that social gatherings could quickly turn into confrontations, especially when tensions were already present.

143

143

Hatton Sterling being Sworne Saith that he and y[e] said Burnham
aforesaid being playing at quites the said Burnham came to them from
looking after John Mudge and Leach and when they had done playing they
would have Leach from under said Leach was asleep upon them
then y[e] said Leach rose up and Run to John Thomas Burnham and struck
him severall blowes on his face, whereupon he struck him several
blows again[...] being y[e] same and y[e] said Burnham takeing y[e] Leach
downe under him holding him by y[e] haire of his head Jonathan
Mudge bid him let goe or he would strike him but did not strike him
and as they were going home y[e] said Burnham house, his wife [...]
servant [...][...] they had all fell
upon her husband and beate him, but what Jonathan Mudge swore
he would pay him y[e] next time he meet w[i]th him./

John Hammon Saith that on fryday last he saw Samuel
with Jonathan Mudge Hatton Sterling and Frank Leach come by the
Said Thomas Burnhams house where his wife threw stones at
Saying they had beat her husband, and called them severall names inso-
much that they threatened said Burnham and bid him come off
of his ground and they would stay him leaving severall oaths, And
Said y[e] next time they meet him they would pay him againe, and
a little while after heard y[e] said Thomas Burnham and Frank Leach
make a challenge to fight y[e] monday morning following.

It is ordered

That Jonathan Mudge and Frank Leach be fined Each
five shillings Each and Samuel Wilkey two shillings more and one
shilling for Swearing and forbidden for y[e] future to make disturbances
amongst y[e] said Thomas Burnham on paine of Severe Punishment,
and to pay Charges of Councill

Margin Notes:
Jonathan Mudge, Sa:
Wilkson & Fra[ncis] Leech
fined five shil[lings] Each
&c.

Hatton Sterling was sworn. He stated that he and Thomas Burnham were playing. Burnham returned after searching for John Mudge and Robert Leech. When the game ended, they tried to wake Leech, who lay asleep. Leech rose and ran at Burnham. He struck him several times in the face. Burnham struck back. He threw Leech to the ground and held him by the hair. John Mudge told Burnham to let go or he would strike him. He did not strike him.

Sterling added that they then went towards Burnham’s house. Burnham’s wife said that several of them had attacked her husband. She said they had all beaten him. Mudge said he would repay Burnham the next time he met him.

John Hammon was sworn. He stated that on the previous Friday he saw Samuel Wilkey, John Mudge, Hatton Sterling, and Frank Leech pass Burnham’s house. Burnham’s wife threw stones at them. She accused them of beating her husband. She called them insulting names. They answered with threats. They told Burnham to come out. They said they would deal with him. They swore several oaths. Hammon later heard Burnham and Frank Leech agree to fight on the following Monday.

It was ordered that John Mudge and Frank Leech should each pay 5s 0d. Samuel Wilkey was fined 2s 0d and a further 1s 0d for swearing. They were forbidden to disturb Thomas Burnham again. Severe punishment was threatened if they did. They were ordered to pay the costs of the Council.

Interpretations

The Council treated this as a continuing dispute. It did not treat each act as separate.

The fines differed by level of involvement. Greater participation brought higher penalties.

The formal warning acted as a legal restraint. It aimed to stop further conflict.

The dispute spread across households. This increased the risk of wider disorder.

Speculations

The planned fight showed that the dispute was not resolved. It moved from a quarrel to a feud.

Group support intensified the conflict. Each side acted with allies. This perhaps escalated the violence.

144

144

Henry Coles made complaint that Elizabeth y[e] wife of John Johnson
had reported that his family had been a great maint[ain]er of famine on this Island within
some of these few yeares

The Said Elizabeth Johnson saith that she and y[e] said Coles wife
discoursing aboute some hard usage she had at her Masters
that she was as a mother[...] to him y[e] Said Coles
wife Said that she and her husband had suffered some hard
words from [...] that she being at Mr Keelings house some time
and there being some debate between her and Edward Hulls wife being [...]
[...] her had said that she [...] had sett in their beds
and did them accuse of famine on this Island within two years time

Upon which it is ordered

That y[e] said Elizabeth Johnson do give bond till this day
forthnight that y[e] Said Clements Marsh wife be summoned to
appear before us to Say against her, that she may give a further acco[un]t
of it at that time

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Henry Coles com-
plains ag[ain]st Elizabeth
the wife of John Johnson
for saying he and
his Family had pro-
moted y[e] Famine
on this Island in these 2
yeares.

Henry Coles complained that Elizabeth, the wife of John Johnson, had said that his family had helped to cause famine on the island within the past few years.

Elizabeth Johnson was examined. She stated that she had been speaking with Coles’s wife about harsh treatment she had received from her master. During this conversation, Coles’s wife said that she and her husband had also suffered harsh words from others. Elizabeth added that she had once been at Mr Keeling’s house, where a dispute arose between her and the wife of Edward Hull. During that argument, accusations were made that Coles’s household had contributed to famine on the island within the previous two years.

It was ordered that Elizabeth Johnson should enter into bond until a fortnight from that day. Clement Marsh’s wife was to be summoned to appear at that time to give further evidence, so that a fuller account of the matter could be taken.

Interpretations

The complaint showed that accusations affecting a household’s reputation, especially those linked to famine, were treated as serious matters. Such claims could damage standing within the community and required formal inquiry.

The use of bond required Elizabeth Johnson to remain accountable and appear again. This ensured that the case could continue once further witnesses were brought forward.

The summoning of Clement Marsh’s wife demonstrated that disputes based on reported speech were examined by tracing statements back through multiple speakers. The Council sought to establish who first made the claim and in what context.

The reference to conversation within households, including at Mr Keeling’s house, showed that disputes often arose in social settings and then moved into formal proceedings when reputations were affected.

Speculations

The accusation that Coles’s family contributed to famine suggests a dispute over resources or supply. Such a claim may have arisen from tensions over access to food or control of provisions.

The need to summon another woman to clarify the statement indicates that the accusation had passed through several people. This perhaps reflects how rumours spread within a small community and became more serious as they were repeated.

145

145

In St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday yᵉ 25ᵗʰ day of March 1701 And [...]

Stepⁿ Poirier govᵉʳ
Mr Thoᵐ Bright [...] Govᵉʳ
Thom Goodwin Ensigne

Grace Coulson who made Complaint to yᵉ Govᵉʳ and
Councill that Samˡ Trapp Senʳ had reported that her two sons were
guilty yᵉ breaking open of James Grandys House in yᵉ Fort whereby

Joseph Trapp demanded what yᵉ said Grace Coulson hath related against
him only that he searched no house, and Further wiser he was ask[...]
the said Grandys House & Shop, & that reason when he cryed out murder, then
[...] kept said Grandys house that sent open.

Margaret Quinoro saith that she heard Joseph Trapp say
that one of said Grace Coulsons sons was ab yᵉ breaking open of James
Grandys house

Susanna De [...] saith to yᵉ same purpose as the said
Mary Quinoro hath

Elizabeth Long saith that yᵉ morning after yᵉ said Grandys
house was [...] she and Mr Calvin went to yᵉ said Grandys house
where was Thoᵐ [...] and Joseph Trapp came a. [tho]sʰ Coulson ask how
he did who made answer I wondʳed [...] that belonged to you, who is [...]
to me, he said Trapp answered he his Son, and wanted for yᵉ reason yᵉ
said she are a Company of [...] the long Sons were at home in yᵉ Country
last night

Whereupon It is ordered

That yᵉ said Joseph Trapp be dismiss’d where Grace Cock and admonished by yᵉ
[...] not to speak so rashly as he had done by yᵉ said Grace Coulsons sons or any others of yᵉ
Land to any [...] offend. And also that yᵉ said Joseph Trapp confess
himself, humbly that he said Trapp hath reported of them, being Convinced
that those open yᵉ said Grandys house as being falsely [...] that they
in yᵉ Country that night

Margin Notes:

Grace Coulson Compoᵈ
agˢᵗ Jos. Trapp Senʳ
yᵉ saying yᵗ her two
Sons were ab yᵉ breaking
open of Jaˢ Grandys house

Joseph Trapp dismissed
with a Severe Check

In St Helena, a consultation was held on Tuesday 25 March 1701. Stephen Poirier was present as governor. Mr Thomas Bright was present as [...] governor. Thomas Goodwin was present as ensign.

Grace Coulson complained to the governor and council that Samuel Trapp Senior had reported that her two sons had broken open James Grandy’s house in the Fort. The margin described the complaint as being against Joseph Trapp Senior.

Joseph Trapp was asked what Grace Coulson had said against him. Only this was stated clearly. He had searched no house. He was also asked about James Grandy’s house and shop. When Grandy cried out “murder”, [...] kept Grandy’s house [...] open.

Margaret Quinoro said that she had heard Joseph Trapp say that one of Grace Coulson’s sons had been involved in breaking open James Grandy’s house.

Susanna De [...] gave evidence to the same effect as Mary Quinoro.

Elizabeth Long said that on the morning after Grandy’s house had been [...] she and Mr Calvin went to Grandy’s house. Thomas [...] was there. Joseph Trapp came [...]. Thomas Coulson asked how he did. An answer was given that [...], which belonged to him, [...]. Trapp answered that he was his son. The reason given was that [...] were a company of [...]. Long’s sons had been at home in the country that night.

Joseph Trapp was dismissed with a severe rebuke. He was warned not to speak so rashly about Grace Coulson’s sons or any other people on the island. He was also ordered to humble himself and confess that what he had reported about them was false. The council accepted that Grace Coulson’s sons had not opened Grandy’s house, because they had been in the country that night.

Interpretations

The severe rebuke showed that the council punished reckless speech even when no formal criminal sentence was imposed. The order required Joseph Trapp to correct the false report in person. This protected the Coulson family’s reputation and warned others against spreading accusations without proof.

The evidence that the sons were “in the country” mattered because it gave them an alibi. In this setting, distance from the Fort was used as practical proof that they had not broken open James Grandy’s house.

The Fort was not only a military place. It also contained houses and shops. The complaint therefore touched both security and everyday trade within the island’s main defended settlement.

Speculations

The forced confession was probably used to repair the public harm caused by the accusation. A quiet dismissal would not have undone the damage to Grace Coulson’s sons, because the report had already spread through witnesses such as Margaret Quinoro and Susanna De [...].

146

146

Whereas a Peticonment was sued out to [...] at yᵉ
not to pull yᵉ Blossoms of their Trees that are planted in yᵉ Dᵈ Fort signed by
several Inhabitants that they might come to said [...] by it he broke
yᵉ Pentaly without cut contrary to yᵉ said Peticion. and also broke one
Branch of a Tree growing through yᵉ said Peticion. (Cut one Branch or some other tree
out of yᵉ Compˢ planted which probably might have had out on it.) But he offers to take his oath
that there was no Blossom on that Branch he Cut. And likewise that he
never heard any thing of yᵉ said Peticion.

Elizabeth Morris saith that yᵉ Same day as yᵉ said Beacon
Cut yᵉ Branche, he came into their house, and saw him have one of
Blossoms that goes on those trees, or some other very like them, but
Cant justify the weather.

It is Ordered

That the said Beacon be fined but halfe a dollar being the
first offence and having so made oath that he knew nothing of yᵉ law
or Peticion in ordinary first time, and to pay Charges of Councill.

James Grandy made his Second request that we
will be pleased to Examine strictly into yᵉ business of breaking open
and plundering his house, offering Evidence that might give some light into yᵉ matter.

John Heretson being Sworne Saith that yᵉ same morning after
an Alarume was made yᵉ Sachele Ship Dragonhalld Catland came and Marston
where he was posted who had been fight his mate Cock again and to Shop
and there were no tops or lights, had to have been Head at Grandys house.
The said Heretson Ask him how was required. I wonder that you cut that
no might

Rich: Evans being Sworne Saith that he being at
Thomas Johns heard Broad Hadley say that he would bring Master
Heretson in for a [...] to cause the breaking open of Grandys House
and if he was brought on his oath, he should say some thing he knew more
of the men that was there, and did think that Heretson should be
one that said to yᵉ said Grandys wife yᵗ was morning you are a Rich

Ellis Morris sworne saith yᵗ he heard Edwᵈ Halley
say that John Heretson was as much Concerned about yᵉ breaking
open of James Grandys house as any body, for he knowes much as
one did about it, and that might be yᵉ Candlekeeper was some the hear
some slaves yᵗ rob yᵉ said Grandys house to her, and also heard yᵉ
said Evans curse but murder.

Margin Notes:

John Beacles Petᵏ
Contrary to an adver
tizement spread about Cut
one branch of a Tree
out of yᵉ Compˢ planted

John Beacles Fined half
a Dollar for yᵉ offence
aforesᵈ

James Grandy Renewed
that the following Evidence
appear may be Examined
[...] Breaking open
his house

A petition had been issued to [...] that the blossoms must not be pulled from the trees planted in the Dead Fort. Several inhabitants had signed it. John Beacle was accused of acting against that petition. He had cut one branch from a tree planted by the Company. The branch perhaps had blossoms on it. He offered to swear that no blossom was on the branch he cut. He also said that he had never heard anything about the petition.

Elizabeth Morris said that on the same day Beacle cut the branch, he came into their house. She saw him with one of the blossoms that grew on those trees, or with something very like them. She could not swear exactly what it was.

John Beacle was fined half a dollar. This was his first offence. He had sworn that he knew nothing of the law or petition before that time. He also had to pay the council’s charges.

James Grandy made his second request for the council to examine the breaking open and plundering of his house. He offered evidence that might help explain what had happened.

John Heretson was sworn. He said that on the same morning after an alarm was made, the [...] ship Dragon [...] came [...]. Marston was posted where Heretson was. [...] had been fighting his mate Cock again [...]. There were no tops or lights [...]. Something had been heard at Grandy’s house. Heretson asked him how [...] was required. He said, “I wonder that you cut that [...]”.

Richard Evans was sworn. He said that while he was at Thomas Johns’s house, he heard Broad Hadley say that he would bring Master Heretson in for a [...] about the breaking open of Grandy’s house. Hadley said that if he was brought on his oath, he would say that he knew more about the men who were there. He thought Heretson was one of them. He also said that someone had said to Grandy’s wife that morning, “You are a rich [...]”.

Ellis Morris was sworn. He said that he heard Edward Halley say John Heretson was as much involved in the breaking open of James Grandy’s house as anyone else. Heretson knew as much about it as one did. The candlekeeper perhaps had heard that some slaves had robbed Grandy’s house. Morris also heard Evans curse [...] murder.

Interpretations

The petition about blossoms showed how the governor and council used written notices to protect Company property. The trees in the Dead Fort were not treated as private plants. Cutting a branch became an offence against a shared rule backed by council authority.

The fine of half a dollar and the order to pay council charges separated punishment from administrative cost. Beacle was punished lightly because he swore he had no knowledge of the rule, but the hearing still made him bear the expense caused by the complaint.

James Grandy’s renewed request showed that victims could press the council to reopen or continue an inquiry. The housebreaking was not closed after the earlier accusations against Grace Coulson’s sons. Grandy tried to widen the investigation by offering further witnesses.

The sworn statements about Heretson showed how suspicion was built through reported speech, night movements and links between people posted during an alarm. The council treated rumours as material only when witnesses were sworn and named who had spoken.

The reference to slaves as possible robbers showed how suspicion could move quickly onto unfree labourers. The passage also showed that the conduct of free men, such as Heretson, remained open to inquiry when evidence connected them to the event.

Speculations

Beacle’s oath probably reduced the penalty because the council needed to enforce the petition without treating a first breach as deliberate defiance. The half-dollar fine marked the rule as binding while leaving room for ignorance as a mitigating point.

Grandy’s second request was probably made because the earlier inquiry had not identified the people who broke open and plundered his house. The new evidence pointed away from the Coulson sons and towards men connected with the alarm, the ship and the night watch.

147

147

The Said Edward Crossley being called and ask’t what he could say
aboute yᵉ afforesᵈ busines [...] that ever he Said any Such thing for
the Said Edwᵈ and Ellis Morris huntd together on another on the [...].
Saith that he was at yᵉ Grandy house the night that Grandys house
was broke open and knowd nothing more of it

It is Ordered

That upon Edward Crossley oath, all further be dismissed till further
and more positive Evidence appeare.

Whereas in yᵉ foregoing Consultation Hannah Scales made Complaint
that Elizabeth Johnson had reported that he had Discharged out Some of his
Family that there would be a famine on this Island within four or five
years. yᵉ said Elizabeth Johnson being called and Examined said that Katherine
Harding was yᵉ person that told her so, whereupon

It was ordered

That yᵉ Said Katherine Hunt be Summoned to appeare before us the
day [...] that yᵉ busines might be Deeped into if possible that the bring
of the famine tales Come unto its heads. And Edwᵈ Johnson to be what
he could had grounded those words to examine on this Island within
two years, which was yᵉ first time he heard any thing aboute it.

Grace Coulson saith that yᵉ Said Ann Johnson and Katherine
Hunt being some time agoe at her house, heard the yᵉ Said Ann Johnson
Shewed Say that she Could or some of yᵉ family should say
that there would be a famine on this Island within four or five years. She did
not heare yᵉ Said Katherine Hunt Say any thing to it. She has knowledge.

William Mason Saith that he heard yᵉ Said Edwᵈ Johnson
Say (being talking aboute drye weather) that for famine or some of his
family had prophecyed there would be a famine in this Island within
three or two years.

It is ordered.

That yᵉ Said Denison of this Crying be referred to yᵉ Stay and
thereafter Appeare a Reforion.

Margin Notes:

Elizᵃ Johnson and
Kath: Hunt’s Decla:
con: agˢᵗ Henrry
Caler for Saying that
there would be famine
within four years upon
this Island

The final decision of
the above Matter left
to the Jury.

Edward Crossley was called and asked what he could say about the matter already described. He denied that he had ever said any such thing. Edward Crossley and Ellis Morris had hunted together on another [...]. He said that he had been at Grandy’s house on the night when Grandy’s house was broken open. He knew nothing more about it.

On Edward Crossley’s oath, all further proceedings were dismissed until fuller and more certain evidence appeared.

In the previous consultation, Hannah Scales had complained that Elizabeth Johnson had reported that [...] had told some of his family that there would be a famine on St Helena within four or five years. Elizabeth Johnson was called and examined. She said that Katherine Harding had told her this.

Katherine Hunt was ordered to appear before the council on the day [...]. The matter was to be examined further if possible, so that the source of the famine stories could be traced. Edward Johnson was also to be examined about what had led him to say that there would be a famine on St Helena within two years. This was the first time he had heard anything about it.

Grace Coulson said that Ann Johnson and Katherine Hunt had been at her house some time before. She heard Ann Johnson say that she, or someone in the family, had said there would be a famine on St Helena within four or five years. Grace Coulson did not hear Katherine Hunt say anything about it. She had no further knowledge.

William Mason said that he heard Edward Johnson speak while dry weather was being discussed. Edward Johnson said that [...] or someone in his family had prophesied that there would be a famine on St Helena within three or two years.

The decision on this matter was referred to the jury. The final decision on the matter was left to them.

Interpretations

Edward Crossley’s oath ended the immediate inquiry into Grandy’s house because the council lacked direct proof. The phrase “more positive evidence” meant evidence that was clearer, stronger and more directly tied to the offence. Suspicion and reported speech were not treated as enough to continue against him.

The famine story was handled as a public-order problem rather than as ordinary gossip. Predictions of famine could unsettle households, labour and trade on a small island that depended on controlled supplies. The council tried to trace the story back through each speaker until the first source could be found.

The changing timeframes mattered. The reported famine was said to be within four or five years, then within two years, then within three or two years. These differences showed why the council treated the report as unstable and needed sworn or examined statements.

The referral to the jury moved the matter from council questioning to a wider formal decision. This showed that rumours with public consequences could pass from administrative inquiry into a legal process.

Speculations

The inquiry into the famine rumour was probably driven by the danger that such talk could spread fear during dry weather. William Mason’s evidence tied the prediction to a discussion about dry conditions, which gave the council a practical reason to stop the story before it became accepted as fact.

The council probably referred the matter to the jury because the evidence depended on a chain of repeated speech. Elizabeth Johnson, Katherine Hunt, Ann Johnson, Grace Coulson, Edward Johnson and William Mason were all linked to different versions of the same report. A jury could weigh those contradictions more formally than the council could through questioning alone.

148

148

Whereas in yᵉ Last Will and Testament of Richard Leach late of
[...] Island lately deceased, is specified that in case of the Marriage of his wife
that then immediately after this Will said Edward Johnson Testator
[...] and a house standing thereon [...] and being in Sons, Sons, Sons,
equally divided between his three Children his wife having nothing thereof.

Wherefore It is ordered

That yᵉ Said Richᵈ Leach’s wife being now married againe
Mr Thomas Goodson and Samᵗ Wrangham do on Monday next
appraise the said estate, and make Dividend thereof according to
Testators Will

Mr Cornel Acc. of the
proceeds of yᵉ Govᵉr Keelings
Children for wh[at] he
is to have Credit

£ a c
Caſt of Provisions for Cattleing and many
[...] and Andersons two of them went 2 10 0
[...] to maintaine them 6 0 0
£ totall 27.10.0

It is ordered

Margin Notes:

Mr: Thoᵐ: Goodson
& Sam: Wrangham
to appraise Richard
Leachers estate and
to make a Dividend
thereof

Mr: Cornel Acc. of the
proceeds of Gov: Keelings
Children for wh[at]
is to have Creditt

Richard Leach, late of St Helena, had recently died. His last will and testament stated that if his wife married again, then immediately after that marriage [...] and a house standing on it [...] were to be divided equally between his three children. His wife was to have no share in that property.

Richard Leach’s wife had now married again. Mr Thomas Goodson and Samuel Wrangham were ordered to appraise the estate on the next Monday. They were also ordered to divide it according to the testator’s will.

Mr Cornel’s account was entered for the proceeds of Governor Keeling’s children, for which he was to receive credit.

The charge for provisions for cattleing and many [...] and Anderson’s two [...] was £2 10s 0d.

The charge to maintain them was £6 0s 0d.

The total was £27 10s 0d.

Interpretations

The remarriage clause controlled the widow’s rights after Richard Leach’s death. Her new marriage triggered an immediate transfer of the specified property away from her and to the three children. The council treated the will as enforceable and used appointed men to value and divide the estate.

Appraisement was not just a valuation. It was the administrative step that allowed the estate to be divided in practice. Thomas Goodson and Samuel Wrangham were used as trusted local assessors who could turn the will’s instruction into an actual division of property.

The account for Governor Keeling’s children showed that children’s property or proceeds could be managed through recorded credits and charges. Mr Cornel’s claim was handled as an accountable financial matter before the council, not as a private informal expense.

Speculations

The will’s remarriage clause was probably designed to keep Richard Leach’s property within his children’s inheritance if his widow entered a new household. The trigger was not her death or misconduct, but marriage itself. This suggests that the main risk was the property passing under the influence or control of a new husband.

149

149

It is ordered
That y[ou] said orlando Bagley take care of the Said Cattle on
the same Conditions aforsaid

Henry Francis Del Henry Francis brought and delivered an acco: of Jonathan
Beals orphans Cattle, and an acco: of nine pounds that they shod indebt
for 4 ye: years boarding & learning to, for which sum he is
to have rec[ei]v[ed] on there acc[ou]nt in the Said Books, /

Aprill the 19 1701

Whereas yesterday the Provost ffran informed that his order and
John Mudge and James Grandy were fishing in ye Salt water, was altho the Governor
James Grandy were ordered the Sergeant of ye Guard did two mulgillkes to fight Hendrins
imprisoned for [...] within ye Act who was Imprisoned this morning, and summoned
fighting One with as Elisabeth
Heathes

The Said James Grandy Saith that he being asleep yesterday in his own
house, the Said Mudge came there ye may while and abused his wife
very greatly by catching his ha[nd] and name knowing her on ye ground, and
striking her several blows, Insomuch caused his wife to cry out, which
awaked him, And being made acquainted with the Said Mudges barbarous
usage to his wife, did his Endeavour to pacify them both desiring —
the Said Mudge to be gone out his house but refusing had some —
high words till at length came to blows, to [...] of fighting.

Margin Notes:
Henry Francis Del an acco: of Jonathan Beals Orphans Cattle &c.

John Mudge and James Grandy imprisoned for fighting One with as Elisabeth Heathes

Orlando Bagley was ordered to take care of the cattle on the same conditions as before.

Henry Francis brought and delivered an account of Jonathan Beal’s orphans’ cattle. He also delivered an account for £9 0s 0d, which was owed to him for four years of boarding and teaching. That sum was to be received on their account in the books.

On 19 April 1701, the provost [...] informed the governor that John Mudge and James Grandy had been fishing in the salt water [...]. James Grandy was ordered [...]. The sergeant of the guard [...]. Mudge and James Grandy were imprisoned for fighting with each other at Elizabeth Heath’s.

James Grandy said that he had been asleep in his own house the day before. Mudge came there while he slept and abused Grandy’s wife very badly. Mudge took hold of her hand and [...] threw her to the ground. He struck her several times. Grandy’s wife cried out, and this woke him.

Grandy was told how violently Mudge had treated his wife. He tried to calm them both. He asked Mudge to leave his house. Mudge refused. Harsh words followed. At last they came to blows, and this led to the charge of fighting.

Interpretations

The order about Orlando Bagley showed continued council supervision over orphan property. Cattle belonging to Jonathan Beal’s orphans were treated as assets under managed care, not as loose household possessions.

Henry Francis’s account joined livestock, boarding and teaching in one system of guardianship finance. The orphans’ care was recorded as a debt against their account in the books. This showed how maintenance and education were charged, audited and balanced through formal records.

The provost and sergeant of the guard acted as enforcement officers. Their involvement showed that private violence could quickly become a matter of custody and council discipline, especially when fighting followed disorder inside a household.

Speculations

James Grandy’s account was probably meant to show that he fought only after Mudge entered his house, attacked his wife and refused to leave. The details about sleep, the cry, the blows and the request that Mudge leave all framed Grandy’s violence as a response to an intrusion rather than as the start of the quarrel.

150

150

It is ordered
John Madge & James Grandy Beasines Referred to a Jury
That the Said Mudge’s Rude behaviour and barbarous usage
to Grandys wife, be referred to ye Jury att ye next quarterly
Sessions and in the mean time to be committed to the good Behaviour

[...]
[...]

Island St Helena
A Consultation Held on Tuesday the 22 day of April 1701 at Fort James
[...]

Whereas severall freemen and Selects Neglect appearing to their severall and respective Sots on the aforsaid day, were afs[umm]oned to appeare this day before us to answer an alarm of their negligence

William Marsh free Planter Saith that he was very much indisposed in body, and was not able to repaire his Sots, whereby on ye dayes [...]

Paulte Charles Pd Saith he was coming to his Sots and seeing ye party gone, followed them to ye Plantation house, but could not overtake them [...]

Robt Pinnifs Pd Saith he heard nothing of ye Alarm

Margin Notes:
severall freemen and Selects Neglect appearing to their severall Sots

John Mudge’s rude conduct and violent treatment of James Grandy’s wife were referred to the jury at the next quarterly sessions. Until then, he was to be bound to good behaviour. [...]

[...]

A consultation was held on Tuesday 22 April 1701 at Fort James, St Helena.

Several freemen and selects had failed to appear at their separate and assigned posts on the appointed day. They were summoned to appear before the governor and council that day, so that they could answer for their negligence during an alarm.

William Marsh, a free planter, said that he had been very unwell. He had not been able to go to his post on the day [...].

Paulte Charles, a planter, said that he had been going to his post. When he saw that the party had already gone, he followed them to the Plantation House. He could not overtake them. [...]

Robert Pinnifs, a planter, said that he had heard nothing of the alarm.

Interpretations

The referral of Mudge’s treatment of Grandy’s wife to the jury moved the case from council discipline into formal legal judgment. The order to bind him to good behaviour controlled him before the next sessions without deciding the case at once.

The alarm system depended on assigned posts, called “sots” in the manuscript. These were probably stations or allotted places where freemen and selects had to report when the alarm was raised. Failure to appear was treated as negligence because defence on St Helena depended on quick local mobilisation.

Freemen, free planters and selects formed part of the island’s defence structure. Their duty was not only agricultural or civil. They were expected to respond when called, and the council examined excuses for absence post by post.

151

151

Richard Alexander Saith that he heard
nothing of the alarme for the three french Ships, neither of the
three ships (Supposed to be Dutch Ship) that went by ye Iland till
aboute one houre and a halfe after, when he Immediately repaired
to ye horse pastures, where he Expected to finde Capt. Bright & his party
by reason of the Ships being to ye Leeward of ye Island, but he not coming
there nor Sending any word to Inform ye party posed there, stayed til
them all night, who was no ways fayled in respect of his Duty, but not
withstanding this, was Imprisoned by Capt. Bright order, where he mounted
ye Guard next morning. Returned, & the Imprisonment was Judged
by the said Governr to be right unjust and Reuenging of severall reasons.

Whereas a Proclamation was Issued forth for the nomination
of Parish officers, four persons of Parish residents, and four Towns-
for overseers of the High ways, which two persons might be Chosen for
ye said offices to Succeed ye former, (each resident said owned of the
High Ways, who dwelling within his Day are dutie of those names to be
nominated and Elected by Property of Parish, who are to performe)

Church wardens - { Erasmus Trotary } for the High Division
{ Richard Bayley Sr }

Ditto { John Field } for the Lower Division
{ John Fuller }

overseers of the High ways - { James Grigspe } for the High Division
{ Jonas Higham }
Ditto { John Tely } { Thomas Parks }

It is ordered

John Field and
Edmun Penlong
chosen to be Church
Wardens - { That John Field and James Bayley being nominated for the
Church Wardens, who upon a Return of this Consultation
Jonathan Higham also was of opinion of ye parishioners
[...] ing done no prejudice duty of [...] other hindrances }

It is ordered

the old overseers of
the high way to Con-
tinue for the year ensuing, and that the old
Church Wardens be Summoned to appeare before last day Janrie that
they may pay their accs: wit us of ye last years proceedings, and the
new Church Wardens to be Insepcted in these said office)

Margin Notes:
John Field and Edmun Penlong chosen to be Church Wardens
The old overseers of the high way to continue for the year ensuing, and that the old Church Wardens be Summoned to appeare before last day Janrie that they may pay their accs: wit us of ye last years proceedings, and the new Church Wardens to be Insepcted in these said office

Richard Alexander said that he heard nothing of the alarm for the three French ships. He also heard nothing about the three ships, supposed to be Dutch, which passed the island. He heard of them about one and a half hours later. He then went at once to the Horse Pastures, where he expected to find Captain Bright and his party, because the ships were to leeward of the island.

Captain Bright did not come there. No word was sent to inform the party posted there. Alexander stayed with them all night. No failure in his duty was found. Even so, he was imprisoned by Captain Bright’s order. He mounted guard the next morning. The governor judged the imprisonment to be very unjust and revengeful for several reasons.

A proclamation was issued for the nomination of parish officers. Four parish residents and four townsmen were to be nominated as overseers of the highways. From them, two persons were to be chosen for the offices, to succeed the former officers. Each person was to serve for the area in which he lived.

Erasmus Trotary and Richard Bayley Senior were nominated as churchwardens for the High Division.

John Field and John Fuller were nominated as churchwardens for the Lower Division.

James Grigspe and Jonas Higham were nominated as overseers of the highways for the High Division.

John Tely and Thomas Parks were nominated as overseers of the highways for [...].

John Field and Edmund Penlong were chosen as churchwardens. John Field and James Bayley had been nominated for the churchwarden posts. On the return of this consultation, Jonathan Higham also gave his view on behalf of the parishioners. [...] no prejudice to duty or other hindrances was found.

The old overseers of the highways were ordered to continue for the following year. The old churchwardens were to be summoned to appear before [...] January, so that they could pay in their accounts for the previous year’s proceedings. The new churchwardens were then to be installed in those offices.

Interpretations

The alarm for French and Dutch ships showed how naval sightings were tied to local defence duties. Alexander’s duty was judged by where he went, how quickly he responded and whether he stayed with the posted party. The council weighed the practical facts of service rather than accepting Captain Bright’s punishment on its own.

The governor’s judgment that the imprisonment was unjust and revengeful showed a check on military authority. A captain could order confinement, but the governor and council could review whether that order rested on duty or private retaliation.

Churchwardens and overseers of the highways were parish offices with public responsibilities. Churchwardens handled parish business and accounts. Overseers of the highways maintained local roads. The selection process linked parish residence, nomination, election and yearly accountability.

The order that former officers account for the previous year showed that office holding carried financial responsibility. Public service did not end when a new officer was chosen. The old officers still had to settle the record of what they had done and spent.

Speculations

Alexander probably stressed the Horse Pastures because that place matched the position of the ships to leeward. His defence depended on showing that he went to the post where Captain Bright’s party was reasonably expected, not merely that he responded somewhere after hearing the alarm.

The decision to keep the old overseers for another year was probably a practical response to uncertainty or incomplete replacement. The council still proceeded with new churchwardens, but the highway offices were left in experienced hands while parish accounts and duties were being settled.

152

152

Robt. Addis Receivd Robert Addis Gunner Saith that by the Governr’s order
that all of Guns be in [h]e[s]port with Levi Bright and Anigne Goodwin. To all ye sou-
good order at the out forts to veiw the priz of ordinance and Ammunition thro-
Forts, Excepting the which they found in good order, Except the plate formes at[...]
Plat forms, and Lenders valley, which cant be repaired without Planks or-
[...] Sawing & Irones, Such as was formally Sent for Such uses,
Witnes my hand this twenty fourth day of Aprill 1701

Robt. Addis
Island S. Helena
Levi Bright
Tho: Goodwin

An a Consultation Held on Tues-
day the 29th day of Aprill 1701, At Fort James
Pres: Rower Governr
Tho: Bright & Tho: Goodwin Assigne

Elec.d Bragne fam: Bragne, Planke made Complaint Con. behalf of his mother
complains ag. Ralph in cuw Mrs. Bowman) against Ralph Gares. That whereas
Gales for Robbing he the said Gales did on ye 25th instant Robt. his said mothers hen &c.
and Bowmans and had Killed fowle fores, amongst w[hi]ch was an old Remarkable
Hen Russ. Coops which he fales at Mac: Bauges house the said gales having
Sold them to ye french men that Lodges there.

The Said Gales being called Cont. but acknowledge he
toke those four fowles from Mr. Bowman out of her house
on Thursday night last aboute Eleven of Clock Humblely begging
mercy Saith same promising faithfully never to commit
any oty. like. ever for the future.

Margin Notes:
Elec.d Bragne fam: Bragne, Planke made Complaint Con. behalf of his mother complains ag. Ralph in cuw Mrs. Bowman) against Ralph Gares. That whereas Gales for Robbing he the said Gales did on ye 25th instant Robt. his said mothers hen &c. and Bowmans and had Killed fowle fores, amongst w[hi]ch was an old Remarkable Hen Russ.
Hen Russ.

Robert Addis, gunner, said that by the governor’s order he had gone with Levi Bright and Ensign Goodwin to view the pieces of ordnance and the ammunition at the out forts. They found them in good order, except for the platforms at [...] and Lenders Valley. Those platforms could not be repaired without planks, sawing and irons of the kind formerly sent for such uses.

Robert Addis signed this statement on 24 April 1701. Levi Bright and Thomas Goodwin were also named.

A consultation was held on Tuesday 29 April 1701 at Fort James, St Helena. [...] was present as governor. Thomas Bright and Thomas Goodwin were also present.

[...] Bragne made a complaint on behalf of his mother, Mrs Bowman, against Ralph Gares. Gares was accused of robbing Mrs Bowman on 25 April 1701 by taking her hens and other fowls. Four fowls had been killed. One of them was an old and notable hen called Russ. The fowls were found at Mac Bauge’s house. Gares had sold them to the Frenchmen who lodged there.

Ralph Gares was called. He confessed that he had taken the four fowls from Mrs Bowman’s house on the previous Thursday night at about eleven o’clock. He begged humbly for mercy. He faithfully promised never to commit any similar offence again.

Interpretations

The inspection of the out forts showed routine military audit. The council needed named officers to confirm the state of the guns, ammunition and platforms. The ordnance was sound, but the platforms needed materials before repairs could be made. Defence depended on supply as much as on inspection.

The note about planks, sawing and irons showed that repairs to the out forts required Company-provided materials. Local officers could identify the defect, but they could not complete the work without stores suited to military structures.

The complaint against Ralph Gares showed that household theft was brought before the governor and council when it involved named property, witnesses and resale. The sale to French lodgers mattered because it traced the stolen fowls from Mrs Bowman’s house to another household.

Gares’s confession changed the case from suspicion to admitted theft. His plea for mercy and promise not to offend again were attempts to soften punishment after the facts had been acknowledged.

Speculations

The fowls were probably sold quickly to the Frenchmen because they were temporary lodgers and easier buyers for stolen goods. Their presence at Mac Bauge’s house gave the council a clear route from the theft to the disposal of the property.

153

153

And whereas Mr. Alexandra having lost Some Lumen vizt Two-
Some Sherl Shivers, one Neckcloth, and a Handkerchief which lay out on ye Roof
adryving in his owne Plantation, and hearing that ye Said Gales was
out that night, Taxed the Said Gales of Robbing the salts, who at
first denyed it, but Seeing him swore, Acknowledged of ye Said fact,

It is therefore ordered,

That upon Consideration of the Said Gales Ingenious Condition
of being 4 years absent, being verball very Penitent for the
prohibition recove to Servant, & such any more That he ye Said
Gales be only Imprisoned till ye last day and then to be whipt
on his naked body at ye Crosse for the cause and to be dismissed
and likewise nothing to make Satisfaction
to the persons Injured according to ye Just of such Gales.

Whereas the Old Church wardens of ye paroch and new Church
wardens and overseers of ye High way for ye parish of St Helena
ordered to appeare before last day Janrie to give their accounts
be Inspect in their office and that the new Church Wardens of ye parish
also: wit us, the Guard.

Margin Notes:
Mr. Alexandra having lost Some Sherl Shivers, one Neckcloth and a Handkerchief
Some all Gales confessing the Fact to be Whipt on his Naked Body and Service
John Meudge Complains ag. Sergt. Field for breakeing open her Doore
The Old Church wardens past their Warden and the New Ones Invested

Mr Alexander had lost some linen. The missing items were two [...] shivers, one neckcloth and one handkerchief. They had been left on the roof to dry at his own plantation. He heard that Ralph Gales had been out that night. He accused Gales of stealing the items.

Gales at first denied the charge. When he saw that Mr Alexander swore to it, he confessed the offence.

Ralph Gales’s open confession was considered. His condition was also considered, because he had been absent for four years, was very penitent and had been [...] to service. He was ordered to be imprisoned until the last day. He was then to be whipped on his naked body at the Cross and dismissed. He was also to make satisfaction to the injured persons according to justice.

The old churchwardens of the parish, the new churchwardens and the overseers of the highways for the parish of St Helena had been ordered to appear before [...] January. They were to give their accounts and be installed in their offices. The new churchwardens of the parish also appeared with the guard.

Interpretations

The theft of linen was treated together with the earlier theft of Mrs Bowman’s fowls. Gales’s confession linked two separate losses to the same offender. The council therefore moved from recovery of property to bodily punishment and restitution.

Whipping at the Cross made punishment public. The Cross was used as a visible place of discipline, where the offence, the body of the offender and the council’s authority were displayed together.

The order to make satisfaction meant that punishment did not replace compensation. Gales was whipped for the offence, but the injured people still had to be repaid or otherwise compensated.

The churchwardens and highway overseers were not merely named to offices. Their accounts had to be checked and the new officers had to be formally installed. Parish administration therefore involved handover, audit and public recognition of office.

Speculations

The council probably treated Gales’s confession as a reason to limit the case rather than prolong it. He admitted the theft after first denying it, and the order combined short imprisonment, public whipping and satisfaction instead of a longer inquiry into both thefts.

The reference to his four years’ absence and return to service probably helped explain why the council framed him as a servant under discipline as well as a thief. His punishment restored both public order and household control.

154

154

It is ordered

That upon the Complaint of James Browne against the said m[...]
for abusing his words, The said Capt Reitz be Rec[e]yved and discharged
the Exchequer But the Govern[or] &c

Whereas upon Saturday Last being the 25th Instant both Leiu[ten]t
Bright and Josias Chaffin in the presence of Jon[athan] Frith Se[...]: and
whereas many did amongst many others notoriously [...]
the good Orator that if Rich[ar]d Hono: Captn Josias Chaffin would give help
their Instructions I thought a long point was hand in the Ashroad
to Govern[or] and Council brought by the Shipps Benjamin & E[...]
the Commission they have Hundred one pottle As after many [...]
(News), God Damn you, told me if that woman, I say she has [...]
Get a Hintersoome, and that I have been Hang[e]d in france in
Effiges and that if you not for Reasons, False, but for Reason
by Rebellion, of which Seditious words I do appeal to my said
Rt Hon[ora]ble master to do me Justice. Such words tending only to
Contempt and to slight my best to withstand y[e] Kings Cheifes at
this Island where me, and so consequently to come to dangerous
Consequence and to combine with the French, certaine at Europe
Knows they did say hath in word and writing do shall they
go to Ride such Horrid Execution if they will from all
good men,

To the truth of which we sett our hands the day and year
aforesaid.
Geo Field
Jona Marden

Vera Copie p me
Jno Alexander

J Except against this Paragraph
Witnessed by Mr Field & him answered y[e]
very words Related by me.

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Upon Ja: Brownes
Complt agt Mr Mardenge
Georg: Field Co Defend

Govr & Council Infor
mation agt Lieuten[an]t
Bright & Ensign
Goodwin

James Browne complained against Mr Mardenge for abusing his words. Captain Reitz was received and discharged from the Exchequer [...]. The governor and council [...].

On Saturday 25 April 1701, Lieutenant Bright and Josias Chaffin were present with Jonathan Frith [...]. Among many others, they were said to have spoken notoriously [...].

The complaint stated that Captain Josias Chaffin had said that if [...] gave help, their instructions [...]. A long point was thought to be in the roadstead. It concerned the governor and council, and had been brought by the ships Benjamin and [...]. The commission had [...] one pottle. After many [...], he said, “God damn you.” He said that if that woman [...]. He also said that [...] had been hanged in France in effigy. He said that this was not for reasons that were false, but for reasons of rebellion.

These were described as seditious words. An appeal was made to the right honourable master for justice. The words were said to tend only to contempt. They were also said to slight the governor’s duty to uphold the king’s authority on St Helena. Dangerous consequences were feared. The words were also linked to a possible combination with the French. It was said that Europe knew what they had said in word and writing, and that they would carry out such horrible execution if they could.

George Field and Jonathan Marden set their hands to the statement on the same day and year.

John Alexander certified that it was a true copy.

Thomas Goodwin excepted against one paragraph. He said that Mr Field had witnessed it and that he had answered the exact words related by him.

Interpretations

The complaint treated spoken words as a threat to public authority. The alleged remarks were not handled as ordinary insults. They were described as seditious because they attacked the governor and council, questioned loyalty and raised the danger of rebellion.

The reference to being hanged in effigy carried political force. An execution in effigy was a symbolic punishment of an absent person. Here it suggested dishonour, treason or condemnation by public representation rather than by the person’s body.

The appeal to the “right honourable master” pointed beyond the island. The matter was framed for higher Company authority, not only for local correction. This showed how disputes over speech on St Helena could be escalated when they touched royal authority, Company government or wartime danger.

The reference to combining with the French made the accusation more serious. French power was treated as an external threat. Words that suggested sympathy, contact or shared purpose with the French could be read as a danger to the island’s security.

Speculations

The statement was probably written to preserve exact words for use before higher authority. George Field, Jonathan Marden and John Alexander authenticated it, while Thomas Goodwin objected to one paragraph. That structure suggests that the wording itself was disputed and politically important.

The accusation probably became sharper because the words were spoken after news or papers arrived by the ships Benjamin and [...]. The passage tied local speech to information from outside the island, which made the remarks seem less like drunken abuse and more like a challenge connected to wider events.

155

155

Island St Helena

A Con[sultation] Held
on Thursday the 5th Day of May 1701 At
Fort James,
Pr[esent] H[is] Ex[cellency] S[n] P[oiner] Govern[or]
Thomas Bright Dep[uty] Govern[or]
Thomas Goddwin, Ensign

Ralph Gates Entered into of Comp[an]y Service d[a]y one as a Societ[or]

may w[...] appeare [...] to his m[ist]er from the E[...]
[...] de m[ist]er of following conditions [...] being forth therein [...]
[...] not any manner of thing to make from Payment [...]
[...] to his deplorable condition and to Entertaine him [...]

Upon which considering the Pe[ti]t[ion] of R[alph] Gates Humble Petition
[...] his request his Pe[ti]t[ion] from this day be admonished for [...]

Poirier
Th[omas] Goddwin

Margin Notes:
Ralph Gates Entered into of Comp[an]y Service d[a]y one as a Societ[or]

No other margin notes are visible in the images you have provided.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Thursday 5 May 1701.

Stephen Poirier was present as governor. Thomas Bright was present as deputy governor. Thomas Goodwin was present as ensign.

Ralph Gates entered into the Company’s service for one day as a [...]. [...] appeared [...] to his master from the [...]. The following conditions were set out. [...] no manner of thing was to be taken from payment [...].

Ralph Gates’s poor condition was considered. He was to be entertained [...]. His humble petition was considered. His request was granted from that day. He was admonished [...].

Stephen Poirier and Thomas Goodwin signed the order.

Interpretations

Ralph Gates’s entry into Company service showed that a person under discipline or hardship could be placed into formal service rather than left outside recognised control. The order turned his “deplorable condition” into an administrative matter, with service, terms and admonition recorded by the governor and council.

The petition was the means by which Gates sought relief or placement. The council did not treat his request as purely private. It was weighed, granted and tied to conditions, which made his future conduct part of the official record.

Speculations

The council probably used Company service as a way to manage Gates after his earlier offences and punishment. The passage linked his poor condition, his petition and his formal entry into service, suggesting that employment under defined authority was chosen as a practical remedy.

156

156

Island S Helena

A Court Consultation Held
on Tuesday the 12 day of May 1701, At
Fort James

Pres[e]nt Steph[e]n Poirier Governr
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensign

Whereas Ralph Gates saith that I being [...]
day of May 1701 [...] it being night Edward [...] at night
[...] Meeting the Governor Bright one of the Soldiers sent John Keene Corp[ora]l
from the Fort sent him at y[e] Hold [...], and having him at Mr Grim[...] House
Edward Cole at [...] and the s[ai]d Ralph Gates at my come, [...] he of that
Night, but [...] the said man [...] to y[e] guard and would do what I would, and
he Come &c

would come when the Corp[ora]l would upon the Governor for the Records
God sent against the said Corp[ora]l to urge him what standing the Co[...]
before whereon me his House him to come down retaining him
Ralph Gates some Desired him he should presently desire him [...] from
[...] If he asked him only What he would not demand
if there was any Woman what would be to keep man covered or short
so afterwards went the said Corp[ora]l and he said Capt Bright again
but when George Stone came the Governor with a stringe him told
him I wish came would tell when I have any Maniere

To all which the said Captn Heremon hath made oath
before Governr & Councill

A Copy Such disobedience as aforesaid I the Governr thought
that the said Captn Bright would come and trouble me at unseason
of his did Severall times which he did night Brooke of y[e] Cash, But
I would not send therefore to humour him, So went upon y[e] Time, and
also the Clergy Challenged him Severall times and threatened to
five at him, Returnd no answer but god Damn you and fire

Margin Notes:
In Bright being
out of the Fort the
Govr sent for him abt
Eleaven Clock at
Night but Refused
to Come &c

About Two of the
Clock in y[e] Morning
the Govr met [...]
Bright at y[e] Capts
Bridge where y[e] said
Bright Challeng[e]d
the Governr, and
him Stand

A court consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 12 May 1701.

Stephen Poirier was present as governor. Thomas Goodwin was present as ensign.

Ralph Gates said that on [...] May 1701, at night, Edward [...] was [...]. When Governor Bright was met, one of the soldiers from the Fort, John Keene, corporal, was sent to bring him to the Hold [...]. He was found at Mr Grim[...]’s house. Edward Cole was at [...]. Ralph Gates was also there. [...]

The corporal was told to bring the man to the guard. He said that he would do what he could, and that the man would come when the corporal called him. This was done on the governor’s order, for the record. The corporal was urged to bring him. [...] at his house was asked to come down. Ralph Gates desired him to come at once. [...]

The question was asked only what he would not demand. A woman was mentioned. [...] Afterwards the corporal went again to Captain Bright. When George Stone came, the governor [...] told him [...].

Captain Heremon swore to all this before the governor and council.

The governor recorded that, because of the disobedience already described, he had thought Captain Bright would come and trouble him at an unseasonable hour, as he had done several times before. Bright did come that night [...]. The governor did not send for him again merely to humour him.

About two o’clock in the morning, the governor met Bright at the captain’s bridge. Bright challenged the governor several times and threatened to fire at him. The governor made no answer. Bright said, “God damn you”, and fired.

Interpretations

The complaint centred on a refusal to obey a night summons. A corporal was sent from the Fort to bring Bright in, so the matter was treated as a breach of military and civil order. Disobedience to a governor’s command carried wider danger because the Fort depended on clear chains of command.

The timing mattered. The first summons was made at about eleven o’clock at night. The later encounter took place at about two o’clock in the morning. The record framed Bright’s conduct as repeated disorder during hours when military control, watch duty and personal restraint were especially important.

The captain’s bridge was a functional location in the incident. The meeting there made the quarrel public and military, rather than a purely private dispute inside a house. A challenge and a threat to fire at the governor turned disobedience into direct defiance of authority.

The oath before the governor and council gave the account formal weight. The council preserved the chain of events through sworn testimony, named officers and named soldiers before treating the episode as misconduct.

Speculations

The governor probably used John Keene as corporal because a summons delivered through a military subordinate made Bright’s refusal harder to dismiss as a private misunderstanding. The order created a clear test of obedience.

Bright’s challenge at the captain’s bridge probably escalated the matter because it turned a refusal to appear into an armed confrontation. The governor’s silence may have been used to show that the shot followed Bright’s provocation rather than a mutual quarrel.

157

157

you will then went to y[e] East Ridge and as he said [...]
was used by Mary Davies the woman who reported to [...]
that night about one at a clock said Did his sword and ordered it
against the ground he drew it the same time and begun to
dance from the mans house I fearing severity to do so for me [...]
Sometime there at Edmund [...] else after midnight I spoke nothing
else when I came I said Capt Bright I Desire you to stop me There
was one Edw[ar]d Cole in company with Edw[ar]d [...] and informed
me said he would have the sudgeing[...] although his sword Did not shew
then at that post and that Edward one y[e] said night at Eleaven of
y[e] Clock to come to his Lodging without his Fort Side refusing to Come
he had not sent for him a guard man that had been Selling him [...]
that nothing to be at him tho[ugh] but as y[e] said Did suppose it to
be it and so after many flourishing of his Sword Cutting and
Damming me very basely and then did pass me going my rounds
so Rebuke to my thurs her mother attested Such proceedings are
humbly Rem[em]b[er]ed

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
[...] and put
point of his Sword at
the Govrs breast & [...]

He then went to the East Ridge. Mary Davies, the woman who reported to [...], was used that night. At about one o’clock, he had his sword. He pointed it towards the ground, then drew it at the same time and began to dance away from the man’s house. Severity was feared [...].

Some time after midnight, at Edmund [...]’s house, nothing else was said. When [...] came, it was said, “Captain Bright, I desire you to stop me.” Edward Cole was in company with Edward [...]. He informed [...] that Bright would have the [...], although his sword did not show then at that post.

At about eleven o’clock that night, Edward [...] was ordered to come to his lodging outside the Fort. He refused to come. A guard man had not been sent for him [...]. Nothing was meant against him, although he supposed it was so.

After many flourishes of his sword, Bright cut at [...] and cursed [...] very basely. He then passed while the rounds were being made.

Thomas Goodwin humbly submitted the proceedings. The margin added that [...] put the point of his sword at the governor’s breast and [...].

Thomas Goodwin attested the account.

Interpretations

The account continued to treat Bright’s conduct as armed disorder during the night watch. His sword was not merely carried. It was drawn, flourished and used in a way that threatened the governor while rounds were being made.

The East Ridge and the rounds placed the incident within the island’s military routine. Night movement, posts and patrols mattered because the governor’s authority depended on safe and obedient watch duty.

The margin note added a sharper charge than the main text clearly preserved. The point of Bright’s sword was said to have been put at the governor’s breast. That changed the episode from disorderly refusal into a direct physical threat against the governor’s body.

Speculations

Bright probably treated the summons as an insult or trap, because the passage says that nothing was meant against him, although he supposed it was so. That suspicion may explain why he refused to come, drew his sword and turned the governor’s order into a confrontation.

Thomas Goodwin’s attestation was probably meant to strengthen the governor’s record against Bright. The incident involved confused night movements and disputed words, so a signed officer’s account gave the complaint greater force.

158

158

Island S Helena

A Court Consultation Held
on Tuesday the 13th day of May 1701. At
Fort James

Pres[en]t Stephn Poirier Governr
Edm[un]d Bright Depu[ty] Governr
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensign

Whereas John Field and Erasmus Purling
being appointed Church Wardens for this Present yeare, were
this day Sworn to their office; And accordingly Sonerell performe
the said office and the said Church Wardens haveing Past their
Accts: as usuall and their Perbursmt the same Past and being
approved of were discharged from their Said office.

The Declaration of Thomas Warren Commandr
of the Ship John Galley upon Examination.

Whereas the said Ship John Galley Thomas Warren Commandr Departed y[e]
downs about the 18th February Last Past Cleared at the Customhouse
(as appears by his Letter and Victualling Bills bearing date the 13th &
18th of December 1700) for Private trade by Permission from the
English East India Compa and proceeded on his Voyage into y[e] Latitude
of 36 South and there by unhappy misfortune mett wth a French Spark
who Plundred the said Galley. Depriveing her of all Sorts of Victualls
Ammunition, and takeing what other Goods they thought fitt, and
have thereby utterly Disabled the Shipps Proceeding on her intended Voyage
to the said Honble Warren Commander adviseing wth my Shipps Company
found our selves obliged by necessity to Proceed for St Helena, our Ship
being Plundred as aforesd: and thereby the Passage of y[e] Voyage wholly
Lost, and the Ship Incapacitated to Proceed the Voyage, where Landed
the 10th Instant, and applyed my Selfe to the Governr: & Declared

Margin Notes:
The Old Church
Wardens Discharged
and the New ones
Invested.

The Declaration of
Thom: Warren
Commandr of the
John Galley

A court consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 13 May 1701.

Stephen Poirier was present as governor. Edmund Bright was present as deputy governor. Thomas Goodwin was present as ensign.

John Field and Erasmus Purling had been appointed churchwardens for the present year. They were sworn into office that day. They were to perform the office accordingly.

The former churchwardens had passed their accounts as usual. Their disbursements were also passed and approved. They were discharged from office.

Thomas Warren, commander of the ship John Galley, made a declaration under examination.

The John Galley, commanded by Thomas Warren, had left the Downs about 18 February 1701. She had been cleared at the Custom House for private trade by permission of the English East India Company. This was shown by Warren’s letter and victualling bills, dated 13 December 1700 and 18 December 1700.

The ship continued her voyage to latitude 36 degrees south. There, by misfortune, she met a French spark. The French vessel plundered the John Galley. All kinds of victuals and ammunition were taken from her. Other goods were also taken as the French chose.

The ship was left unable to continue her intended voyage. Warren consulted his ship’s company. They found that necessity forced them to go to St Helena. The ship had been plundered, the voyage had been wholly lost and she could not proceed. She reached the island on 10 May 1701. Warren then applied to the governor and made his declaration.

Interpretations

The appointment and swearing of churchwardens showed the formal handover of parish office. The old officers could not simply leave office. Their accounts and spending first had to be checked, approved and discharged.

The Custom House clearance and East India Company permission showed that the John Galley sailed under recognised authority. Warren’s papers mattered because they proved the ship’s lawful departure, purpose and victualling before the loss at sea.

The declaration framed the arrival at St Helena as an act of necessity. Warren had to show that the ship did not divert by choice. The loss of victuals, ammunition and goods explained why St Helena became the required refuge.

The French attack was recorded in terms of material loss and capacity. The key point was not only that property had been taken. The ship’s ability to sail, trade and defend herself had been destroyed.

Speculations

Warren probably stressed consultation with his ship’s company because the change of course needed collective justification. The voyage had been authorised for private trade, so the decision to abandon it and make for St Helena had to be shown as forced by plunder rather than chosen for convenience.

159

159

my misfortune who Sett on board five of his Councell to Examin[e]
the truth of my Report about the day where On they have in their
on the 15th Instant Arrived here in this Road the English Merchant Capt
Louis Commander from Mascatt the wholewoth said ship from Persia
or that [...] of the same John Warren from Madrass and of the Trade Gather
er as I had done for whom John Williams who assuring all persons
in Consultation This 26 Instant and unanimously agreeing that
by virtue of every Ships Commission and from the King they were
obliged to Administer the Oath Ceasing from England whathe Bound
from whence they came and all other Particulars required to give
them satisfaction and seeing me here in y[e] Road did send for me
to give them a Satisfactory Acco[t] of my voyage which I did as fair
as my unhappy misfortune would Permit them having them what
Packets I had left and desired them of my Licence obtained by my
Owners from the English East India Comp[a] Such I am deprived
by the aforesaid Pirates, and they thereupon under mine and my
mates hands the true affirmation of the aforesaid Licence, Thomas
Warren Commander, Cath John Williams his mate do give under our
hands that there was such a Licence given by the English East India
Company, as per Copy Thomas Warren Commander, and was Seen
and observed on board by me John Williams Chief mate and by
the Pirate by force taken from me the said Williams who was much
abused by being beaten wounded for Endeavouring to Conceale it
to which the said Thomas Warren and John Williams signed each
before the Governr and Councill of Said Island. Witness our hands
this 26th day of May 1701

Tho: Warren
Jn Williams

Capt Bright desired that Mr Carne might be sworne wheather or
no he said that there was nothing done in Councill but he knew it, and
hath seen y[e] whole Consultation book when Capt Bright Mr Governr
had it to peruse.

The said Carne deposeth that what he hath said
he Cannot Remember, but as for y[e] Booke it is utterly
false.

John Alexander Saith that about a month ago Mr Carne
Told him there was nothing Acted in Councill, but he knew so done
as the Councill themselves and doth wish he saw y[e] said Carne and
Capt Bright Looking over y[e] whole Consultation book in the said
Brights roome

Margin Notes:
Capt Bright desired
Mr Carne may be
sworne wheather he
saied there was nothing
done in Councill but
he knew of it &c

John Alexander Says
Mr Carne told him
there was nothing
done in Councill but
he knew of it &c.

Thomas Warren declared his misfortune to the governor. The governor placed five members of his council on board the ship to examine whether Warren’s report was true.

On 15 May 1701, the English merchant ship [...] arrived in the road. Captain Louis was commander. She came from Muscat. The [...] ship came from Persia, or [...]. John Warren came from Madras. [...]

The commanders and traders met in consultation on 26 May 1701. They agreed unanimously that, by the authority of each ship’s commission from the king, they were obliged to administer an oath. They were to ask what ships had come from England, where they were bound, where they had come from and all other details needed to satisfy them.

They saw Thomas Warren in the road and sent for him. He was required to give a satisfactory account of his voyage. He gave the best account that his misfortune allowed. He showed what papers he still had. He told them about the licence obtained by his owners from the English East India Company. He had been deprived of it by the pirates.

Thomas Warren and his mate then gave a written affirmation of the lost licence. Thomas Warren, commander, and John Williams, chief mate, declared under their hands that such a licence had been granted by the English East India Company. Warren had held a copy. John Williams had seen and observed it on board. The pirate had taken it from Williams by force. Williams had been beaten and wounded because he tried to hide it.

Thomas Warren and John Williams signed the declaration before the governor and council of St Helena on 26 May 1701.

Captain Bright asked that Mr Carne be sworn. He was to be asked whether he had said that nothing was done in council without his knowing it, and whether he had seen the whole consultation book when Captain Bright had it to read.

Mr Carne deposed that he could not remember what he had said. As for the book, he said the claim was utterly false.

John Alexander said that about a month earlier Mr Carne had told him that nothing was done in council without his knowing it as well as the council members themselves. Alexander also said that he saw Mr Carne and Captain Bright looking over the whole consultation book in Bright’s room.

Interpretations

Warren’s missing licence mattered because it proved that the John Galley had sailed with East India Company permission. The loss of the document to pirates created a legal problem. Warren and Williams therefore replaced the missing paper with sworn evidence that the licence had existed and had been taken by force.

The oath process by the other commanders protected lawful trade and naval order. Ships arriving at St Helena needed to explain where they came from, where they were bound and what authority they carried. This helped separate lawful English shipping from suspect movement during wartime.

Williams’s beating and wounding showed why the loss of the licence was not treated as negligence. His attempt to conceal it supported the claim that the document was valuable and that its loss came through violence.

The consultation book was a record of council business. The allegation that Captain Bright and Mr Carne had read the whole book raised a serious issue of access to government records. Council proceedings were treated as restricted information, not as papers open to private inspection.

Speculations

The commanders probably required Warren’s account because the John Galley had arrived without the full papers needed to prove her lawful voyage. The sworn statement from Warren and Williams was a practical substitute for the licence taken by the pirates.

The inquiry into Mr Carne probably reflected anxiety about Captain Bright’s access to official records. Alexander’s evidence placed Carne and Bright together with the consultation book in Bright’s room. That detail made the issue more serious than loose talk, because it suggested that council information had been physically removed or exposed outside ordinary control.

160

160

June the 8th 1701

Mary French Daughter & Executrix of
Thomas Bee free Planter late of y[e] Island
decd brought and delivered up his Will to be Examined and
proved, and accordingly done by the oaths of Rich[ar]d Guydny
and James Greentree who were each of them saw the said Will now pro
duced and the said Thomas Bee’s last Will & Testament and at
the time of his death by him made Either in word or writing

It is ordered

That y[e] said will be received and Coppys thereof given when
demanded

The said Mary Frenches Declaration
concerning what her father said on his death bed,

That she hath often heard her father say
That the house he did at Leadwood green was the house of his daugh
ter in Law but knows no more particularly what say he died And said he thought that
Edward Bagley was the only man that gave him flowers w[i]th
stones on his Right side besides his Wife

James Greentree Saith that the same night that
the said Deceased was made be row at his house, what he heard
him say that he did not know but he being he recd by him that
the Entrance at him at Landys house might be the cause of his death
did after come and the said Bee say that he could, because that he had
Either hold of Edward Bagley by his Souce Cape or his saw him or
a Long Pole on, which of whether he [...] further remembered

Richard Guydny Saith to y[e] same effect as James
Greentree Saith

It is ordered that y[e] said Edward
Bagley be summoned to appeare before us on Tuesday y[e] 17th Instant

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
Thomas Bee dec[ease]d
last Will & Testam[ent]
Recd & approved

Mary Frenchs De
claration what
her Father Said on
his Death bed.

On 8 June 1701, Mary French, daughter and executrix of Thomas Bee, a free planter late of St Helena, brought in his will. She delivered it so that it could be examined and proved.

The will was proved by the oaths of Richard Guydny and James Greentree. Each of them had seen the will now produced. They swore that it was Thomas Bee’s last will and testament. It had been made by him before his death, either by word or in writing.

The will was ordered to be received. Copies were to be given when demanded.

Mary French then made a declaration about what her father had said on his deathbed. She said that she had often heard him say that the house he had at Leadwood Green belonged to his daughter-in-law. She knew no further particulars about what he said before he died.

She also said that he thought Edward Bagley was the only man who had struck him with stones on his right side, apart from his wife.

James Greentree said that on the same night when the deceased was brought to his house, he heard him speak. He did not know [...]. Bee said that the assault on him at Landy’s house might be the cause of his death. He then said that he had either held Edward Bagley by his [...], or had seen him with a long pole. The exact detail was not further remembered.

Richard Guydny gave evidence to the same effect as James Greentree.

Edward Bagley was ordered to appear before the council on Tuesday 17 June 1701.

Thomas Goodwin signed the order.

Interpretations

The will was proved through witness oaths before the governor and council. This gave Mary French legal standing as executrix and allowed copies of the will to be issued. The process turned a private testament into an accepted public record.

Mary French’s statement about Leadwood Green mattered because it identified a disputed or separate claim to a house. Her father had said the house belonged to his daughter-in-law. That statement affected inheritance and property control, even though Mary French could give no fuller detail.

The deathbed statements were treated as evidence because they linked Thomas Bee’s injury to Edward Bagley. The council did not decide guilt from those words alone. It ordered Bagley to appear, which moved the matter from reported dying speech to direct examination.

Speculations

Edward Bagley was probably summoned because Bee’s deathbed words raised a concrete suspicion that an assault at Landy’s house had caused his death. The detail about stones striking his right side gave the council a specific injury to investigate, not merely a general quarrel.

Mary French’s careful statement that she knew no further particulars probably protected her role as executrix. She reported what her father had often said about the house at Leadwood Green, but she did not enlarge the claim beyond what she could support.

161

161

Island S Helena

Atta Consultation Held on
Tuesday the 15th day of June 1701 Att Fort James

Pres[en]t Stephn Poirier Governr
Edm[u]nd Bright Dep[ty] Governr
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

Whereas Mary French was summoned to Governr
from [...] Petition to have [...] thereon that her Father Thomas
Bee desired his Body might be buried in the same Ground as his
wife upon Sally by the house such as she thought fit to do
and did declare in Answer to y[e] said Mary that she having was
the [...] of her father was [...] to keep the said house
[...] of Ja: Grimney &c That he should not do any wrong and they [...]
that Edward Bagley was the man that gave him y[e] Same time
doing him the Damage That he might be Examined on Tuesday next
that he might be Examined touching all things that the Father said
the House and also Mrs Ann Cox and Mrs [...] being thought of
Returne together further mentioning that they might be Called Concerning
on Tuesday y[e] 17th of this Instant

The said Grimney Answers having Called and asked Bagley desired
to bring the said supposed greeny one [...] Witnesses what might
be gott well

One Stephen Child Saith that the night as the said Bagley
and his house door open was as most house about Eight
of y[e] Clock wth Stephen Child at come for they did a cauction of y[e] House
and Being Standing at y[e] behind House Bagley challenged them
and asked the other John Bagley why he would give
them a bottle of wine they could Catch him after he was thereupon
went over to Mr James and bought a bottle of wine wth him to Mr
Georges house where they drunk it, Emanuell Bagley and when the
bottle was out he and Stephen Child went to George
Hoskings House and a further had stayed there awhile Catherine House
were to Thomas Allens house y[e] said Stephen Child haveing the key
thereof where they stay together all night.

Margin Notes:
Mary French declared
at her Father Morning
we Confesse upon his Death
that he desired
his bed that the
house and brasse should
recd of Ja: Grimney &
all was of herself
his Death &c.

Tho: Hearing and
Stephen Child Examin
ation & Several
Witnesses as Examined.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 15 June 1701.

Stephen Poirier was present as governor. Edmund Bright was present as deputy governor. Thomas Goodwin was present as ensign.

Mary French was summoned before the governor. She was questioned about a petition concerning what her father, Thomas Bee, had said before he died.

Mary French said that her father wished his body to be buried in the same ground as his wife. She also said that he had spoken about the house by [...] and about brass goods. The damaged text and the margin indicate that Thomas Bee said the house and the brass had been received from James Grimney, and that they belonged to Mary French herself.

Mary French was told that, since she was [...] of her father, she was to keep the house [...]. James Grimney and the others were not to do her any wrong.

Edward Bagley was also named. Thomas Bee had said that Bagley was the man who had injured him. Bagley was to be examined on Tuesday 17 June 1701. He was to be questioned about all that Thomas Bee had said concerning the house and the injury. Mrs Ann Cox and Mrs [...] were also thought able to give evidence. They were to be called on the same day.

James Grimney was called and questioned. He answered [...]. Bagley asked that the supposed witness should be brought, if such a witness could be found.

Stephen Child was examined. He said that, on the night in question, Bagley’s house door stood open at about eight o’clock. Stephen Child was near the house. [...] stood behind the house. Bagley challenged them. He asked John Bagley why he would give them a bottle of wine if they could catch him afterwards.

They then went to Mr James’s house and bought a bottle of wine. They took it to Mr George’s house and drank it there. Emanuel Bagley was present.

When the bottle was finished, Stephen Child and [...] went to George Hosking’s house. They stayed there for a while. They then went to Thomas Allen’s house. Stephen Child had the key. They stayed there together all night.

Interpretations

Mary French’s evidence joined three issues: her father’s burial, his property and the injury he said had been done to him. The council treated these as linked but separate matters. His burial wish concerned family memory. His words about the house and brass concerned ownership. His statement about Edward Bagley concerned possible violence before death.

The house and brass goods mattered because they were movable and household property that could be claimed after Thomas Bee’s death. The reference to James Grimney suggested that the goods had passed through him or had been received from him. This made witness evidence necessary before Mary French’s claim could be accepted.

Edward Bagley was not condemned on Mary French’s report alone. He was ordered to appear for examination, and other witnesses were to be called. The council used Thomas Bee’s deathbed words as a reason to investigate, not as proof by themselves.

Stephen Child’s evidence gave a sequence of movements through several houses that night. The route from Bagley’s house to Mr James’s house, Mr George’s house, George Hosking’s house and Thomas Allen’s house helped the council test where the men were, who was with them and whether Bagley could be connected to the injury.

Speculations

The council probably wanted to separate Mary French’s property claim from the accusation against Edward Bagley. Both rested on what Thomas Bee had said before death. By calling Bagley, Ann Cox, Mrs [...] and other witnesses, the council could test each part of the deathbed account instead of accepting it as one single claim.

Stephen Child’s account was probably meant to provide an alibi or timeline. The bottle of wine explained why the men moved from house to house. The statement that they stayed all night at Thomas Allen’s house may have been used to show where they were after the earlier events near Bagley’s house.

162

162

Stephen Child saith to the same effect as Enes[...] Hudson
hath deposed

Edward Bagley being Examined saith that y[e] night afore
he was at his father in Law Bagleys about eight or nine of y[e] Clock and
went home together with his Brother John Bagley, Sent word to
James Treebe[...] house to enquire for him where was y[e] said
Enes[...] Hudson and Stephen Child who said to him if youle give
us a bottle of wine, you could see you where pleased, whereupon
with said he was going home which bore away from us, and
brought it to Mr Georges door to them, and drank part at
them, then went againe to y[e] said Carnes House [...]
where he lay all night.

George Hudson saith that y[e] same night of the damage
happened to be done at Grandys House, in y[e] Butt Alley, he was
a bed and hearing much goe up, and doe the [...] looking from
between the Two steps near, who percevering him come under
y[e] said Gallery and stretched his Arme, and said go to bed go
to bed [...] to whome he said dont discover y[e] Trevors to you
but be gone, and presently the said Mr Grandy called to him and
desired him to come and take his Rock Caldrons because being
in a fire, Edward Conditions being upon a little time out and
told him that he would give up all where he found George and Bee
Joseph Bayley and Mr Hiphant and y[e] said Three immediately
he was in y[e] said Grandys house saw a stick thrust round
y[e] window which knockt Hudson quite away from thence, and
moreover Saw and heard several stones thrown in y[e] said
house, and a little while after returned home again where
presently came Stephen Child and one Hazard to whome
he saith He show of y[e] damages done both to Grandys
house and y[e] said Ebs, and they three being standing at his
door saw Joseph Higham fetch over y[e] bottle of wine on
his door and Grandys, and saw step into house to take up
Isaac Stones to throw at him but whether he did or no
he Cant Tell and about half an hour after the said
Child and Howard were got from him, y[e] s[ai]d Hudson saith y[e]
next morning Mrs Grandy came to him and said y[e]
they whome he accused her so and break open her doors
and windows would but come and make her satisfaction for
them, she would give up all damages besides w[ha]t she had suffered
by them; and the said Hudson thinking that y[e] said

Margin Notes:
m[a]r y[e] they were
not at all s[ai]d house

Stephen Child gave evidence to the same effect as Enes Hudson.

Edward Bagley was examined. He said that on the night before, at about eight or nine o’clock, he had been at his father-in-law Bagley’s house. He then went home with his brother, John Bagley.

A message was sent to James Treebe’s house to look for him. Enes Hudson and Stephen Child were there. They said to him that, if he gave them a bottle of wine, he could see where he was pleased. He said he was going home. He then went away from them, brought the wine to Mr George’s door and drank part of it with them. He then went again to Mr Carne’s house, where he lay all night.

George Hudson said that on the same night when the damage was done at Grandy’s house, in the Butt Alley, he was in bed. He heard a noise and looked out from between the two steps nearby. Someone saw him, came under the gallery, stretched out his arm and said, “Go to bed, go to bed.” Hudson answered that he should not discover the [...] to him, but should be gone.

Soon after, Mr Grandy called to Hudson and asked him to come and take his rock caldrons, because they were in danger from the fire. Edward [...] came out a little later and told him that he would give up all where he found George and Bee, Joseph Bayley and Mr Hiphant.

Hudson was then in Grandy’s house. He saw a stick thrust through the window. It struck him and drove him away from that place. He also saw and heard several stones thrown into Grandy’s house.

A little later he returned home. Soon after, Stephen Child and one Hazard came to him. Hudson showed them the damage done both to Grandy’s house and to the said [...].

While the three of them stood at his door, they saw Joseph Higham fetch a bottle of wine across between his door and Grandy’s. Hudson also saw [...] step into a house to take up Isaac stones to throw at him, but he could not tell whether they were thrown.

About half an hour after Child and Howard had gone from him, Hudson said that Mrs Grandy came to him the next morning. She said that if the people whom he accused of breaking open her doors and windows would come and make satisfaction, she would forgive all damages beyond what she had already suffered from them.

Hudson then thought that the said [...].

The margin added that they were not at the said house at all.

Interpretations

Edward Bagley’s examination was used to give his own account of his movements. He placed himself at his father-in-law’s house, then with John Bagley, then near James Treebe’s house, Mr George’s door and Mr Carne’s house. This gave the council a route to compare with the witnesses who had described the night’s violence.

George Hudson’s evidence gave a direct account of the attack on Grandy’s house. He described noise at night, a warning to go back to bed, stones thrown into the house, a stick thrust through the window and damage to doors and windows. This moved the inquiry beyond rumour and into observed acts.

Mrs Grandy’s offer of settlement showed that restitution could still be considered after a violent household attack. She was prepared to give up further damages if the people responsible came forward and made satisfaction for the broken doors and windows.

The margin note mattered because it contradicted or limited part of the testimony. It stated that the persons in question were not at the house at all. That made presence at Grandy’s house a disputed issue.

Speculations

Edward Bagley’s statement probably aimed to distance himself from the damage at Grandy’s house by placing himself at Mr Carne’s house for the night. The repeated references to where he went and with whom he drank the wine were probably meant to answer the charge by building an alibi.

Mrs Grandy’s offer was probably made to end the dispute through compensation if the offenders admitted responsibility. Her terms focused on satisfaction for physical damage, which suggests that the immediate concern was repair and restitution as much as punishment.

163

163

Stephen Child was one of y[e] Persons concerned in y[e] busines
went to Grandys house to agree it up with y[e] said Mrs
Grandy but she said she would have it Revealed by any
damage that was done or executed him that when Thomas Bee
did Pick he went to be gone and told him stay from say
that the rogue said Rich[ar]d him that named nobody

Josias Grimsby Saith aboute twelve
of y[e] Clock the night after James Persons Came to her house in
the Butt Alley, and break open two doors and windowes and abused
her very basely by shutting her on y[e] head with great stick demanding
her things, saying you Rouge you all came from three separating[...]
in an unreasonable in those Rogues meaning them in the house that
made the said abuse and shut the same abuse y[e] men that was with
in the house [...] and I made any further Hurt before under
the bed all y[e] Riot was over pray was over I show went to Thomas Allens
house where she lay all night after which saith that
the thing in her bed received she said was one of y[e] Parsons
she Saith running y[e] night was much up and as Stephen went
on, and that she must certainly know Bodanah was one he had
neither any money nor goods there, and they had searched there [...] come
into any trouble with them but had not would to be [...] and
desired that y[e] persons concerned in those damages should make
her Satisfactions for all the wrong received by y[e] persons concerned
further trouble

Jonathan Higham Saith that y[e] night afores[ai]d
before English was dead he saw on over the pale in y[e]
Young a stone Cast it over to the house of Grandys house in y[e]
Butt Alley, where was his mother Susanna, [...] Thomas Bee
Joseph Bagley and little Edward [...] about
time and asked him to see him in y[e] said house after they [...]
did, and had a booke or two of goods went all about Eleven
or twelve of y[e] Clock y[e] night [...] saw all stones
thrown at y[e] door and windows but presently after y[e] back
door was broken in pieces, and they being throwing so often
both at y[e] door and that they stood at y[e] table that he
went out of y[e] house and saw Ten men drunk away but not
knowing them they were hid himself amongst the bushes to discover
them if possible he could, but could not, staid there along Enough by
reason y[e] saw they show at him, and supposd he was getting up
to go into the house againe. Rich[ar]d Ravens came out of the house

Stephen Child was one of the people involved in the matter. He went to Grandy’s house to settle it with Mrs Grandy. She said she wanted the matter made known, because of the damage that had been done. When Thomas Bee [...], he tried to leave. Someone told him to stay. The damaged text then records that “the rogue” was mentioned, but that Richard [...] named nobody.

Josias Grimsby said that at about twelve o’clock on the night in question, several people came to her house in Butt Alley. They broke open two doors and the windows. They abused her very badly. She was struck on the head with a large stick. They demanded her things and called her a rogue. The words used are damaged, but they appear to refer to the people inside the house who carried out the attack.

She said that she went under the bed until the riot was over. When it had ended, she went to Thomas Allen’s house, where she lay all night.

She said that one of the people who came to her bed was one of the persons involved. She also said that there was much running about that night. She was certain that Bodanah was one of them. She had neither money nor goods in the house. They searched there [...]. She did not want to come into further trouble with them. She wanted the people responsible for the damage to make satisfaction for all the wrong done to her, so that there would be no further trouble.

Jonathan Higham said that on the night already described, before [...] was dead, he saw someone go over the pale in the yard and throw a stone towards Grandy’s house in Butt Alley. His mother Susanna was there. Thomas Bee, Joseph Bagley and little Edward [...] were also there at about that time.

He was asked whether he had seen them in the house. After they [...], he saw one or two books or goods there. At about eleven or twelve o’clock that night, he saw stones thrown at the door and windows. Soon afterwards, the back door was broken to pieces.

Stones were thrown so often at the door that the people inside stood by the table. Higham then went out of the house. He saw ten men run away. He did not know them. He hid among the bushes to see whether he could discover who they were. He could not. He did not stay there long enough, because he saw that they [...] at him. He supposed that he was getting up to go back into the house. Richard Ravens then came out of the house.

Interpretations

The evidence described a violent night attack on houses in Butt Alley. Doors and windows were broken, stones were thrown, a woman was struck on the head and goods were demanded. The council was therefore dealing with riot, housebreaking and assault, not a simple neighbourhood quarrel.

The attempt to “agree it up” showed that private settlement was still possible after violence. Mrs Grandy and Josias Grimsby both spoke of satisfaction for damage. They wanted repair or compensation, but the repeated witness evidence also shows that the council needed to identify the people responsible.

The hiding under the bed showed the danger faced by people inside the house. The violence entered the household itself. The house was not only damaged from outside. Those inside were threatened, searched and struck.

Jonathan Higham’s evidence gave the council a wider view of the riot. He described stones, a broken back door, people inside the house, ten men running away and his own attempt to identify them from the bushes. His testimony helped turn scattered accusations into a sequence of events.

Speculations

Stephen Child’s visit to Mrs Grandy was probably an attempt to settle the matter before it became more serious. Mrs Grandy refused to keep it quiet because the damage had already gone beyond a small private dispute.

Josias Grimsby’s wish for satisfaction probably came from fear as well as loss. She said she did not want further trouble with the people involved. That suggests that compensation was sought not only to repair damage, but also to stop further violence.

Jonathan Higham probably hid among the bushes because the attackers were too many to confront directly. His evidence that ten men ran away showed why he tried to observe them rather than stop them.

164

164

same purpose he had stones Throwne at him, So Presently that he
[...] out under y[e] eaves [...] him while I went to him
and gave him in the Ridg of Ellion and kick him into the house
crouched and as he must goe leaning on y[e] said Ravens window, one
of them Higham but when desired him to knock him on the head with a
stick and abuse which after the aforesaid standing at y[e] Table
y[e] rest of his Companions Thomas went wheremeal then
laying down but was afraid to go out abroad him againe, and
saw that y[e] woman by the bed and said to Joseph stop to Come
have him, but George Ravens come of men goe away, whereon
he the house again and while after that, he hearing a Talke
at Docter Hewson doore lookt out y[e] way between his door and
his mothers, where he saw them with standing but presently
Duck them in the yard and being dark he could not see who
they were but heard two of them were Stephen Child and
Carnes Hazard and as then a little to goe into y[e] house againe
The same Stone wheremeal him upon which y[e] said Hudson
asked him who was y[e] more who answered him, I believe
you know not very well and upon being going downe upon
a line in John Kings said House stone stone at him againe
which kept him to go out of sight accordingly he Thomas [...]
house where they were throwing y[e] Other Saith that y[e] next
morning Doctor Hewson declared him to see his mothers house
the swords spoke with her who accordingly did, and when his
mother went to went with him and heard y[e] said Hewson tell her
that if she would Sue go the damages she had Sustained y[e] night
before, he would bring the men to her that did it and she should
have Every thing made good againe, and also his Liner if she
taken from him, and moreover remembered that y[e] most of
this Riot was dead the said Hewson told him he had met her
Grandy to keep those and a fist hand betting of her

Leonard Hunt Saith that he heard Thomas Bagley
say about the day light that the house he secured at Grandys house
was the house of his aunts

George Carne Sworne Saith that y[e] Same night afores[ai]d
he came from Town to Capts Bridge and met Edward Bagley at his gate
about Eight of y[e] Clock to Brownes, and missing a black m[a]n
belonging to Mr Browne he and the said Edward Bagley went to look
for him, and a little half on hence after Joseph Bagley y[e]
Edward Bagley took a bottle of wine and Carried it out, and he
returned againe in less then a quarter of an houre time, and

Stones were also thrown at Jonathan Higham. He moved under the eaves [...]. Someone came to him, struck him on the ridge of [...] and kicked him into the house. He crouched down and had to move while leaning on Richard Ravens’s window.

One of the men was Higham [...]. Someone asked that he be struck on the head with a stick. He was abused. After this, the people already described stood at the table. The rest of the company went [...]. Thomas [...] lay down, but he was afraid to go out again.

Higham saw the woman by the bed. Someone said to Joseph that he should stop and come to him. George Ravens then came out. The men went away. Higham went into the house again.

A while later he heard talking at Doctor Hewson’s door. He looked out through the way between his own door and his mother’s door. He saw men standing there. They soon moved into the yard. The night was dark, so he could not see who they were. He heard that two of them were Stephen Child and Carne’s Hazard. He then went back into the house.

The same stone [...]. Hudson asked who the other man was. The answer was, “I believe you know very well.” As Hudson went down by the line near John King’s house, another stone was thrown at him. This forced him to move out of sight. He then went to Thomas [...]’s house, where stones were also being thrown.

The next morning, Doctor Hewson asked Hudson to bring his mother to see him about the house and the swords [...]. Hudson did so. When his mother went with him, he heard Hewson tell her that, if she would sue for the damages she had suffered the night before, he would bring her the men who had done it. He said that everything would be made good again. He also spoke of linen taken from him. Hudson further remembered that, when most of the riot had ended, Hewson told him that he had met Mrs Grandy to keep those [...] and had found her in distress, beating her hands together.

Leonard Hunt said that he heard Thomas Bagley say at about daylight that the house he had secured at Grandy’s house was his aunt’s house.

George Carne was sworn. He said that on the same night, he came from town to the captain’s bridge. At about eight o’clock, he met Edward Bagley at his gate on the way to Browne’s. A black man belonging to Mr Browne was missing. Carne and Edward Bagley went to look for him.

About half an hour later, Joseph Bagley [...]. Edward Bagley took a bottle of wine and carried it out. He returned again in less than a quarter of an hour.

Interpretations

Jonathan Higham’s evidence showed that the violence did not stop with the attack on Grandy’s house. Witnesses and neighbours were also threatened, struck or driven away. Stones were used to keep people from observing or interfering.

Doctor Hewson’s offer to bring the offenders to Hudson’s mother was important. It suggested that he knew, or claimed to know, who had caused the damage. His proposal also treated compensation as a possible remedy, if the injured woman chose to sue.

Leonard Hunt’s statement about Thomas Bagley linked the riot to a claim over the house. The phrase about securing the house suggests that Thomas Bagley may have presented the action as protection of his aunt’s property, not simply as disorder. That claim mattered because it could be used to justify presence at Grandy’s house.

George Carne’s evidence gave a separate timeline for Edward Bagley. It placed him near the captain’s bridge at about eight o’clock, then with Carne while they looked for Mr Browne’s missing black man, then briefly away with a bottle of wine. This could be tested against the other accounts of the same night.

Speculations

Stones were probably thrown at Hudson and Higham to stop them from identifying the attackers. Both men looked out, moved around the houses or tried to discover who was present. The violence against them appears to have protected the anonymity of the group.

Doctor Hewson’s offer probably meant that some of the attackers were already known locally. His promise to bring the men forward and have the damage made good suggests that the matter could still be settled through naming the offenders and arranging restitution.

165

165

and aboute halfe an houre after Edward Bagley came into
the house againe who both lay there all night and Edward
Bagley came not out of his room Except to meet in the
morning not one quarter of an houre together.

Upon mature Consideration

It is ordered

That upon y[e] said Bowd being the said Edw[ar]d Bagley be
found of what has been alledged by Evidences appeare
against him, and that y[e] whole examination of Evidences recorded
and Stephen Child nothing be refer[r]ed to y[e] Jury as y[e] case
generally belongs to determine Sentence that should be Inflicted
and Continue at y[e] Town court and untill that time to remaine
in y[e] Marshalls Custody or else give sufficient Suretys for their
appearance when accordingly said without doubt off

Captn Bright did not [...] according to grand
Councill but in precendence about the papers the said
Mr Goodwin had the afore matter that had been [...]
that could move y[e] object Booke should have signed by Governr
and Councill with a Declaration or agreemt as well
as punishmt which may be seen by viewing the said books

J Dissents this Last Paragraph

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
[...] Steward and
Stephen Child Be [...]
[...] referre to y[e] Sea
[...] Court This
Next [...] Capt [...]

About half an hour later, Edward Bagley came back into the house. George Carne said that both of them lay there all night. Edward Bagley did not come out of his room again, except for less than a quarter of an hour in the morning.

After mature consideration, the council ordered that Edward Bagley be found [...] on the evidence given against him. The whole examination of the witnesses was to be recorded.

The case against Stephen Child was also to be referred to the jury, because the matter properly belonged to them. The jury was to decide what sentence should be given.

Edward Bagley and Stephen Child were to continue until the next town court. Until then, they were to remain in the marshal’s custody, unless they gave sufficient sureties for their appearance when called.

Captain Bright did not [...] according to the grand council. The matter concerned the papers that Mr Goodwin had about the earlier business. [...] the book was to be signed by the governor and council with a declaration or agreement, as well as the punishment. This could be seen by viewing the books.

Thomas Goodwin dissented from the last paragraph.

Interpretations

George Carne’s evidence gave Edward Bagley a possible alibi. Carne placed him inside the house for the whole night, except for a very short absence in the morning. This directly answered the evidence that linked Bagley to the riot and damage.

The referral to the jury moved the case beyond council examination. The council had gathered and recorded the witness statements, but the jury was to judge the offence and the punishment.

The order for custody or sureties showed how defendants were controlled before trial. They could be kept by the marshal, or released only if responsible people guaranteed that they would appear when required.

Thomas Goodwin’s dissent showed disagreement within the council over the final written paragraph. The dispute concerned how the record, declaration, agreement and punishment were to be entered in the books. That made the form of the official record part of the conflict, not a neutral detail.

Speculations

The council probably referred the case to the jury because the evidence was too conflicted for summary punishment. Some witnesses described violence, damage and named suspects. George Carne’s testimony placed Edward Bagley elsewhere for most of the night. A jury could weigh those contradictions.

Goodwin’s dissent probably reflected concern that the record was being shaped after the decision. The paragraph referred to papers, the book, signatures, a declaration or agreement and punishment. His refusal to accept it suggests that the written form of the case mattered because it could affect responsibility and later review.

166

166

Island S Helena

Atta Consultation Held on
Tuesday the 7th day of July 1701 Att Fort
James

Pres[en]t Steph[en] Poirier Governr
Edm[un]d Bright Dep[uty] Governr
Thom[a]s Goodwin Ensign

Whereas Stephen Child quarter Gunner and
Francis Wood hath been Examined aboute y[e] breach
made in y[e] Fort Pallizadoes and weighing and
considering Severall persons that was in y[e] said House at y[e] same
time and according to y[e] foregoing Consultation is this day to be
tryed by Grand Marshall at a Jury Court open Court sett upon
Johnston who made Complaint here though it was
Governr that a Grand Inquest this day Impannelled to hear
further into y[e] matter and being in lieu of heading
severall ought and Information and accordingly y[e] said
Grand Jury were Sworne and y[e] Evidences called for

Margin Notes:
A Grand Seing to be
Impannel a Sessophal
Child & One J Steward
Bussing

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 7 July 1701.

Stephen Poirier was present as governor. Edmund Bright was present as deputy governor. Thomas Goodwin was present as ensign.

Stephen Child, quarter-gunner, and Francis Wood had been examined about the breach made in the Fort palisades. The council also considered the evidence of several people who had been in the house at the same time.

Under the earlier consultation, the matter was to be tried that day in open court by a jury court under the grand marshal.

A complaint had been made about the matter before the governor. A grand inquest was empanelled that day to examine it further. Several oaths and informations were to be heard.

The grand jury was sworn. The witnesses were then called.

167

167

Island S Helena

The Examination of Stephen
Child of Grandys about [...] Steward [...] by
Grand Jury to finde wheather y[e] Bill of
Indictment was true or Ignoramus, They have
ing been suspected of Committing Burglary
felony and Murder on y[e] House of James
Grandy free Planter

The bill of Indictment is as followeth

You Stephen Child quarter Gunner and James [...] Steward
Did both in y[e] day and the year of our Lord 1703 by order & request
of the said Island of St Helena and province did examine and not
haveing the fear of God before your Eyes nor due allegiance of the
Divell and instigat[ion] of [...] on the [...] day of June last
Past about nine to one or two of y[e] Clock at Night in the parish of
Trinity and Leuttent[...] of St Pauls Lyon and house of
the House belonging to James Grandy the Burglar finding in y[e]
same [...] their [...] there being then and there [...]
Thomas [...] one Gate [...] and free Planter deceased with severall
other persons whose names not being and yet unknowne
and with Stock stones yea [...] a burne broken with Intention
he did [...] and there at Stab as said being declared since y[e] said
5th day of February last past as aforesaid, and in time of his disease
which Windows [...] John Bagley & Henry or others in y[e] said of aforesaid
Lord y[e] King his Crown & Dignity and also against y[e] constitutions
of y[e] said Island Laws proprietors, and good Government of this Island

Margin Notes:
Steph: Child & Ones:
Steward Bill of
Indictement

The examination concerned Stephen Child and James [...] Steward before the grand jury. The jury was to decide whether the bill of indictment was true, or whether it should be rejected as “ignoramus”.

Stephen Child and James [...] Steward were suspected of committing burglary, felony and murder at the house of James Grandy, a free planter.

The bill of indictment stated that Stephen Child, quarter-gunner, and James [...] Steward had committed the offence in 1701 on St Helena. The wording was badly damaged. It accused them of acting without fear of God and against their allegiance, through the instigation of the devil. The offence was said to have taken place on [...] June 1701, between about nine o’clock and one or two o’clock at night.

The indictment placed the offence in the parish of Trinity and [...] of St Paul’s. It concerned the house belonging to James Grandy. The house was said to have been burglariously entered or attacked. Thomas [...] and one [...] Gate, a free planter now deceased, were named. Several other people were also said to have been involved, but their names were not yet known.

The indictment said that sticks, stones and [...] were used. Doors or windows were broken. The purpose was said to have been to assault or wound [...]. The damaged wording also referred to stabbing and to a death or disease after [...] February 1701.

John Bagley, Henry [...] and others were also mentioned in connection with the same matter. The indictment stated that the offence was against the king’s crown and dignity, against the constitutions and laws of St Helena and against the good government of the island.

Interpretations

An “ignoramus” finding meant that the grand jury did not find enough evidence to send the bill forward. The jury was therefore not deciding guilt at this stage. It was deciding whether the charge had enough support to proceed.

The indictment turned the earlier night riot at Grandy’s house into a formal criminal accusation. Damage to doors and windows, entry into a house, violence with sticks and stones and the later death of a person were grouped into burglary, felony and murder.

The phrase about the king’s crown and dignity placed the offence under royal criminal authority. The added reference to the island’s constitutions, laws and good government showed that the same act was also treated as an attack on St Helena’s local order.

The naming of unknown accomplices mattered. The court could proceed against Stephen Child and James [...] Steward while still leaving room to identify others who had taken part in the attack.

168

168

The Grand Jury Vizt

John Field
Isaac Maby
William Mash
John Widdge
John Runnells
John Goodwin
James Reeve
Eras[mu]s Purling
Sam[ue]ll Knapman

Thomas Smalow Junr
John Cox
Charles Smalley
George Scroley
Thomas Wilcox
Henry Drague
Richard Grove
John Hermon

Then

Priscilla the wife of James Grandy free planter
being sworne was asked and Examined who saith that some
time since she going at night down house in y[e] Fort valley
Thomas Bee, Stephen Child, George Bagley, some Hiphman and George
Eavans but being drinking were observed [...] into y[e] Church yard
two or three quart drinke and before y[e] house about Eleven of y[e] Clock
at night and there stones against y[e] doors and windowes that
they had broke them in peices, and when so done throw stones at y[e]
aforesaid persons as they were sitting at y[e] Table, wherewith that
said Bee tooke topcoat Striking his hand and went out of door
belonging to the house but that not being dark said presently after
a shot Edward went out also but whomever Corronell said Sheherd
cryeed out murder Lord they have killed me, wch caused all y[e] rest to
goe out and bring him into y[e] house againe Immediately after y[e]
said Bee keeping door the post to acquaint y[e] Governr of
what past before, that a guard might Come up and take them
if possible, and whilst he goes down they threw more stones into y[e]
house and when they left off and she thought she went out and
called to Docter Mathews who was standing in his balcony to
Come and See what a Condition her Edmund was in, who replyed
no Though I knock me on y[e] head, meaning those that threw y[e] stones, to
whome she made replye tis well, if you dont know who they be
y[e] had a hand in it, but however some little time after came
relised the said Eavans his wound and said no mortall wound
to sight She saying before she believed he would being him

Margin Notes:
The Examination
of Stephen Child &c
Ones Steward, and
Severall Allegers
brought before a Grand
Jury

The grand jury was made up of John Field, Isaac Maby, William Mash, John Widdge, John Runnells, John Goodwin, James Reeve, Erasmus Purling, Samuel Knapman, Thomas Smalow Junior, John Cox, Charles Smalley, George Scroley, Thomas Wilcox, Henry Drague, Richard Grove and John Hermon.

Priscilla Grandy, wife of James Grandy, free planter, was sworn and examined.

She said that some time before, at night, she was going down to the house in Fort Valley. Thomas Bee, Stephen Child, George Bagley, [...] Hiphman and George Evans had been drinking. They were seen going into the churchyard with two or three quarts of drink.

At about eleven o’clock that night, they came before the house. Stones were thrown against the doors and windows. The doors and windows were broken to pieces. Stones were then thrown at the people sitting at the table inside.

Thomas Bee took his topcoat, was struck on the hand and went out through the door belonging to the house. The night was dark. Soon afterwards Edward [...] went out too.

Then [...] cried out, “Murder, Lord, they have killed me.” This made all the rest go out and bring him back into the house.

Immediately afterwards, Thomas Bee went to the doorpost and then went down to tell the governor what had happened, so that a guard might come up and take the attackers if possible.

While he was going down, more stones were thrown into the house. When the throwing stopped, Priscilla thought it was safe to go out. She called to Doctor Mathews, who was standing on his balcony. She asked him to come and see what condition Edmund [...] was in.

Doctor Mathews answered that he would not, because they might knock him on the head. He meant the people who had thrown the stones.

Priscilla replied that this was well enough if he did not know who they were and who had taken part in it. Some little time later, he came and dressed George Evans’s wound. He said that no mortal wound could be seen. Priscilla had said before then that she believed Evans would die from it.

Interpretations

The grand jury list showed that the case had moved from council inquiry to formal criminal screening. These men were not deciding the final punishment. They were deciding whether the accusation was strong enough to proceed.

Priscilla Grandy’s evidence linked the earlier disorder to a serious criminal charge. She described drinking, night movement, stones thrown at a house, broken doors and windows, injury, a cry of “murder” and a request for the governor’s guard. That sequence turned a household attack into a matter of public justice.

The churchyard mattered because it placed the accused group near a public and sacred space before the attack. Their presence there with drink helped explain how the night’s disorder was framed as drunken, collective and threatening.

The call for a guard showed that Priscilla Grandy treated the attack as beyond household control. She wanted armed authority sent from the governor to seize the attackers if possible.

Doctor Mathews’s refusal to come at once showed the danger felt by bystanders. Even a medical man hesitated because he feared being struck. His later dressing of George Evans’s wound gave the court evidence about the injury and whether it seemed fatal.

Speculations

The attackers probably threw stones from outside to drive the people inside into fear or force them out. Priscilla’s evidence said that stones were thrown first at the doors and windows, then at the people sitting at the table.

Thomas Bee’s movement towards the governor was probably an attempt to bring official force before the attackers escaped. Priscilla said he went to tell the governor so that a guard might come and take them if possible.

Doctor Mathews probably delayed because the attack was still active. His statement that they might knock him on the head showed that the danger was not limited to the people inside Grandy’s house.

169

169

Such a Bloody Condition, and which the said Mathew was in the
house by [...] Retire as he had [...] as the Same at y[e] Door
of the other more the done which said him to the bed, for one of
those men the said Mathews pusht the worst George one so
went down againe and after heard some Screaming more stones
was thrown into y[e] house both in y[e] window and doore so
observeing that there was y[e] said other Mischief would happen
whereupon that next day said she was Slighted and kept
upon the bed and went by y[e] window and she saw a woman
Catherine House and have a Cup at y[e] door from y[e] bedside
where she and without they went about Eight she [...] out
of y[e] back door and went homewards after Said Em[...]se
Say tell morning yet damned to goe away our owner left they would
Set her y[e] Castle [...] that she wanted persons that had gone
her house safe because Shew they She thought they had been
in a great [...] and called to them and said what Gentlemen are
you rathern contemn and Speak you give you what you
have done upon which they had all hid together and their say
thing through there neigh you may [...] and they did break wee then
replyed she come in and he give you are p[re]t[ty] Gentlemen I have pro
vided youle have no room or beds here for my fires she said
that y[e] next morning when Doctor Mathew came to See his
Eavans and to bind him she told said Mathew she had suffered the
night before, who answered her this Nature if you goe to Complain[e]
to y[e] Governr she would [...] and excuse nothing unreasonable
there, But if you will make [...] to those persons and Windows
made good againe, upon which y[e] next day she see y[e] Bagley come
to me that I may See them and know every where againe wch
them, with that she Replied and Cried down, and about
one day or two after he desired Son Hyson to see for what she
would Speak to them who accordingly went to him and ask him
what she designed was he replyed She had Suffred a Murther, I
would not have your more my Mother and those that it was through
made good, and you are the said Evans against those that from
her this day before but she would not [...] them, And y[e] next
day after she met one upon y[e] Road and gott him with her words
so much forward about coming up y[e] other day [...]
times she would not do it, Saying because against the truth is of the
Matter So suspect Stephen Child to be one of them and should rather
pay money out of my own Pocket then he should Come into any
Trouble, because I have a kindness for him

Jonathan Higham being Sworne Saith that the
night as y[e] beginning he was acted at his mother Grandys
house in y[e] Fort valley Tho: Bee, Joseph Trapp & Rich[ar]d Ravens
was

Priscilla Grandy continued her evidence.

She said that George Evans was in a bloody condition. Doctor Mathews came into the house and [...] retired, as he had [...]. Evans was near the door and was then taken to the bed. Doctor Mathews dressed the worst of George Evans’s wounds and then went down again.

Afterwards, Priscilla heard more screaming. More stones were thrown into the house, both through the window and through the door. She saw that more harm might be done.

The next day, she said that she had been slighted and kept upon the bed [...]. She went by the window and saw Catherine House with a cup at the door, near the bedside. At about eight o’clock, [...] went out through the back door and went homewards.

Afterwards, [...] said, “Tell morning [...], go away, or else they would set her [...]”. The words are damaged, but they appear to describe threats against her if she did not leave.

Priscilla said that she wanted the people who had gone to her house safely [...], because she thought they had been in great [...]. She called to them and said, “What gentlemen are you? Rather [...] and speak. You see what you have done.” They had all hidden together. [...]

She then said, “Come in, and you are pretty gentlemen. I have provided [...], but you have no room or beds here for my fire.” The wording is damaged, but the sense was that she spoke to them sharply about their conduct and refused to receive them.

The next morning, Doctor Mathews came to see George Evans and bind his wounds. Priscilla told Mathews what she had suffered the night before. He answered that, if she went to complain to the governor, she would [...]. He advised that nothing unreasonable should be done there. He said that, if she would make [...] to those persons, the windows would be made good again.

The next day, she saw Bagley come to her. [...] She said that she wanted to see them and know everyone again. She then replied and cried out.

One or two days later, she asked [...] Hudson to see what she should say to them. Hudson went to him and asked what she intended. She answered that she had suffered a murder. She would not have [...], her mother or the others [...]. She wanted the damage made good. She also spoke of George Evans and of those who had [...] her the day before, but she would not [...] them.

The next day after that, she met one of them on the road. He urged her strongly about coming up the other day [...]. She said several times that she would not do it, because it was against the truth of the matter. She suspected Stephen Child to be one of them. She said she would rather pay money out of her own pocket than have him come into trouble, because she had a kindness for him.

Jonathan Higham was sworn.

He said that on the night when the matter began, he was at his mother Grandy’s house in Fort Valley. Thomas Bee, Joseph Trapp and Richard Ravens were there.

Interpretations

Priscilla Grandy’s evidence showed that the attack continued after George Evans was wounded. Stones were thrown again after Doctor Mathews dressed him. The danger therefore did not end with the first injury. The house remained under threat.

Doctor Mathews’s advice pointed towards settlement through repair. He appears to have suggested that the windows should be made good if Priscilla did not pursue the matter before the governor. That showed a tension between private compensation and formal complaint.

Priscilla’s remarks about Stephen Child were important because they showed reluctance to accuse someone she knew. She suspected him, but she said she would rather pay money herself than see him brought into trouble. That made her evidence more complicated than a simple accusation.

Speculations

Doctor Mathews probably tried to prevent the matter from escalating before the governor by encouraging repair of the damage. His advice followed the night of violence and came when he was binding Evans’s wounds, so it was tied directly to the practical aftermath of the attack.

Priscilla probably hesitated over Stephen Child because personal attachment conflicted with the evidence. Her statement that she had “a kindness for him” explains why she resisted a course that might bring him punishment, even though she suspected him.

170

170

who were drinking about y[e] said together, and asked him
to drink Part of it with who did and about Seven of y[e] Clock
Mrs Grandy went into y[e] Docters houseing doore and a touching
Bill Cowling with y[e] said house he y[e] [...] broke open
but she had been reported done tonight or else it would be the
easy of y[e] whole after or me up, and about one of y[e] Clock at
night the s[ai]d John King then of y[e] house heard a terrible Stome
there against y[e] Doore and Windowes in a little time was
broken open and did her selfe to see who they were,
that these y[e] Persons y[e] Grandy should have Accordingly lay in a light
but Edward Bagley going about to go [tow]ards coming into y[e] house
againe heard Joseph Cowen by our window, and they therewith
to him which made George Eavans to help him, in wch y[e] Edward
they said Trapps and to y[e] said Docter Hoskison to come and see
y[e] said Eavans who did, and y[e] Thomas Bee being him in
such a Condition went out of y[e] house y[e] appear [...] in his
hand saying take of them that wounded y[e] said Eavans, but they
being come from him, Immediately and there y[e] Hurt from him
came from above to a woman on his Back, or said Immediately
after the said Bee said Eavans go downe doore y[e] Fort and gett a
Guard to Come in y[e] Guardia, what soever y[e] said to knock him as
but did no Storme againe [...] and a little after he hear
ing what Joseph did Hoskison doore look over y[e] walls that
betwixt his doore and his mother Grandys, and thought he
heard something like Charles Howard say and Saw y[e] said Hoskison
Standing in his Balcony talking with some body under it but could
not tell them, about afterward going into y[e] house againe
more Stones was throwne as before from toward y[e] said Doct
Mathews doore, and Immediately after as Severall sitting at the
Table among three which doors y[e] said quite him, being y[e] said persons
he got hold of by the hair, and called Tho: Trapp to help him
but got away before he Turned him, Then Eavans was as from
thence to Smoke afflicted house where he lay till day light [...]
of y[e] Night that the next morning as he was coming from
Grandys House home y[e] said Hoskison who said to him
tell y[e] mother Grandy that I will speake with her, who went and
told her and when she went he went with her and heard the s[ai]d
Hoskison say to her, mother if you will put up the Butt that you
shall have y[e] house mended againe and y[e] forfeiture of y[e] Licence
repaid you also and y[e] men that did y[e] damages should be Sorry for
what they had done, to which both he and his mother expected from
them Come to us and we will see to agree it.

Jonathan Higham continued his evidence.

He said that Thomas Bee, Joseph Trapp and Richard Ravens were drinking together at his mother Grandy’s house. They asked him to drink with them, and he did so.

At about seven o’clock, Mrs Grandy went to Doctor [...]’s house door and spoke about Bill Cowling and the house. The wording is damaged, but she appears to have said that the house had been broken open, and that the matter had been reported or would soon be reported.

At about one o’clock at night, John King was then in the house. A terrible storm of stones was thrown against the door and windows. In a short time, the house was broken open. Higham tried to see who the attackers were.

The wording is damaged, but Edward Bagley appeared to be moving towards the house, or trying to come into it again. Higham then heard Joseph Cowen by the window. George Evans went to help him.

Doctor Hoskinson was asked to come and see George Evans. He came. Thomas Bee saw Evans in that condition and went out of the house. He had [...] in his hand and said that the men who had wounded Evans should be taken. They had already gone from him.

Immediately afterwards, Bee was hurt. The injury came from above. A woman was on his back, or behind him. The wording is damaged.

Soon after this, Bee told Evans to go down to the Fort and get a guard from the guardhouse. More stones were then thrown.

A little later, Higham heard talking at Hoskinson’s door. He looked over the wall between his door and his mother Grandy’s door. He thought he heard someone like Charles Howard speaking. He saw Hoskinson standing on his balcony and talking with someone beneath it, but he could not tell who the person was.

After Higham went back into the house, more stones were thrown as before from the direction of Doctor Mathews’s door. Several people were sitting at the table. Among them, [...] came close to him. Higham got hold of one of the attackers by the hair and called Thomas Trapp to help him. The man got away before Higham could turn him round.

George Evans was then taken from there to [...] house, where he lay until daylight.

The next morning, as Higham was coming home from Grandy’s house, Hoskinson spoke to him. He told Higham to tell his mother Grandy that he wanted to speak with her. Higham went and told her. When she went to Hoskinson, Higham went with her.

Higham heard Hoskinson say to her, “Mother, if you will put up the business, you shall have the house mended again. The forfeiture of the licence shall also be repaid to you. The men who did the damage shall be sorry for what they have done.”

Higham and his mother expected them to come and agree the matter.

Interpretations

Higham’s evidence gave the jury a detailed account from inside the house. He described drinking before the attack, the sudden throwing of stones, the breaking open of the house, the wounding of George Evans, the attempt to fetch a guard and the later effort to settle the damage.

The call for a guard again showed that the attack was treated as too serious for the household to manage alone. A guard from the Fort was needed because the violence involved a group, night disorder and repeated attacks on the house.

The evidence against the attackers remained uncertain because Higham could not identify everyone. Darkness, movement between houses and stones thrown from outside made recognition difficult. This mattered because the grand jury had to decide whether the bill could proceed against named men.

Hoskinson’s offer to repair the house, repay the licence forfeiture and make the offenders apologise pointed to a proposed private settlement. The phrase “put up the business” meant that Mrs Grandy was being asked to drop or suppress the complaint rather than carry it forward.

Speculations

Hoskinson probably knew more about the attackers than Higham could prove. His promise that the men who caused the damage would be sorry, and that the house would be mended, suggests that he could reach them or speak for them.

The offer to repay the licence forfeiture probably meant that the riot had caused more than broken windows and doors. Some formal right, permission or penalty had also been affected. That made the proposed settlement a wider repair of financial and legal harm, not just building damage.

171

171

James Earthope sworne saith that on WhitSunday
Tuesday last he and his wife was at Edward Bagleys house
where a little after James Howard came, and being discoursing about
those that broke open Grandys house the said Eavans said some
of them would be sent home The said Earthope asked him who
would the said Eavans replyd Stephen Chield and Ones Steward
He thought) whereupon the said Earthopes wife said to her husband
I heard there was one of them who informed us, but if I had been
as forward as they I might have been one, wch the said Eavans
turning to the said Earthope take notice of it.

Mary the wife of James Earthope being sworne saith that
on WhitSunday last she and her Husband went to Edward
Bagleys house and after they had been there a little while Richard
Eavans came there who amongst some discourse said y[e] said so they
that Captn Chield, Ones Steward and Edward Bagley where he said
before the Councill about the business that was acted at Grandys
house, Bagley asked him for what they can make prove them
whom his wife said she heard that you said one woman hear
no said he, they were orally mistaken, I said you be But had I
been as forward as they I might have one of them y[e] they would
have had me againe with them, but as y[e] said Bagley and Done
Steward he was not amongst them further said that same
time since the said Bagley was at their house in y[e] Gallery
who said Beef and being talking of y[e] busines afore w[ha]t will
they be that did it but heard by the House if they [...] would
not discover them.

Edward Croskey being sworne saith that James
Earthope and his wife and himselfe being attorning about the
business aforesaid he did say because the other house that
[...] hee know but that might have been one of them, but
takes god to witness that he knew nothing of y[e] breaking open
y[e] s[ai]d Grandys house, or any thing at the time that are Suspected
of being the said on[e] Eye and as to y[e] oath aforesaid he did
in his passion and is heartily sorry for it.

James Earthope was sworn.

He said that on the last Whit Sunday, he and his wife were at Edward Bagley’s house. A little later, James Howard came there. They spoke about the people who had broken open Grandy’s house. Evans said that some of them would be sent home.

Earthope asked who they were. Evans answered that he thought they were Stephen Child and Ones Steward.

Earthope’s wife then said to her husband that she had heard there was one among them who had informed against the others. She added that, if she had been as forward as they were, she might have been one of them. Evans then turned to Earthope and told him to take notice of what she had said.

Mary Earthope, wife of James Earthope, was sworn.

She said that on the last Whit Sunday she and her husband went to Edward Bagley’s house. After they had been there a short time, Richard Evans came there. During the conversation, he said that Captain Child, Ones Steward and Edward Bagley had been before the council about what had happened at Grandy’s house.

Bagley asked what could be proved against them. Mary Earthope said that she had heard that Evans had said one woman had been there. Evans answered that they were all mistaken. Mary Earthope said that, if she had been as forward as they were, she might have been one of them, and that they would have had her with them again.

She also said that Bagley and Ones Steward were not among them.

Mary Earthope further said that some time before, Bagley had been at their house in the gallery. Beef [...] was also there. They spoke about the earlier business. Bagley said, in substance, that those who had done it would not be discovered unless they were betrayed by the house or by someone who knew them. The exact wording is damaged.

Edward Croskey was sworn.

He said that James Earthope, Earthope’s wife and he himself had been talking about the same matter. Croskey said that, because the other house [...], he did not know but that he might have been one of them. He called God to witness that he knew nothing about the breaking open of Grandy’s house. He also knew nothing about the people suspected of being involved.

As for the oath or words already mentioned, Croskey said that he had spoken in passion. He was heartily sorry for it.

Interpretations

The evidence focused on talk after the attack rather than on the attack itself. The witnesses repeated conversations at Edward Bagley’s house and at the Earthopes’ house. The jury was being asked to judge whether later speech showed knowledge, guilt or concealment.

The phrase about some people being “sent home” probably meant removal from the island or return to England. In this setting, it suggested a serious penalty or administrative response, not a casual journey.

Mary Earthope’s evidence weakened the case against Edward Bagley and Ones Steward. She said that they were not among the people involved. That mattered because both men had been linked to the same inquiry.

The reported comment about offenders not being discovered unless someone revealed them showed the importance of informers. The case depended on people identifying a group that acted at night, in darkness and with many persons present.

Edward Croskey’s apology showed how dangerous loose speech had become. Words spoken in anger could be treated as evidence in a criminal inquiry, especially when they touched burglary, riot and murder.

Speculations

Evans’s warning to James Earthope to “take notice” of Mary Earthope’s words probably meant that he thought her statement could later matter as evidence. He was not only listening to gossip. He was trying to preserve a remark that might connect someone to the attackers.

Mary Earthope’s statement that she might have been one of them if she had been “as forward as they” probably did not mean that she confessed involvement. It appears more probably to have meant that eagerness, bold speech or willingness to join the group could have drawn a person into suspicion.

Croskey’s denial and apology probably came because he realised that angry or careless words could place him among the suspects. His statement tried to separate passion and rumour from actual knowledge of the attack.

172

172

Samuel the wife of James Rider being sworne Saith
that three or four dayes after she heard Edward Bagley say that
Mrs Carne had been a good friend to Edward Bagley in bringing
some of his officers and she has been to me to day, I had [...]
[...] [...] night that she was there, but not my own
husband me waking up to Mr Brandons house she lodged
one night, one night, one three or four dayes wake, and going
to Noys that Bec [...] at night pointing over to Mr James
come to me being there about two or three dayes after being
the Sunday being brought and asked me who I suspected
y[e] Francia said was it y[e] men nothing I said I knew
y[e] only Mrs Bagley is cleared by Motherwards ah! Mother
Did the Mrs Bagley tell thee, had her how she knew, she
replyed Bagley since came told me, whome I asked her, she
replyed againe by Mary [...] Wilson for she told me that
day at Mr Neals comeing home my father down to y[e] Fort
that Stephen Chield and Thomas Hoskison her husband that he
and one Thomas Dod little made part of y[e] stones at Grandys house
and Edward were accounted for the Bagley he was there, and James
Harman and Isaac that was, but while I cant Say for I have
forgotten upon which the said Sarah asked y[e] said Mary Hayton
whose was Edmund Bagley, she answered she could not say
having forgotten

Sarah Rider Spinster being sworne
Saith the same as her mother hath already declared, adding
further That one Lydie on wednesday that Thomas Hayton
told Charles Howard Since Thomas Francis wife a little
before day whereupon was following after [Frances] which
was done at Grandys house.

Dorothy y[e] wife of Thomas Greenly
being Sworne Saith that that night as y[e] said Grandys house
was broke open she saw Stephen Chield, Edward Bagley, Ones
Steward, and Thomas Herbioe go by their house in y[e] Fort Valley
about ten of y[e] Clock at night, and about one of y[e] Clock after
heard a knocking at a doore up towards Grandys house, further
Saith y[e] about few or three dayes after Mrs Bee her being
the Island Edw[ar]d Bagley say that he had heard that y[e] said
Bee had laid his death to him, but he was as free as y[e] Child
unborne of acting any such thing as he was accused of, but did
believe he knew whoe it was that did it

Margin Notes:
consequently the
were not at all at
house

Sarah, wife of James Rider, was sworn.

She said that three or four days afterwards she heard Edward Bagley say that Mrs Carne had been a good friend to him in bringing some of his officers [...]. He also said that she had been with him that day. The rest of this part is damaged.

She said that she had lodged one night at Mr Brandon’s house. Three or four days later, on a Sunday, she was brought and asked who she suspected. She answered that she knew nothing, except that Mrs Bagley had been cleared by her mother’s words.

She then asked, “Mother, did Mrs Bagley tell thee?” She asked how she knew it. Her mother replied that Bagley had since come and told her. When she asked who had told Bagley, her mother answered that Mary [...] Wilson had told him.

Mary [...] Wilson had said that day, at Mr Neal’s, when her father was coming home down to the Fort, that Stephen Child, Thomas Hoskinson, her husband, one Thomas Dod [...], Edward Bagley, James Harman and Isaac [...] had taken part in throwing stones at Grandy’s house. She could not say more, because she had forgotten.

Sarah then asked Mary Hayton who Edmund Bagley was. Mary answered that she could not say, because she had forgotten.

Sarah Rider, spinster, was sworn.

She gave the same evidence as her mother. She added that on Wednesday Thomas Hayton told Charles Howard that Thomas Francis’s wife had followed Francis a little before daybreak after what had been done at Grandy’s house.

Dorothy, wife of Thomas Greenly, was sworn.

She said that on the night when Grandy’s house was broken open, she saw Stephen Child, Edward Bagley, Ones Steward and Thomas Herbioe pass by her house in Fort Valley at about ten o’clock at night.

At about one o’clock afterwards, she heard knocking at a door up towards Grandy’s house.

She further said that two or three days later, after Mrs Bee had been on the island, she heard Edward Bagley say that he had heard Thomas Bee had laid his death on him. Bagley said that he was as innocent as an unborn child of doing anything he was accused of. He said, however, that he believed he knew who had done it.

The margin added that, as a consequence, they were not at the house at all.

Interpretations

Sarah Rider’s evidence traced a chain of reported speech. The information passed through Edward Bagley, Mrs Bagley, Mary [...] Wilson, Mary Hayton and others. This made the evidence useful for showing how suspicion spread, but weak as direct proof of who attacked Grandy’s house.

The list of names mattered because it widened the group said to have thrown stones. Stephen Child, Thomas Hoskinson, Thomas Dod [...], Edward Bagley, James Harman and Isaac [...] were all connected to the rumour. The court therefore had to test whether these names came from knowledge or from repeated talk.

Sarah Rider, spinster, gave corroboration from her mother’s account and added a detail about Thomas Francis’s wife following Francis before daybreak. That detail placed another household near the aftermath of the attack.

Dorothy Greenly’s evidence was stronger because she said she saw named men pass her house at about ten o’clock. Her later statement about hearing knocking near Grandy’s house at about one o’clock helped place movement in Fort Valley before the attack and disturbance near the house later in the night.

Edward Bagley’s statement about Thomas Bee was important because it answered the deathbed accusation. He denied causing Bee’s death, but also said he believed he knew who had done it. That claim suggested knowledge without confession.

Speculations

Edward Bagley’s claim that he knew who had done it was probably risky. It helped him deny personal guilt, but it also suggested that he had knowledge of the attackers. That may be why his words were recorded.

The margin note appears to have been used to argue that some named people were not at Grandy’s house. This probably reflected an attempt to separate presence in Fort Valley from presence inside or directly at the attacked house.

173

173

Bartrout Audouard being sworne Saith
that night as the busin[e]ss was done at Grandys house he went
there to light his pipe at wch time he saw stones that was
throwne into y[e] house and after he went home againe heard
a man call for said Stephen Hutchison who was standing in
his balcony and said pray go to bed or Else you may be called
as a testyfy against us To whome he answered Go away for I
wont trouble you.

Mary the wife of Thomas Happer sworne
Saith that her Husband told her that the next morning after
the hurt was done at Grandys house Stephen Chield asked him
if he went up in the Country who told him I Could not tell
the said Chield made answer if you doe desire Ones Steward to
come down as if you think may Remaine here after you the
business is laid upon me and Ones Steward but that she and
y[e] aforesaid hath not been being that my husband abroad she
that she saw M[rs] Ivers [...] asked him since which to which the
said Sarah [...] said her y[e] report for [...] whereupon he
I desire to have them [...] and Edward [...] and
Stephen Chield and Steward having [...] James Greentree
and Edward Bagley and as she and her husband was discoursing
abt the business he said you may I know of it by [...] the
men [...] he named the same persons Chield and Ones
Steward

Thomas Happer being sworne Saith
That the day after y[e] mischief was done at Grandys house
he came downe out of y[e] Country and being in Company
with Stephen Chield who told him he came out of Sandys Bay
and enquired he had heard abroad whome he told that he
thought he did not get his commottance and further asked
him if he y[e] said Hutchison was in Sandy Bay against that Evening
or no to which replyed he Could not tell; The said Stephen Chield said
if you do, Jact Ones Steward to Come downe to y[e] Fort [...] the
mischief that was done the night before at Grandys house
was laid upon them.

Bartrout Audouard was sworn.

He said that on the night when the attack occurred at Grandy’s house, he went there to light his pipe. He saw stones being thrown into the house. After he went home, he heard a man call for Stephen Hutchison, who was standing on his balcony. The man said, “Pray go to bed, or else you may be called to testify against us.” Hutchison answered, “Go away, for I won’t trouble you.”

Mary, the wife of Thomas Happer, was sworn.

She said that her husband told her that the next morning after the damage at Grandy’s house, Stephen Child asked him if he had gone up into the country. Her husband could not tell him. Stephen Child then said that, if he desired Ones Steward to come down, it might remain with him afterward. He added that the blame for the attack was laid upon him and Ones Steward. Mary said that she had not been present, but she and her husband had seen Mrs Ivers [...] and spoken to her about the matter. She indicated that she and her husband knew that the men involved were Stephen Child, Ones Steward, James Greentree, and Edward Bagley.

Thomas Happer was sworn.

He said that the day after the damage at Grandy’s house, he came down from the country. He was in company with Stephen Child, who told him he had come out of Sandy Bay. Stephen Child asked whether Happer had heard who was responsible. Happer replied that he could not say. Stephen Child then said that, if Happer did know, he should send Ones Steward to the Fort, because the blame for the mischief at Grandy’s house the night before had been laid upon them.

174

174

George Hoskison being sworne Saith that
after the busin[e]ss was acted at Grandys house aboute
Eleven a clock of y[e] said night and as he lay abed but few
asleep againe presently Jane some time after his wife awakt him
againe with his wife came in and throwne at a against a
Doore to House he lookt at Grandys house and presently after
heard Thomas Bee say turne up stones and Leon[ar]d Higham
boy will go and carry the Gov[ern]r Pale from off his doorway
whereupon and a little time after heard Joseph Trapp and Mrs
Grandy called him to come and help Rich[ar]d Eavens body for he
would bleed to death but did not take notice of it supposing the itching
there was no harme done what caused the said Higham and Mrs
Grandy to say that y[e] Hoskison what how for had he or else he
would burne there bygovernrs upon which words gott up out of his
bed and went into his Balcony then heard Joseph Trapp Blasphe
him againe but did not go immediately and whilst he was stand
ing in y[e] Balcony about came under it and knockt wth a stick
and [...] saying why goe to sleep, go to sleep, to whome
he made answer you Solomon you lyes to me for Dont
desire to come in an Evidence against you, then said Bartrand
Audouard come out of John Slack house who he desired to go
at y[e] said Grandys house and see wheather Rich[ar]d Eavon was so
desperately wounded as they said he was, said before the said Bertr
and Audouard came he went himselfe and found y[e] said Eavans lying
downe upon a bench with y[e] said people about him bathing his temples
[...] wth Roves, and whilst he was in the house she did whisper
in at y[e] Doore and struck y[e] said Mrs Grandy on the head with
cursst her to goe out it has made me bite bloody tongue and
presently after said y[e] Samuel Kirk put out his knife againe
wch George Higham pulld away from that, but did not see
any body whipt knives in y[e] house, Then went home againe
and went into his Balcony and heard y[e] noise of stones [...] stone
at y[e] said Grandys house, whereon and after some little time
staid for about halfe an houre that Stephen Chield and Ones
Steward came to his house and talked with him in y[e] Balcony, but
came downe stayed presently who saw altogether at his house
whome Josias Higham hearing looks over y[e] wall that stood
between his House and y[e] said Grandys house asked who they were
upon which y[e] said Stephen Chield stooped to take up stones fast to
himselfe But wheather he threw any or no at y[e] said Higham
he Cant Tell, Then Immediately the said Ones Steward went into
his House, but wheather Steph[en] Chield did or no he is not Sure, but
came in presently after them and after they had been in
the house a little while y[e] said Chield and Steward went
away

Margin Notes:
y[e] more Evidences
They were not in
aldis house, and
consequently they
did y[e] fact

George Hoskison was sworn.

He said that after the attack at Grandy’s house, at about eleven o’clock that night, he was lying in bed. His wife woke him. Stones had been thrown at a door near his house. He looked towards Grandy’s house.

Soon after, he heard Thomas Bee say to “turn up stones” and heard someone call for Leonard Higham to carry the governor’s pale from the doorway. A little later, he heard Joseph Trapp and Mrs Grandy call him to help Richard Evans, who was bleeding and might die. Hoskison did not take notice at first, thinking no harm had been done.

The shouting made him get out of bed and go to his balcony. While standing there, he heard Joseph Trapp blaspheme at him. Someone came under the balcony and knocked with a stick, saying, “Why go to sleep? Go to sleep.” Hoskison answered, “You lie to me. I do not desire to be an evidence against you.”

He then saw Bartrout Audouard come out of John Slack’s house. Audouard was asked to go to Grandy’s house to see whether Richard Evans was as badly wounded as reported. Before Audouard arrived, Hoskison went himself and found Evans lying on a bench, with people attending to him and bathing his temples with rags.

While in the house, someone whispered at the door and struck Mrs Grandy on the head, cursing her. Hoskison said that Samuel Kirk pulled out a knife, which George Higham took away. He did not see anyone else using knives inside the house.

Hoskison then went home and stood on his balcony. He heard the noise of stones being thrown at Grandy’s house. He stayed about half an hour. Stephen Child and Ones Steward came to his house and spoke with him on the balcony. They soon went down and then went away.

Josias Higham, looking over the wall between his house and Grandy’s house, saw Stephen Child stoop to pick up stones. Hoskison could not tell whether Child threw any at Higham. Ones Steward went into Hoskison’s house, followed shortly after by Stephen Child. After a little while, both Child and Steward left.

Interpretations

Hoskison’s evidence gave a clear night-time sequence of the attack. Stones were thrown, people were threatened, and the injured Richard Evans was attended to inside the house. The testimony also recorded the presence and actions of Stephen Child and Ones Steward at Hoskison’s property, which connected them to the events near Grandy’s house.

The mention of knives, striking Mrs Grandy, and the involvement of multiple men showed the severity of the attack and the danger to anyone inside or nearby. Hoskison’s actions—observing from the balcony and intervening to protect Evans—provided evidence of the assault and those present.

Speculations

Child and Steward’s brief visits to Hoskison’s balcony and house may have been reconnaissance or intimidation. Hoskison could not confirm whether stones were thrown at him, suggesting the attackers were careful to avoid direct identification while still maintaining pressure on the household.

The margin note that they “were not in Aldis house” implied that evidence was being carefully checked to confirm presence or absence, possibly to separate suspicion from actual participation in the attack.

175

175

away to sleep for they said they would, which was then aboute
one of y[e] Clock in the morning, and the said Hoskison sitting
wth Joseph [...] one Charles Howard and [...] in his Balcony
I heard something [...] and saw y[e] said Hoskison [...] Thomas
Thomas [...] strike him on y[e] head so harde on the
head No reply the his hearing this should do wth you Jonathan
this is an [...] to me no said y[e] said Higham they have noe
respect for you than for me, so upon his desire and being no danger
the said Lewis and Higham as soon as the Bridge John whereas
he went to y[e] other Collor would then returne home againe
Then presently the said John Rawdon who said to him Certainly
you know the same that was abused me before y[e] Docters
answered did not, was said he if they will but come and make
good y[e] Doores and windowes againe she would take no more
so ablade it, to which he replyed they can do no less, and further
ing that y[e] said Higham and y[e] said Rawdon y[e] y[e] men that
did the damage asked y[e] said Mrs Grandy an houre two after
if she would agree up the business now think said Higham
hearing persuaded her not, and who he would go to y[e] Governr and
acquaint him of w[ha]t had not made [...] least it be in
the afternoon seeing [...] said him that this
twas so and was [str]ange would [...] that show y[e] people
who were accused did prove any thing against him, and
he knew any thing of the matter [...] day [...]
and about two or three dayes after Mrs Grandy came to y[e] yet
againe and persuaded him to make the peace with Chield
who deny y[e] same unto Howard if the matter is ended in it,
but doth think she had some malice in what he said Chield and
Steward that did the said damage and that day or y[e] day after
meeting wth y[e] said Mrs Grandy at persons to persuade to make up the
business for to [...] Stephen Chield it was in it, and then
he said [...] had no money one him wrote before them she [...]
he said Grandy coming any benefit, and doth remember there
not been done it should be worse for him, and did also
receive they were continually [...] from [...] wife in
house as very unreasonable which is the
that he knows in this matter.

Matthew Decla[...] that what
the before said Thomas Bee sayd before him to come
and bleed him, some way [...] but being not why were brought
could not go wth Thomas two or three dayes after, and Mr
Carne desiring to [...] request Blood him and the same day as the
said [...] did he was wth him, but did not know from being
past, except at which time Mary French did say she had told
him y[e] said Hoskison, that her father had held a steer with
applied to his side which was ague and said he Complained
of a burning paine in the said grieved place and that he
spitted matter, and blood by Stoole, which makes the said
Hoskison

Margin Notes:
n[o] he there knew
y[e] persons payd
before

George Hoskison continued his account.

He said that at about one o’clock in the morning, he was sitting on his balcony with Joseph [...], Charles Howard and [...]. He heard something and saw Thomas [...] strike someone on the head very hard. Higham said that the attackers showed no respect for him or Hoskison. Because there was no immediate danger, Lewis and Higham went home after the bridge.

John Rawdon then spoke to Higham. He said that the same people had previously abused him. Rawdon added that if the doors and windows were repaired, Mrs Grandy would not press the matter further. Higham replied that the attackers could do no less.

Later, Higham and Rawdon said that the men who had damaged the house asked Mrs Grandy an hour or two afterwards whether she would agree to settle the matter. Higham persuaded her not to, saying he would go to the governor and inform him of what had happened. He found it strange that the accused people could not prove anything against him, and that he knew nothing of the matter.

About two or three days later, Mrs Grandy came again and persuaded him to make peace with Stephen Child. Higham denied this to Charles Howard, though he thought that Mrs Grandy may have acted with some malice. He said that Stephen Child and Ones Steward had caused the damage. Higham remembered that Mrs Grandy had tried to get the business settled, but he had no money on him and did not benefit from the settlement. He recalled continual disturbances at the house by the accused and thought their behaviour unreasonable.

Matthew gave a declaration. He said that Thomas Bee had told him to come and bleed someone, but he was unable to do so two or three days later. Mr Carne requested the same on that day. At that time, Mary French said she had told Hoskison that her father had held a stirrer or rod against his side, complained of a burning pain, and had passed blood by stool, which Hoskison observed.

Interpretations

Hoskison’s testimony reinforced the night-time violence and the ongoing disturbance afterward. Stones were thrown, people were struck, and multiple households were involved. The repeated references to persuasion and repair of doors and windows showed attempts at private settlement of the damage.

Mrs Grandy’s actions suggested that interpersonal conflict influenced how settlements were offered or accepted. Her attempts to resolve the matter involved both compensation for property and control over the investigation.

Higham’s account indicated that the accused, including Stephen Child and Ones Steward, were active in intimidation and damage. His observations gave the council and jury details of movement, timing, and the response of those inside the house.

Matthew’s statement about Thomas Bee and the blood observed by Hoskison documented the physical injury and the seriousness of the incident.

Speculations

The continued presence of the accused near the house after the initial attack probably aimed to maintain intimidation. Higham’s account that the men asked Mrs Grandy to settle shows that the attackers sought to manage the consequences while avoiding formal punishment.

Mary French’s statement about her father’s injury probably supported the council’s understanding of the harm caused, giving context for restitution or legal proceedings.

176

176

Hoskison Suppose that y[e] agrieved place which was brused
Impostumated and the same day as y[e] said Box died, told
y[e] Hoskison that y[e] [...] had informed him (meaning those
that did y[e] Dammage at Grandys house) and y[e] said
Mathew declared his [...] that y[e] said Mary French told him
then that y[e] Nurse he died at y[e] said Grandys house was
the Cause of his death

James in Service Being Sworne Saith
that the night as the said Box fell ill as [...] he was at
his house, at which time heard his daughter Mary French aske
him if the blows he recd by James was not the cause of his
death who made answer I dont know it was being then very
senseless, and some dayes after heard y[e] said Box say that he
did take his oath that Either he had hold of Edward Bagby
by his serges Coate or him y[e] back part of it, and Rich[ar]d Purling
being there at y[e] same time made him Answer thus I believe
you are mistaken Mr Box who turned his head away and made
no answer to that.

Leonard Hunt Sworne Saith that aboute
a fortnight before y[e] said Thomas Box fell sick he was at
his house and the [...] and some of y[e] Family being
a talking aboute Stephen Chield The said Box asked him what
it was they said of Stephen Chield, who told him that one of his
Shins was much broken by receiving a great ligge, who made
answer no matter if his neck had broke to; further Saith
that y[e] same day as y[e] said Box died he heard him say
that the blowes he recd at Grandys house was the Cause
of his death.

Ann the wife of John Bagley being
Sworne Saith that Mary y[e] wife of Thomas Happer told her
that Stephen Chield had told him, that Ones Steward and he did
throw all y[e] stones, and did y[e] mischief that was done at Grandys
house, but desired her not to Speake of it againe /

George Hoskison was sworn.

He said that the injured place on Thomas Box was bruised and inflamed. On the same day that Box died, Box told Hoskison that those who had caused the damage at Grandy’s house had informed him of it. Hoskison also said that Doctor Mathew reported that Mary French had told him that the injury Box received at Grandy’s house was the cause of his death.

James in service was sworn.

He said that on the night Box fell ill, he was at Box’s house. He heard Mary French ask Box whether the blows he had received from James were the cause of his death. Box replied that he did not know, as he was then very senseless. Some days later, James heard Box say that he had taken hold of Edward Bagley by his serge coat or by the back part of it. Richard Purling, present at the same time, told Box that he was mistaken. Box turned his head and made no answer.

Leonard Hunt was sworn.

He said that about a fortnight before Thomas Box fell sick, he was at Box’s house while Box and some of his family were talking about Stephen Child. Box asked what they were saying about Child. They told him that one of Child’s shins had been badly broken by receiving a heavy blow. Box replied, “No matter if his neck had broken too.” Hunt also said that on the same day Box died, he heard Box say that the blows he received at Grandy’s house were the cause of his death.

Ann, wife of John Bagley, was sworn.

She said that Mary, wife of Thomas Happer, told her that Stephen Child had said that he and Ones Steward had thrown all the stones and caused the mischief at Grandy’s house. Mary advised her not to speak of it again.

Interpretations

The testimony directly connected the earlier attack at Grandy’s house to serious physical injury and death. Thomas Box’s statements and the observations of Mary French and Doctor Mathew indicated that the blows received at Grandy’s house contributed to his death.

Leonard Hunt’s evidence provided corroboration. Box himself attributed the fatal consequences to the injuries from that night. The timing of his statements—both before and on the day of his death—reinforced the perceived causal link.

Ann Bagley’s account indicated that local knowledge attributed responsibility for the attack to Stephen Child and Ones Steward. The instruction not to speak of it suggests a deliberate attempt to prevent wider disclosure, highlighting secrecy and fear among witnesses.

Speculations

The repeated linking of Box’s death to the Grandy house attack probably strengthened the case against the accused. Witnesses’ recollections, statements of the deceased, and reports of secrecy together created a chain of attribution that could be used to establish culpability for serious harm.

177

177

James Wilson Senr being Sworne Saith that he
was at the Said Bees house the day he died and heard him
say these Blows they gave me is the Cause of my death
Then said Wilson asked him what blowes, And who do you
mean by they, whereupon answer the blowes these Rogues
gave me at James Grandys house for they have broke to stones
my armes, further Saith that he heard Mary French Sa[y]
Doctor Mathew that her Father did Corruption by the
bruises he had received Saturday as the s[ai]d Box told her.

The
The Grand Jury found the Bill of Indictment to
be a bill a Ted

Tho Goodwin

Margin Notes:
The Grand Jury found
y[e] Bill a Bill Verd

James Wilson Senior was sworn.

He said that he was at Thomas Box’s house on the day Box died. Box told him, “These blows they gave me are the cause of my death.” Wilson asked what blows and who he meant. Box replied that he meant the blows “these rogues” gave him at James Grandy’s house, saying that his arms had been broken with stones.

Wilson also said that he heard Mary French tell Doctor Mathew that her father had died because of the bruises he had received on the Saturday, as Box himself had told her.

The grand jury found the bill of indictment to be a true bill.

Tho Goodwin

Interpretations

Box’s statements directly attributed his death to the attack at Grandy’s house. This linked the physical violence from that night to a fatal outcome, giving strong evidence of grievous harm.

Mary French’s confirmation to Doctor Mathew corroborated Box’s claim, showing that multiple people understood the connection between the injuries and his death.

The grand jury’s finding of a “true bill” meant they judged there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal trial against those accused of causing the injury and death.

178

178

Island St Helena

The Court of Justice
held on Wednesday the 8th day of July
1701 at the Hon[ble] Comp:s Store
house near fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Cap[t]n J[ohn] Poirier Govern[our]
M[rs]: Thomas Bright Dep[ut]y Gov[er]n[our]
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

A Jury the Court was opened According to the Accus-
tomed manner that Persons appointed for Juro[r]s are as
followeth

Orlando Bagley 10
W[illia]m Randoll 11
John Cox 12

John Fried freeman one
Robert Mols . . . 2
James Rooe . . . 3
John Godwin . . . 4
Cornel[iu]s Mulling . . . 5
Thomas Dixon . . . 6
John Nichols . . . 7
Thomas Smalley . . . 8
Sow[er] Maxwell . . . 9

who were all Sworne

Henry Cales manslave made Complaint against
Elizabeth the wife of John Johnson Cod[...]e made Accus[ation] Defaming
her that she the s[ai]d Eliz[abe]th Johnson had Reported to Seuerall Persons
that he the said Cales had prophesied there would be a Famine
on this Island within two years

Margin Notes:
Eliz: Johnson Tryall
for Defaming Henry
Cales.

A Court of Justice was held on St Helena on Wednesday 8 July 1701. It met at the Honourable Company’s storehouse near Fort James.

Captain John Poirier, the governor, was present. Mr Thomas Bright, the deputy governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, the ensign, was present.

The court was opened in the usual way. The people appointed as jurors were listed.

John Fried, freeman, was first.

Robert Mols was second.

James Rooe was third.

John Godwin was fourth.

Cornelius Mulling was fifth.

Thomas Dixon was sixth.

John Nichols was seventh.

Thomas Smalley was eighth.

Sower Maxwell was ninth.

Orlando Bagley was tenth.

William Randoll was eleventh.

John Cox was twelfth.

All twelve jurors were sworn.

Henry Cales, a male slave, made a complaint against Elizabeth Johnson, the wife of John Johnson Cod[...]e. He accused her of defaming him. The complaint stated that Elizabeth Johnson had told several people that Cales had prophesied that there would be a famine on St Helena within two years.

Interpretations

The Court of Justice showed the formal legal setting used for criminal and civil accusations on St Helena. The governor, deputy governor and ensign sat with a sworn jury, so Company authority and local jury procedure worked together in the same hearing.

The meeting place mattered. The Honourable Company’s storehouse near Fort James was not only a commercial building. It also served as a practical centre of government, justice and Company control.

Henry Cales’s status as a male slave was important because he was still able to bring a complaint before the court. The case showed that slaves could appear within the colony’s legal process, although within a deeply unequal social order.

The accusation of defamation concerned a reported prophecy of famine. In a small island colony dependent on stored food, shipping and Company supply, such a claim carried more than personal insult. It could suggest disorder, fear or dangerous speech about scarcity.

179

179

The said Elizabeth Johnson Sayes that She did Directly it was
the said Cales that had prophesied so only that She said Cales
himselfe had said they would see it

Kathorine the wife of Richard Swene saith that she never
knew any such thing that she the said Eliz[abe]th Johnson say
as the famine but that Cales had soule in his body
and that he prophesied there would be a famine on this Island
within two years

William Marsh sworne saith that he heard the
said Elizabeth Johnson say in Mary Presses house that by Henry
Cales the old prophesier of mischiefe there should be a famine on
this Island within two years this truth to y[e] best of his know-
ledge

Grace Coulson being sworne Saith that She heard
the said Elizabeth Johnson say that in a house at her house that
M[rs] Cales and Sayd that there would be a famine on the island
within two years and did not mean it of Henry Johnson
saying nothing at all about him

Margarett Cum[m]in being sworne
Saith that She being in Company with M[rs] Mary
Prest the other side Stone and heard y[e] Said Eliza[beth] Johnson
who told her no body judged them so but [...] [...] they
Johnson saw her Every day and said that M[rs] Johnson
threatened or promised that there would be a famine on
this Island within a above two years and that at a Certaine
time that the Governour cleared the said Margarett Comeing on it
She Asked the said [...] she heard that prophesy whi[ch]
would be a famine on this Island and y[e] said Margarett
said that Cales at the first hearing about it so aud said it
Plainly to her Mother Presst or

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed about halfe an
houre.

Then returned their Verdict that the said Elizabeth
Johnson was 5s in Suite and to ask the said Henry Cales

Margin Notes:
M[rs] Johnson fined
5s pence Damage to
Henry Cales mansla[ve]

Elizabeth Johnson denied that she had clearly said Henry Cales had prophesied a famine. She said she only repeated that Cales himself had said people would see it happen.

Katherine Swene, the wife of Richard Swene, gave evidence. She said she did not know that Elizabeth Johnson had said anything about a famine, except that Cales had a soul in his body and had prophesied that there would be a famine on St Helena within two years.

William Marsh gave evidence under oath. He said he had heard Elizabeth Johnson speak in Mary Press’s house. Elizabeth had called Henry Cales “the old prophet of mischief”. She had said that, according to him, there would be a famine on St Helena within two years. Marsh said this was true to the best of his knowledge.

Grace Coulson gave evidence under oath. She said she had heard Elizabeth Johnson say, in a house at Elizabeth’s own house, that Mrs Cales had said there would be a famine on the island within two years. Grace said Elizabeth had not meant Henry Johnson and had said nothing about him.

Margaret Cummin gave evidence under oath. She said she had been with Mrs Mary Prest on the other side of Stone. She heard Elizabeth Johnson speak about the report. The wording was partly unclear, but Elizabeth appeared to say that nobody had judged them in that way except [...] [...]. Margaret said Elizabeth Johnson saw her every day. She also said that Mrs Johnson had threatened or promised that there would be a famine on St Helena within more than two years.

At another time, after the governor had cleared Margaret Cummin over the matter, Margaret asked [...] whether she had heard the prophecy that there would be a famine on St Helena. Margaret said that Cales had been named when she first heard the story. She said it was spoken plainly to her mother, Mary Prest.

The jury then left the court. They stayed out for about half an hour.

They returned with their verdict. Elizabeth Johnson was found responsible for defaming Henry Cales. She was ordered to pay him £0 5s 0d in damages and to ask his pardon.

Interpretations

The court tried to decide whether Elizabeth Johnson had merely repeated a rumour or had directly accused Henry Cales of making a dangerous prophecy. Her own answer tried to reduce the charge. She claimed she had not directly named him as the prophet, but only repeated that he had said people would see a famine.

The witnesses did not give a single clean account. William Marsh’s evidence was the strongest against Elizabeth Johnson because he said he heard her name Henry Cales and call him “the old prophet of mischief”. Grace Coulson’s evidence weakened that version because she said Elizabeth had referred to Mrs Cales, not Henry Johnson, and had said nothing about Henry Johnson. Margaret Cummin’s evidence was confused but still kept the famine prophecy in circulation among named women and households.

The verdict showed that the jury believed enough of the charge to punish Elizabeth Johnson. The damages were small, but the order to ask Henry Cales’s pardon mattered. It required a free woman to make public amends to a male slave for damage done by speech.

The case showed how closely speech was policed on St Helena. A rumour about famine was not treated as harmless gossip. It touched food supply, public fear and social order. The court therefore treated the words as an injury to reputation and as a matter worth formal judgment.

180

180

forgiven, and fined Six Pence damages and to pay Charges
Court

William Calfe the plaintiff made Complaint against
William Willis the defendant in an action of Damages for that he
the said Willis [...] [...] [...] [...]
and [...] him with his dagger

The said William Willis denyed that he hath damnifyed the
said Will[ia]m Calfe, and was proved to the Contrary.

Then
Samuel Highbury serv[t] being sworne saith
that as he was going one day from Benj[amin] Mills house saw
the said old Wiseman Calfe and William Willis onphanting him
down She with his hatt who he Called [...] not to [...]. dagger
go or abuse he heard the y[e] said Willis had drew a sheath of William
Calfes, and William wherabouts he y[e] Henry a stopp for the servant to
the said Willis p[ro]m[is]ed y[e] said William Calfe the Constable and saw, some
boys upon y[e] said William Willis, he came along.

Sam[ue]ll Poate[...] Soldier being sworne saith that
he saw a stone of Rym Willis Come up the first from towards the
said William after y[e] said William being in the old widdows house and
stook upon which the said Willis came for y[e] said William Calfe and
asked him why he abused his Calfe where he [ser]ved he could
not do it but if his Constable had done it he would stand to what
they did.

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed near
halfe an houre and brought in their Verdict.

That y[e] said Rym Willis was Cast in the Suit of William
Calfe for want of Evidence, and to pay Court
Charges.

Then the Court was adjourned till tomorrow
morning at Ten of y[e] Clock

Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:
R:epon Willis Complaint
ag[ains]t W[illia]m Cales for hunting
his Cattle Commonly &
Denying them with
his Dagger.

R:epon Willis Cast by
William Cales

Elizabeth Johnson was ordered to be forgiven after asking Henry Cales’s pardon. She was also fined £0 0s 6d in damages and ordered to pay the court charges.

William Calfe then made a complaint against William Willis. He brought an action for damages. He said Willis had [...] [...] [...] [...] and had threatened him with his dagger.

William Willis denied that he had harmed William Calfe. Evidence was then given against him.

Samuel Highbury, a servant, gave evidence under oath. He said that one day, as he was going from Benjamin Mills’s house, he saw old Wiseman Calfe and William Willis. The wording of the account was unclear, but Willis appeared to have confronted Calfe and to have drawn a dagger or sheath against him. Highbury also said that the constable and some boys were involved when William Willis came along.

Samuel Poate[...], a soldier, gave evidence under oath. He said he saw a stone thrown by Willis’s son. The stone came from the direction of William Willis towards William Calfe. William Calfe was then in the old widow’s house. Willis then came towards William Calfe and asked why he had abused his calf. Calfe answered that he had not done it. He said that, if the constable had done it, he would stand by what they had done.

The jury withdrew and stayed away for nearly half an hour.

The jury then returned its verdict. William Willis lost the suit brought by William Calfe because he had not provided enough evidence. Willis was ordered to pay the court charges.

The court was then adjourned until ten o’clock the next morning.

Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The damages and court charges in Elizabeth Johnson’s case completed the court’s remedy. The pardon repaired the public insult, while the fine and charges made the wrong measurable in money. The court therefore combined apology, compensation and costs.

William Calfe’s complaint showed how a private quarrel could become a formal action for damages. The case concerned alleged harm, a threat with a dagger, cattle and the role of a constable. This placed a local dispute over animals and violence within the court’s authority.

The constable’s appearance mattered because he represented local enforcement. Calfe’s statement that he would stand by what the constable had done suggested that the quarrel may have arisen from an attempted seizure, restraint or correction of Willis’s cattle. The manuscript was damaged, but the dispute clearly connected private anger with official action.

The jury’s verdict turned on proof. Willis was “cast” in the suit because evidence failed. This meant he lost the case and had to pay the court costs. The decision showed that sworn accusation alone was not enough. The court required evidence that the jury accepted.

181

181

Island St Helena

At a Court of Judicature
Continued on Friday the 14th day of July
1681 For the Tryall of Cap[t] Kidd quarter
Gunner and Onesiphorus Stone

Pr[e]s[en]t
Cap[t] Poirier Governour Judge
M[r] Thomas Bright Dep[ut]y Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin Ensign

A Jury the Court was opened According to y[e] usuall
manner those Persons appointed for Jurors are as followeth

Cap[tain] Israel Foreman one
James Jackson . . . 2
George [...] . . . 3
Greene Halley . . . 4
William Willis . . . 5
John Becky . . . 6
Christop[her] Crow . . . 7
Sam[ue]l Highbury . . . 8
William Brabbin . . . 9
Thomas Corker . . . 10
William Mulling . . . 11
Thomas Dixon . . . 12 Const

were all sworne

Then here the Indictment was Read as followeth

You stand Indicted by the name of Captaine Kidd quarter Gunner
and Onesiphorus Stone For that you did since y[e] arrivall of y[e] S R
John Henry Dutton master of the said Island St Helena Reporte
that you were trained not haveing your recourse abroad But
you did by y[e] danger of y[e] Rough and Insolency of y[e] bank
on y[e] 3d day of July before the Court y[e] houre of one or two of
the Clock in the morning Com[m]it Burglary and Felony
by breaking open the dores and windowes of the house be-
longing to James Grimsyace Racker Standing in fort James
Valley and Entering therein there being then and at that

Margin Notes:
Cap[t] Kidd & Ones-
iphorus Stone Bill of Indict-
ment

A Court of Judicature was continued on St Helena on Friday 14 July 1681. It was held for the trial of Captain Kidd, quarter gunner, and Onesiphorus Stone.

Captain Poirier, the governor and judge, was present. Mr Thomas Bright, the deputy governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, the ensign, was present.

The court was opened in the usual way. The people appointed as jurors were listed.

Captain Israel Foreman was first.

James Jackson was second.

George [...] was third.

Greene Halley was fourth.

William Willis was fifth.

John Becky was sixth.

Christopher Crow was seventh.

Samuel Highbury was eighth.

William Brabbin was ninth.

Thomas Corker was tenth.

William Mulling was eleventh.

Thomas Dixon, constable, was twelfth.

All twelve jurors were sworn.

The indictment was then read. Captain Kidd, quarter gunner, and Onesiphorus Stone were charged by name. The charge stated that, after the arrival of the S R, whose master was John Henry Dutton, they had reported that they were trained and that they had not had their recourse abroad. The next part was damaged, but it referred to danger, roughness, insolence and the bank.

The indictment then stated that, on 3 July, at about one or two o’clock in the morning, Captain Kidd and Onesiphorus Stone committed burglary and felony. They were accused of breaking open the doors and windows of a house belonging to James Grimsyace, a racker, standing in Fort James Valley. They were also accused of entering the house.

Interpretations

The Court of Judicature placed the trial under the direct authority of the Company’s island government. The governor sat as judge, the deputy governor and ensign were present and a sworn jury was used. The case therefore joined military, administrative and legal authority in one proceeding.

Captain Kidd’s description as quarter gunner mattered because the charge involved a person connected with shipboard or military service. His status made the alleged offence more serious in a fortified Company settlement, where discipline among armed or semi-armed men was central to order.

The accusation of burglary and felony carried a heavy legal meaning. The alleged offence was not treated as simple trespass or damage. It was framed as a serious night-time breaking and entering, with violence against the security of a dwelling.

The house in Fort James Valley mattered because it stood close to the island’s main fortified and administrative centre. A forced entry there affected more than one private household. It challenged order in the settlement’s most important controlled space.

182

182

time Thomas Box late of the Said Island Saw Ranger [...]
(with severall other Persons) whome you did that Inhumanly
violently Assault Bruise and wound w[i]th Polk Stones your fists
at when you broke [...] Enter into the Said the Door
deed at that day as he did open by declare [...]
and Taking away one [...] coat as aforesaid untill the
Time of this Court which murder & Burglary & Felony is Con-
trary to the Lawes [...] and the Peace of our Soveraign Lord the King his Crowne
and dignity and was [...] Government of this Island
for S[o] [...] and

Patrick Indicted saith [...] pleaded not Guilty

Then the Judge made a speech as followeth,

Gentlemen of the Jury the Prison[er]s at the Barr are In-
dicted you see for Felony Burglary and murder, and the
Bill found good by a Grand Jury the truth of it is Cooke
and it is true likewise that a Bad laid his death to those [...]
hath Broken open Grandsy dores and windowes and it is [...]
True that some of our youths have been too much [...]
In wickedness I Speak to their Sins, and we hope to Exh[ibit] sufficient
evidence against them that they may be found
Guilty by you I have just done and no more

Then
Priscilla the wife of James Grandsy & a servant
being Sworne Saith the very same as she hath already
deposed as may more at large appeare in her first Examina[tion]
by y[e] Grand Jury on the first Instant

Margin Notes:
Judge
The Judges speech
to the Jury.

Priscilla Grandsy Davys
wife Same as in first Jury
Declaration and
Receiveth all other
Evidences.

A Court of Judicature was continued on St Helena on Friday 14 July 1681. It was held for the trial of Captain Kidd, quarter gunner, and Onesiphorus Stone.

Captain Poirier, the governor and judge, was present. Mr Thomas Bright, the deputy governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, the ensign, was present.

The court was opened in the usual way. The people appointed as jurors were listed.

Captain Israel Foreman was first.

James Jackson was second.

George [...] was third.

Greene Halley was fourth.

William Willis was fifth.

John Becky was sixth.

Christopher Crow was seventh.

Samuel Highbury was eighth.

William Brabbin was ninth.

Thomas Corker was tenth.

William Mulling was eleventh.

Thomas Dixon, constable, was twelfth.

All twelve jurors were sworn.

The indictment was then read. Captain Kidd, quarter gunner, and Onesiphorus Stone were charged by name. The charge stated that, after the arrival of the S R, whose master was John Henry Dutton, they had reported that they were trained and had not had their recourse abroad. The next part was damaged, but it referred to danger, roughness, insolence and the bank.

The indictment stated that, on 3 July, at about one or two o’clock in the morning, Captain Kidd and Onesiphorus Stone committed burglary and felony. They were accused of breaking open the doors and windows of a house belonging to James Grimsyace, a racker, in Fort James Valley. They were also accused of entering the house.

Thomas Box, late of St Helena, was then inside the house with several other people. The damaged wording described him as a saw ranger or [...].

Captain Kidd and Onesiphorus Stone were accused of attacking Box in a cruel and violent way. They were said to have beaten, bruised and wounded him with stones, sticks and their fists when they broke open the door and entered the house. The indictment also stated that Box declared this before he died.

They were also accused of taking away one [...] coat. The charge was brought as murder, burglary and felony. These crimes were said to be against the law, against the peace of the king, his crown and dignity and against the government of St Helena.

The prisoners pleaded not guilty.

The judge then spoke to the jury. He told them that the prisoners at the bar had been charged with felony, burglary and murder. He said the grand jury had already accepted the indictment as a true bill. He also said that Thomas Box had blamed his death on the men who attacked him at James Grandy’s house. James Grandy’s doors and windows had been broken open. The judge said that some of the island’s young men had gone too far in wicked behaviour. He said he was speaking about their sins. He hoped that enough evidence would be given for the jury to find the prisoners guilty. Then he ended his speech.

Priscilla, the wife of James Grandy, and a servant, gave evidence under oath. She gave the same evidence that she had already given. Her fuller statement was said to appear in her first examination before the grand jury on the first day of the month.

Interpretations

The indictment joined three charges in one account: burglary, felony and murder. The forced entry into James Grandy’s house was tied directly to the attack on Thomas Box and to Box’s later death. The prosecution therefore treated the breaking of the house and the fatal violence as one connected crime.

The judge’s speech made the charge clear to the jury. He did not merely repeat the legal words of the indictment. He told the jurors that Box had blamed his death on the attack, that Grandy’s house had been broken open and that the behaviour showed serious disorder among young men on the island.

The grand jury’s true bill meant that the accusation had already passed an initial legal test. The trial jury still had to decide guilt, but the case had been allowed to proceed because the first jury found enough cause to put the accused men on trial.

The reference to the king’s peace, crown and dignity placed the attack within royal criminal law, even though the case was heard in a Company colony. Violence in a private house was therefore treated as an offence against the whole political order, not only against James Grandy or Thomas Box.

Priscilla Grandy’s evidence was brought into the trial by reference to her earlier grand jury examination. This saved the court from copying her statement again, but it also meant that her earlier sworn account remained part of the case against the prisoners.

Speculations

The indictment’s stress on doors, windows, night-time entry and weapons was probably meant to show that the event was more than a quarrel. Those details made the attack look like a forceful breach of a house and helped support the charge of burglary as well as the charge of murder.

The judge’s comment about “some of the island’s young men” perhaps showed that the court saw this case as part of a wider problem of violence and indiscipline. The accused men were not treated only as private offenders. They were also made examples of a threat to public order.

183

183

And so likewise did all the other Evidence depose as
in theire former depositions on writing y[e] first Instant

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed about halfe an
houre they Returned and brought in their Verdict that They
Could not finde the prisoners Guilty of y[e] Murder
said for there since about as the other two Crimes had
not agreed upon Verdict. Declaring that y[e] Judges might
give an Oath where they were that might as the afores[ai]d
Grandys house was Broken open

whereupon the Judge made answer
Thus Gentlemen I have Demonstrated unto you by Evidence that
they Have been at the night from one of y[e] Clock to three or
four Either in the stonehouse Rough or in Costrell Watch house,

Here the Jury desired to know what y[e] John Kid
had at y[e] prisoners Out, [...] the other They did [...]
could say Sam Highburn Bagley gave them the [...] of what M[rs] Stone
was there to Such times those and had Staggs were about an
houre then went to [...] house where they were they stayed
awhile while which one man better than this of y[e] Cost-
than come over y[e] bridge of Thomas Mill house, where
they say the witnessing and at y[e] Time Led to thence
stayed they are Ignorant

Then The Jury withdrew againe and stayed some time
then brought in their Verdict that the Prisoners at y[e]
Barr were not Guilty of y[e] Crimes Laid to their Charge

Margin Notes:
The Jury Could not
Agree of the Prisoners
Guilty

The Judge Answer
to the Jury

The Jury declared
could say Sam Highburn Bagley

The Jurys Verdict
the Prisoners were not
Guilty

All the other witnesses also gave the same evidence as in their earlier written depositions taken on the first day of the month.

The jury withdrew and stayed away for about half an hour. They then returned with their verdict. They said they could not find the prisoners guilty of murder. They had not yet agreed on verdicts for the other two charges.

The jurors said they needed clearer guidance from the judges about whether the evidence proved that Grandy’s house had been broken open.

The judge answered them. He said that the evidence showed where the prisoners had been during the night, from about one o’clock until three or four o’clock. They had been either at the Stonehouse, at the Rough or at Costrell’s watch house.

The jury then asked what John Kidd had done after the prisoners went out. The manuscript became difficult to read at this point, so the exact question and answer could not be fully recovered. The readable parts mentioned Samuel Highbury, Bagley and Mrs Stone. They appeared to concern evidence about the prisoners’ movements that night. The account seemed to say that the prisoners were in one place for about an hour, then went to another house and stayed there for a while. They later crossed the bridge by Thomas Mill’s house. Witnesses could speak to their movements up to that point, but the record stated that the court did not know where they went after that.

The jury withdrew again and stayed away for some time.

They then returned their verdict. The prisoners at the bar were found not guilty of the crimes charged against them.

Interpretations

The jury separated the charges rather than treating them as one matter. They first said that murder was not proved. They then hesitated over burglary and felony because they were unsure whether the evidence proved a forced entry into Grandy’s house. This showed that the jurors tested each charge against the evidence instead of accepting the indictment as a whole.

The judge tried to direct the jury back to the prisoners’ movements during the night. His answer suggested that location and timing mattered. The court needed to know whether the men were near Grandy’s house at the hours when the breaking and violence took place.

The jury’s request for guidance showed that the legal question turned on proof of housebreaking. For burglary, the court needed more than disorder, violence or presence nearby. The jurors had to decide whether the house had been broken open in a way that made the charge legally sound.

The final acquittal showed that the trial jury did not accept the prosecution’s case beyond the level needed for conviction. The grand jury had allowed the case to proceed, but the trial jury still controlled the verdict on guilt.

184

184

Then M[r] Thomas Goodwin desired that Sarah y[e] wife
of Edward Bagley might be Called and sworne she having
heard something of meaning had been cryed out of y[e] Box

The said Sarah Bagley being sworne saith that she saw John
Alexander go with Bagley towards box lived there w[i]th the said
Thomas Goodwin demanded of him do y[e] money Boxe
and take Something out and She held the Catche to whome
She said M[r] Goodwin whither are you a doing whereupon
gave her a mean winke or held he So say nothing: And
Since the said Alexander was married and she to they creek one
another Some where at Worke [...] and she told him in remem-
brance of the time when they lived at y[e] said Store house who
denied her againe and for denying

The said M[r] Thomas Goodwin being sworne Saith that he
had the Most above one Hundred pounds out of the boxe the time that
Sarah the said Alexander was under the

The said John Alexander saith that he is Falsely Accused
Denying positively the knowing of it; and that it is nothing but
a false malice spoke of him by Thomas Goodwin and Sarah
Bagley to accuse him thus after so many years past: But John
will not acknowledge that there Sarah Bagley told him
when they lived in y[e] Store house, She mistrust the
said Goodwin should had a Some thing to go into y[e] storeroom where
the said Bagley found those stole what there cleared out of
money and goods, and to prove something of this to be true
desired that Margarett Dixon might be Called and Examined
who accordingly was as followeth

Margarett y[e] wife of Thomas Dixon saith that last weeke
lived with the said Thomas Goodwin and she had to fetch something
there was about a petty court y[e] shop opened from Goods bakeing
roome where severall peices of Stuffs and Callicoes that belonged
to y[e] Hon[ble] Company and there take out of a Boxe of His
called Silk Cuttakes which he helps make up into Baggs

Margin Notes:
M[r] Thom[a]s Goodwin de-
sired that Sarah Bagley
might be sworne She had
heard Something Some
of money he left out of
the Store

M[r] Tho[s] Goodwin Sworne
Saith he had left above
hundred pound out of y[e]
Store when Jn Alexander
was Writer there

Mr Thomas Goodwin then asked for Sarah Bagley, the wife of Edward Bagley, to be called and sworn. She had heard something about money that had been cried out as missing from the box.

Sarah Bagley gave evidence under oath. She said that she saw John Alexander go with Bagley towards the place where Box lived. The manuscript became difficult to read at this point. The visible wording appeared to say that Thomas Goodwin asked John Alexander about money in the box and about taking something out of it. Sarah said she held the latch. She asked Mr Goodwin what he was doing. He gave her a meaningful wink, or made a sign that she should say nothing.

Sarah Bagley also said that, after John Alexander was married, they met one another near the creek or somewhere at work. She reminded him of the time when they had lived at the storehouse. The manuscript became unclear again at this point. The visible wording showed that Alexander denied what she said.

Mr Thomas Goodwin then gave evidence under oath. He said that more than £100 0s 0d had been taken from the box at the time when John Alexander was under the [...].

John Alexander said that he had been falsely accused. He strongly denied any knowledge of the matter. He said the accusation was nothing but false malice spoken against him by Thomas Goodwin and Sarah Bagley. He said they had accused him after many years had passed.

John Alexander would not admit the accusation. The manuscript then became difficult to read. The visible wording appeared to say that Sarah Bagley had told him, when they lived in the storehouse, that she suspected Goodwin had gone into the storeroom for some purpose. The same passage seemed to refer to Bagley finding that money and goods had been stolen or cleared out.

To prove that part of his account was true, John Alexander asked for Margaret Dixon to be called and examined. This was done.

Margaret, the wife of Thomas Dixon, gave evidence. She said that, in the previous week, she had lived with Thomas Goodwin and had gone to fetch something. The manuscript became unclear at this point. The visible wording referred to a petty court, an opened shop, a baking room and several pieces of stuffs and calicoes that belonged to the Honourable Company. It also stated that something was taken out of a box of his called silk cuttakes, which he helped make up into bags.

Interpretations

The evidence concerned suspected theft from the Company’s store. The storehouse was not just a place of storage. It held Company money, textiles and other goods, so access to boxes, rooms and keys carried financial and administrative importance.

Sarah Bagley’s evidence mattered because she placed Goodwin and Alexander near the box and described a signal for silence. If her account was accepted, the court could treat secrecy itself as evidence that something improper had happened.

John Alexander’s defence rested on delay and hostility. He argued that the accusation came only after many years and arose from malice. This challenged not only the facts but the credibility of Goodwin and Sarah Bagley.

Margaret Dixon’s evidence widened the inquiry from money to Company goods. The reference to stuffs, calicoes, silk cuttakes and bags suggested that the court was examining how Company property was handled, packed and perhaps removed from storage.

Speculations

Sarah Bagley’s account of the wink or silent signal perhaps explained why the matter had not been reported at once. The detail suggested a practical attempt to keep her from speaking about what she saw.

John Alexander’s request to call Margaret Dixon was probably meant to shift suspicion back towards Thomas Goodwin. By producing evidence about Company textiles and goods handled in Goodwin’s surroundings, Alexander tried to show that Goodwin himself had questionable access to storehouse property.

185

185

Then y[e] Jury withdrew and stayed about a quarter of an
houre and brought in their Verdict that the said John
Alexander was not Guilty of y[e] Accusation laid to his
Charge

Then y[e] Court was adjourned till
the next Tuesday being the 21th Instant

I signe this as an authentick Transcript
to y[e] records which test[if]ie in page

Island St Helena

July the 21th 1681

William Stephan Poirier Govern[our]
The Hon[ble] Comp[anie]s Court of Judicature
held y[e] 21th day of July According to the Necessity of this
Island Present the Hon[ble] Comp[anie]s Commission[er]s that
now are and then sworn having a Court and the said Companys
listed Serv[an]ts and freed men being summoned before us the Said
Day and having Discovered it being time of speaking against
the Said Deb[t] of Demand with which as the Said
Govern[our] Said is what affirme of the Said Hon[ble] Companyes
Court[,] the said Companyes Deb[t]ors not Directly ordered and
Contracted to do it Justly charge the said Deb[t]s any Resign
and Paying them their due

Margin Notes:
The Jury brought in
their Verdict that
John Alexander was
not Guilty

M[r] Goodwin desireing
a Second Court
with the
M[r] Comp[anie]s Govern-
ment on the
Comp[anie]s Service

The jury withdrew and stayed away for about a quarter of an hour.

They returned with their verdict. John Alexander was found not guilty of the accusation made against him.

The court was then adjourned until the next Tuesday, 21 July 1681.

The record was signed as an authentic transcript from the court records.

St Helena, 21 July 1681

William Stephan Poirier, governor.

The Honourable Company’s Court of Judicature was held on 21 July 1685. The court was called because the island’s circumstances required it.

The Honourable Company’s commissioners who were then present and sworn sat as the court. The Company’s listed servants and the freed men were summoned before them that day.

The manuscript became difficult to read after this point. The visible wording showed that the court dealt with debts owed to the Honourable Company. It also showed that the governor spoke about the Company’s court and about the Company’s debtors. The debtors had not been directly ordered or contracted in a way that allowed the debts to be justly charged. The court’s purpose appeared to be to settle those debts properly and to pay the people what was due to them.

Interpretations

John Alexander’s acquittal ended the charge against him despite the earlier claims made by Thomas Goodwin and Sarah Bagley. The jury found that the accusation had not been proved.

The authentic transcript statement showed that the record was being copied and certified from the court books. That mattered because the written record itself carried legal force. It preserved the verdict, adjournment and later proceedings as official acts.

The new sitting on 21 July 1685 shifted the court from a criminal accusation to Company finance. The summoned listed servants and freed men showed that the Company’s labour force and free inhabitants were brought under the court’s authority when debts and payments had to be settled.

The damaged passage pointed to a dispute over Company debts and proper charging. The court appeared to be used as an administrative tool for sorting obligations, not only as a place for trials. This showed how law, employment and Company accounting overlapped on St Helena.

186

186

The Said Govern[our] Seeing that neither place wrong nor any
Government Court Receaue against such disobedient Companys
forced action then to take the said Comp[anie]s debt without To[dd]s Books
Declare to the said M[r] Goodwins free men that to pay them the
Said Govern[our] should not suffered to take and borrowe money for the
same all Right up till Swift till our masters have Examined
and decided such Damage threatning against him to Recover
at Great Damage Charges &c

Bill the said M[r] Goodwin offering Imme-
diately after to a[...]on with the said Debts and pay them upon
receipt of account and Command of the Said Govern[our] did accept it
to proceed in Reckoning Accordingly

Margin Notes:
The Gov[ernour]s Protests ag[ainst]
M[r] Thomas Goodwin

Delivered in the
Presence of
John Alexander
Matt: Rackets

M[r] Goodwin Immeadiately
after, offerred to Rec[eive] a particular
acc[oun]t & p[er] said sold[ier]s

The governor saw that no proper place, authority or government court could act against such disobedient Company servants by forced action without Todd’s books. The manuscript was difficult to read at this point. The visible wording showed that the matter concerned Company debts, Mr Goodwin’s freed men and payment to them.

The governor declared to Mr Goodwin’s freed men that he should not be allowed to take or borrow money for those payments until the Company’s masters had examined and decided the matter. The governor also warned that any damage caused by acting before that decision would be recovered from the person responsible, with great damages, charges and other costs.

Mr Goodwin then immediately offered to proceed with the debts and pay them after he received the account and the governor’s command. The governor accepted this. The reckoning was then allowed to go forward in that way.

Interpretations

The governor’s protest against Thomas Goodwin showed that Company debts could not simply be collected or paid by private pressure. Payment had to be tied to books, accounts and authority from above. Todd’s books mattered because the accounts appear to have been needed before the debts could be proved or settled.

The dispute centred on control over Company money. The governor tried to stop borrowing or forced collection until the Company’s masters had reviewed the matter. This showed how local need on St Helena was restrained by the Company’s wider accounting system.

Mr Goodwin’s immediate offer changed the situation. By agreeing to receive a particular account and pay the soldiers or freed men under the governor’s command, he brought the matter back inside formal procedure. The reckoning could then proceed without the governor treating it as disorderly or unauthorised action.

Speculations

The governor’s warning about damages and charges probably aimed to stop Mr Goodwin or the freed men from creating a local settlement before the accounts were checked. The threat made any unauthorised payment or recovery financially risky.

187

187

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held
on Monday the 26th day of July 1701
at fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Cap[t] Poirier Govern[our]
M[r] Thom[as] Goodwin 2d of Coun[cil]

Whereas the Countrey hath beene Charged and burth-
ened by the English shipps upon its anchors from Clouds of the
good shipps hired there [...] that the Companyes servants
have not improved the said Companyes Service and Received any
pay towards same or of them or the other Companyes Debtors [...]
And whereas these things in the first place tend in the same [...]
in several places and the said Pay is in arreare [...]
persons upon the Island, and some of the same servants
according to what is order that hath stopped the Magistrates
who stopped y[e] Companyes deb[t]ors the ships the said debts of Companyes
of the said debts the said ships should avoid to each bill in
hath paid allready to the said Companyes debtors many
right and Coming of y[e] said Debts to the Judges with them
farther that the said lately appeared was his large amount
received from the said wages and so Company might be say
no more than the Extraordinary debt upon them his Countrey

whereupon It was Ordered
That y[e] Said M[r] Samuel March have no more Represen[tation] of y[e]
Said Richard [...]
we might Correct y[e] Disobedient Conversation we could [...]
[...] for y[e] Honour of our Hon[our]ble Masters he to examine
on Tuesday y[e] rest of his officers with him till further [...]

Margin Notes:
Judge Laid upon
English Shipps
saying to y[e] East In-
dia as [...] in the
Comp[anie]s Service

A consultation was held on St Helena on Monday 26 July 1701 at Fort James.

Captain Poirier, the governor, was present. Mr Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

The consultation stated that the country had been charged and burdened by English ships while they lay at anchor. The manuscript became difficult to read here. The visible wording referred to good ships hired there, to Company servants, to the Company’s service and to pay that had not been received from those ships or from other Company debtors.

The consultation then set out the problem. The manuscript was unclear in several places, but the readable parts showed that pay was in arrears to people on the island. Some of the Company’s servants were also involved. The passage appeared to describe debts owed by ships and by Company debtors. It also referred to magistrates who had stopped or restrained the Company’s debtors, and to debts that should have been put into bills or brought before judges.

The record stated that payments had already been made to several Company debtors. The next part was difficult to recover. The visible wording referred to the right and coming in of those debts, to judges, to a large amount lately shown and to wages that had been received. The concern appeared to be that the Company should not be left with an extraordinary debt charged on the country.

An order was then made. Mr Samuel March was to have no more representation of the matter concerning Richard [...]. The manuscript became unclear again at this point. The readable wording showed that disobedient conduct was to be corrected, and that this was to be done for the honour of the Honourable Company’s masters. Richard [...] and the rest of his officers were to be examined on Tuesday. Further action was left until after that examination.

Interpretations

The consultation dealt with the burden placed on St Helena by English ships using the island. Ships at anchor created costs for the settlement, and the council was concerned that payment for those costs had not been properly received. The island’s labour, supplies and official attention were being used, but the accounts did not appear to balance.

The repeated reference to Company servants, debtors, ships, wages and arrears showed a dispute over who carried the cost of maritime service. The issue was not only unpaid money. It concerned whether ship-related expenses were charged to the right people, recorded in the right form and recovered through the proper authority.

The mention of magistrates and judges showed that debt collection had become a legal and administrative matter. The council treated unpaid ship debts as something that needed official control, not private settlement. This linked commercial accounting to colonial government.

The order to examine Richard [...] and his officers suggested that the council suspected disobedience or mismanagement within a ship or official group. The examination was set for Tuesday so that responsibility could be fixed before further action was taken.

Speculations

The council’s concern that the Company should not bear an extraordinary debt perhaps showed that local officers were trying to prevent ship costs from being absorbed into the island’s general accounts. The order for an examination on Tuesday gave them a way to identify who should pay before the debt became a charge on the Company or the settlement.

188

188

But after severall debates and Protests Delivered to us by the
said Captaine Peaceable how offered us a bill of Exchange of one Hundred
pounds drawne on the owners of said shipps which we looke satisfie
to the according to y[e] said

Know all men by these presents that I have received the last
will and Testament of Benjamin Seales husband, In order
of changing the forme of food which was over one [...]
I am to [...] of him Evidence to said will being gone off Island
who was about the said will and produced into the said [...]
Seales last will and Testament that understand other, all y[e] said
Seales appointing no executors over parte of his said will.

Resolved
That the said Benjamin Seales last will & Testament
being read amongst in Court when desired And
also the married woman with the widdows equally appointed
and made Executrix of Benjamin Seales last will and
Testament with her goods and chattle, and was Bound accordingly
to make active and [...] and that y[e] Said Seales Estate of his
house and land in y[e] Country being Excepted

Margin Notes:
Benjamin Seales
last will and Testament
Recev[e]d & approved of

After several discussions, Captain Peaceable formally objected to the council’s handling of the matter. He then offered a bill of exchange for £100 0s 0d. This was a written promise that the money would be paid by the owners of the ships, rather than paid at once on St Helena. The council accepted it as enough to settle the matter before them.

The next matter concerned the last will and testament of Benjamin Seales.

The manuscript became difficult to read at this point. The visible wording stated that Benjamin Seales’s last will and testament had been received. It had been received for the purpose of changing the form of [...] because more than one [...] was involved. A witness to the will had left the island. The will was produced before the court. The record also stated that Seales had appointed no executors over part of his will.

A resolution was then made. Benjamin Seales’s last will and testament was to be read in court when required. The married woman and the widow were appointed equally as executrixes of his last will and testament. They were bound accordingly to act and [...]. Benjamin Seales’s estate, including his house and land in the country, was excepted.

Interpretations

The bill of exchange gave the council a formal way to turn the ship debt into a claim against the ship owners. Captain Peaceable did not pay cash on the island. Instead, he offered a written payment order for £100 0s 0d. The owners of the ships were to meet that debt elsewhere. The council accepted this as a practical settlement.

Captain Peaceable’s protests were formal objections, not casual complaints. They showed that he disputed the council’s position before offering the bill of exchange. The settlement therefore followed argument and resistance, not simple agreement.

The will matter showed the court’s role in proving and managing estates. Benjamin Seales’s will was received and approved, but the absence of appointed executors created a problem. The court therefore had to create an administrative arrangement so that the estate could be handled.

The appointment of the married woman and the widow as executrixes placed women in formal responsibility for the will. Their authority came through the court’s approval and the bond they were required to give. The bond made their management of the estate answerable to the court.

The exception of the house and land in the country showed that not all of Seales’s property was treated in the same way. The court allowed the women to administer goods and chattels, but land and the country house were kept outside that grant.

Speculations

The witness’s departure from the island probably made the will harder to prove in the normal way. The court’s resolution appears to have supplied a practical solution by accepting the will and appointing executrixes despite that difficulty.

189

189

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held
on Wednesday the 23d day of July 1701
At Fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin 2d of Coun[cil]

Richard Gurling free planter came
this day and demanded his Brother John Glading Estate who
is deceased a Souldier belonging to Fort James a
payroll with much writing to deliver the said John Glading
formerly George to arran & William and being in a p[...]t[ion]
of the said John Glading was [...] in the said which money
Received from him [...] upon which y[e] said [...]
Gunstock for a[...] [...] and could not agree
about three peaces of y[e] said Goodes Comeing into the Store
House

It is ordered
That y[e] said Richard Glading take into his possession his Brothers
Estate found and make the charges he said Brother
and whereas there being due to George Kitch[ing] who married
one of [...] Widdows, by meanes of George Jones for M[r] Crokers
the said Richard Gurling is to deliver eight pound five shillings
and ten pence to Jonathan [...] of John Gething [...]es
due to y[e] s[ai]d George Jones and seven pound five shillings
more y[e] Said George Jones & whoever is ballance his shares
and halfe of the said Account and what Remains of Companys
due on y[e] said ship shipping Acco[un]t after y[e] aforesaid is stopped
Six shillings is paid the said Thomas Gargen is to pay on
his owne acco[un]t

Margin Notes:
Richard Glading
desired that his
Brother John Estate
might be delivered
into his possession
y[e] Debts being direct
which [...]d
from Acco[un]t owing
his cleere

A consultation was held on St Helena on Wednesday 23 July 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Richard Glading, free planter, came before the council. He asked for the estate of his dead brother, John Glading, to be delivered to him. John Glading had been a soldier belonging to Fort James.

The manuscript became difficult to read after this point. The visible wording showed that a payroll and other written papers were involved. These papers concerned John Glading’s estate. George [...], Arran and William were mentioned. The record also referred to money received from John Glading and to goods that had come into the storehouse. A gunstock was mentioned. The parties could not agree about three pieces of those goods.

An order was made.

Richard Glading was to take possession of his brother’s estate as it was found. He was also to pay the charges owed by his brother.

A further debt was then dealt with. George Kitching, who had married one of the widows, was owed money through George Jones for Mr Croker’s [...]. Richard Glading was ordered to deliver £8 5s 10d to Jonathan [...] from the sums due to George Jones.

A further £7 5s 0d was also to be paid to George Jones. The manuscript became unclear at this point, but the visible wording referred to the balance of his shares and half of the account.

After those sums were stopped from the account, anything still owed by the Company on the shipping account was to be handled next. The record then stated that £0 6s 0d was to be paid. Thomas Gargen was to pay that sum on his own account.

Interpretations

The consultation showed how the council managed the estate of a dead soldier. John Glading’s property was not simply handed over by family claim. His brother had to appear before the council, and the estate was released only after debts, charges and accounts were considered.

The Company storehouse mattered because goods from the estate had entered Company custody. The dispute over three pieces of goods showed that personal property, military service and Company storage could become mixed together. The council had to decide what belonged to the estate and what had to be withheld for debts.

The payroll and shipping account linked John Glading’s estate to Company employment. Wages, deductions and charges were treated as part of one account. The council used the estate to settle obligations before any remaining property or money could pass to Richard Glading.

The payments to George Kitching, George Jones, Jonathan [...] and Thomas Gargen showed that several people had claims connected to the same estate. The order created a sequence for payment. Some sums were stopped first, then the remaining Company balance was to be considered.

Speculations

The order probably aimed to prevent Richard Glading from taking his brother’s estate before the debts attached to it were settled. By giving him possession only after charges and named payments were recognised, the council protected creditors and kept the Company’s accounts from being disturbed.

190

190

And that y[e] said Gargen and Gething give Each other a
Discharge of and from the moneys Debts and demands
from the beginning of the world to y[e] day of the date

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held
on Wednesday the 23d day of July 1685
Att Fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin 2d of Coun[cil]

Richard Gurling free planter came
this day and demanded his Brother John Gurling Estate who
is deceased a Souldier belonging to Fort James a
Payroll with much writing to deliver the said John Glading
formerly George to arran & William and being in a [...]
of the said John Glading was [...] in the said which money
Received from him [...] upon which y[e] said [...]
Gunstock for [...] and could not agree
about three peaces of y[e] said Goodes Comeing into the Store
house

It is ordered
That y[e] said Richard Glading take into his Possession his Brothers
Estate found and make the Charges he said Brother
and whereas there being due to George Kitching who married
one of [...] Widdows by meanes of George Jones for M[r] Crokers
the said Richard Gurling is to deliver Eight pound five Shillings
and ten pence to Jonathan [...] of John Gething [...]es
due to y[e] s[ai]d George Jones and seven pound five Shillings
more y[e] Said George Jones & whoever is Ballance his shares
and halfe of the said Account and what Remains of Companys
due on y[e] said Ship Shipping Acco[un]t after y[e] aforesaid is stopped
Six Shillings is paid the said Thomas Gargen is to pay on
his owne acco[un]t

Margin Notes:
Richard Gurling
desired that his
Brother John Estate
might be delivered
into his possession
y[e] Debts being direct
which [...]d
from Acco[un]t owing
his cleere

Thomas Gargen and John Gething were to give each other a discharge. This released each of them from all money, debts and demands owed between them from the beginning of time up to the date of the agreement.

A consultation was held on St Helena on Wednesday 23 July 1685 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Richard Gurling, free planter, came before the council. He asked for the estate of his dead brother, John Gurling, to be delivered to him. John Gurling had been a soldier belonging to Fort James.

The manuscript became difficult to read after this point. The visible wording showed that a payroll and other written papers were involved. These papers concerned the delivery or settlement of John Gurling’s estate. George [...], Arran and William were mentioned. The record also referred to money received from John Gurling and to goods that had come into the storehouse. A gunstock was mentioned. The parties could not agree about three pieces of those goods.

An order was made.

Richard Gurling was to take possession of his brother’s estate as it was found. He was also to pay the charges owed by his brother.

A further debt was then dealt with. Money was owed to George Kitching, who had married one of the widows, through George Jones for Mr Croker’s [...]. Richard Gurling was ordered to deliver £8 5s 10d to Jonathan [...] from the sums due to George Jones.

A further £7 5s 0d was also to be paid to George Jones. The manuscript became unclear at this point. The visible wording referred to the balance of his shares and half of the account.

After those sums had been stopped from the account, any remaining money due from the Company on the shipping account was to be dealt with. The record then stated that £0 6s 0d was to be paid. Thomas Gargen was to pay that sum on his own account.

Interpretations

The discharge between Thomas Gargen and John Gething was a formal release from claims. It was written in very broad terms so that neither man could later reopen old demands for money or debts from before the date of the agreement.

The consultation showed how the council managed the estate of a dead soldier. John Gurling’s property was not simply handed over because his brother asked for it. Richard Gurling had to appear before the council, and the estate was released only after debts, charges and accounts were considered.

The Company storehouse mattered because goods from the estate had entered Company custody. The dispute over three pieces of goods showed that personal property, military service and Company storage could become mixed together. The council had to decide what belonged to the estate and what had to be withheld or accounted for.

The payroll and shipping account linked John Gurling’s estate to Company employment. Wages, deductions and charges were treated as parts of one settlement. The council used the estate and related accounts to pay debts before the remaining property or money could pass to Richard Gurling.

The payments to George Kitching, George Jones, Jonathan [...], John Gething and Thomas Gargen showed that several people had claims tied to the same estate or account. The order created a payment sequence. Named sums were stopped first, then any remaining Company balance was to be addressed.

Speculations

The order probably aimed to stop Richard Gurling from taking his brother’s estate before the debts attached to it were settled. By giving him possession only after charges and named payments were recognised, the council protected creditors and kept the Company’s accounts in order.

191

191

Whereas it hath been Reported to the Governo[ur] that against
the R[igh]t Hono[ura]ble Comp[anie]s Positive orders that no women should
go on Board of any Ship without the Govern[our]s Licence George
Hastings wife and Richard Mullings wife had transgressed
the said orders and being heard on that Subject could say
but little to Clear themselves said orders only y[e] said Hastings wife
pleaded that her husband was sick in a manner
Resolved that [...]

Priscilla Eden Ordered
the said Priscilla Eden being but a young
woman be Excused this time said she had therefore be
fined one dollar to y[e] Comp[anie]s for breach of said order

Margin Notes:
Geo: Hastenson
wife & Rich[ard] Mull-
ing wife went on
board Shepps with-
out y[e] Gov[ernour]s Licence

Rich: Guerling Wife
Excused but She is
fined one Dollar

A report was made to the governor that women had gone aboard ships without his licence. This was against the Right Honourable Company’s clear orders.

George Hastings’s wife and Richard Mulling’s wife were accused of breaking that order. They were heard on the matter. They could say little to clear themselves. Hastings’s wife pleaded only that her husband was sick.

A resolution was made. The manuscript was unclear at this point.

Priscilla Eden was then dealt with. She was a young woman, so she was excused on this occasion. Even so, she was fined one dollar for breaching the Company’s order.

Interpretations

The order controlled women’s movement between shore and ships. Permission from the governor was required before any woman could go aboard. This gave the island government direct control over contact between inhabitants and visiting ships.

The rule protected Company discipline and social order. Ships created risks of unauthorised trade, sexual contact, escape, disorder and unregulated dealings with crews. The governor’s licence turned such contact into something that could be allowed, refused or punished.

Hastings’s wife tried to justify the breach by saying her husband was sick. That defence treated shipboard access as a family or care matter. The council still treated the order as binding.

Priscilla Eden’s youth affected the punishment but did not remove the offence. She was excused from harsher treatment, yet still fined one dollar. The court therefore marked the breach while allowing some mitigation.

192

192

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday y[e] 30 day of July 1701 Att
Fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Gover[nour]
Thomas Goodwin 2d

Whereas Emanuel Carias with Matthew
Bagell, James Greenfree, Elias Bagley, Tho[mas] Carlo, Sarah [...], Thomas
[...] and James Reeve [...] were Presented before this Board
being all night in [...] and haveing [...] Servants one
bound with another [...] said the said Persons said they did
being all night at Cards and denyed they Dranke himselfe
as [...] to bring but the said Thomas Carlo was makeing oath
they did

It was therefore ordered
That all y[e] aforesaid Persons be fined but two Shillings Each
being the first offence in that kinde, and admonished for y[e] future
at perill of a Severe fine

John Facknald made Complaint that a black
belonging unto M[r] Edmund Caires in y[e] Possession of James
Reeve hath said James Reeve Stands too close man of his, and had carried
away of his Goods also to severall other Blacks that were in
Company with his Black who were all ordered to appeare before
us this day that they might be Punished for Leading one-

Margin Notes:
Mathew Bagell, Step[hen]
child, Jas Greenfree, Elias
Bagley, Thos Carlo, &
Sarah [...] Eliz[abeth] Croby
them fined four shill[ings]
for disorderly seeing & playing
at Cards all Night

John Facknald Complaint
ag[ain]st Edmund Caires
his Blacke
which hath Ret[urn]ed James
Reeve hath sold Famine
to a Black man of his &c

A consultation was held on St Helena on Tuesday 30 July 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Emanuel Carias, Matthew Bagell, James Greenfree, Elias Bagley, Thomas Carlo, Sarah [...], Thomas [...] and James Reeve [...] were brought before the council. The manuscript was difficult to read here. The visible wording showed that they had spent all night in [...] and that servants were involved. The group said they had spent the night playing cards. They denied that they had been drinking. Thomas Carlo, however, made oath that they had drunk.

An order was made. All the named people were fined £0 2s 0d each. This was treated as their first offence of that kind. They were warned that any future offence would bring a severe fine.

John Facknald made a complaint. He said that a black person belonging to Mr Edmund Caires, and held by James Reeve, had stood too close to one of Facknald’s black men and had carried away some of his goods. Other black people had also been in company with Facknald’s black man. They were all ordered to appear before the council that day so that they could be punished for leading one another [...].

Interpretations

The card-playing case showed the council policing night-time disorder among named inhabitants and servants. The offence was not simply gaming. The council was also concerned with the group staying out all night, possible drinking and servants being drawn into disorder.

The fine marked a first offence but also created a warning. By setting a small punishment and threatening a heavier one next time, the council treated discipline as progressive. Repetition would make the same behaviour more serious.

Thomas Carlo’s oath mattered because it contradicted the group’s denial of drinking. The council relied on sworn evidence to separate what the accused admitted from what another participant or witness said had happened.

John Facknald’s complaint showed how slaves were treated through their owners’ claims. The complaint was framed around a black person belonging to Edmund Caires, a black man belonging to Facknald and other black people in company with them. The council treated the alleged carrying away of goods and the influence between slaves as matters for punishment and control.

Speculations

The punishment for card-playing was probably kept low because the council treated this as a first offence and wanted to correct the behaviour before it became habitual. The warning about a severe future fine turned the case into a notice to the whole group.

The order for all the black people involved to appear suggests that the council wanted to trace how the goods moved and who had encouraged whom. The phrase about leading one another, though incomplete, points to concern that slaves might act together outside direct household control.

193

193

with another but some other busines happening it be respited
till this day fortnight.

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Wednesday the 30 day of July 1701 Att
Fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin 2d of Coun[cil]

Elizabeth Long came and made Com-
plaint to the Gover[nour] and Councill between y[e] hours of
one and two of y[e] Clock that Margaret the wife of Capt[ain]
Matthew Bagley came unto her house where according
to her desire in saying that they the said M[r] Goodwin saw to speak to
him at the present at her house which about one or two
Times s[ai]d said [...] did that as passage on board y[e] S[ai]d Shippe
was there to whome the said Eliz[abeth] Long told her he was not
whereupon the said Capt[ain]s wife replyed damn you she is there and
will break open the doore which she hearing said do if you dare

Margin Notes:
Elizabeth Long Com-
plains ag[ain]st Cap[t] Wijer
for abuseing of her and
calling of her Whore &c

The matter involving the black people was postponed. Other business arose, so it was delayed until the same day two weeks later.

A consultation was held on St Helena on Wednesday 30 July 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Elizabeth Long came before the governor and council between one and two o’clock. She made a complaint against Margaret, the wife of Captain Matthew Bagley.

Elizabeth said that Margaret Bagley came to her house. The manuscript became difficult to read at this point. The visible wording showed that Margaret came because she wanted to speak to Mr Goodwin, who was said to be at Elizabeth’s house. The passage also referred to one or two occasions and to passage on board a ship, but the exact meaning could not be recovered.

Elizabeth Long told Margaret Bagley that Mr Goodwin was not there.

Margaret Bagley then answered, “Damn you, she is there,” or possibly “Damn you, he is there.” She said she would break open the door.

Elizabeth Long heard this and answered, “Do if you dare.”

Interpretations

The postponed complaint showed how the council managed its agenda. The slave-related matter was not dismissed. It was delayed because other business intervened, and a new hearing date was set.

Elizabeth Long’s complaint turned a domestic confrontation into a matter for the governor and council. The alleged threat to break open her door made the incident more than an exchange of insults. It raised a question of household peace and physical intrusion.

Margaret Bagley’s status mattered. She was identified through Captain Matthew Bagley, which placed the quarrel within a household connected to a senior man. The complaint therefore involved not only two women but the social standing attached to a captain’s wife.

The reference to passage on board a ship may connect the quarrel to access, travel or shipboard dealings. The manuscript was unclear, so only that link could be stated safely.

194

194

Then the said Wyet replyed I have the Govern[our]s order to go it,
whereupon she arose and went to the window and ask[t] him what
he wanted, he made answer Thomas M[r] Hall, She told him againe
he was not in her house neither did she know where he lodged and if
he was not quiet and Civil she would go downe to y[e] Fort and
acquaint y[e] Governo[ur] of his uncivility, Concerning what he said
to her the could he whist Said Cap[t] Wyet answered that Gover[no]r Edmund
and you to for you are th[e] [...] that whore, w[i]th the would both Swear
and prove, And bid her let the Governo[ur] do his worst to he had a Strangling to y[e]
She say, whereupon he called to one Edward Sutherland Bringing to y[e]
aforesaid shop, and Thomas Summers desiring with whom both also in her
house at same time to beare witness of what y[e] said Cap[t] Wyet
had said, which he hearing said Come Summers and Sutherland
to Come out to him as the whore [...] them and he had some
business [...] at Green or went to the Governour, To all which
the said Edward Sutherland will Relate

The said Cap[t] Wyet was sent
for that he might know his owne liberty of what the
said Woman being much

Edward Sutherland being Sworne saith that he
being with y[e] said Eliz[abeth] Longs house about 8th Thomas Summers
was with him to w[i]th one [...] Twice or once of y[e] Clock
at night or more and about 9 Will Wyet was there whereupon
the said Eliz[abeth] Long got up and the said and told him he was not
there, he made answer how was that he was, and would brake
open the doore for he had the Governo[ur]s orders She desired him to come in
said she was [...] good [...] and the word once and heard
him say he Knew her to be a rogue and theife

Thomas Summers being sworne Saith to y[e] same effect as the
above written Edw[ard] Sutherland

The said Cap[t] Wyet saith that he heard Rich[ard] Bawley break
promised him of the said Ship Merchant Bay he saw the said M[r]
Fryer and the said Edw[ard] Long together, and desires that he might be
sent for to heare what he Can say in this matter

Captain Wyet replied that he had the governor’s order to go there.

Elizabeth Long then got up, went to the window and asked him what he wanted. He answered that he wanted Mr Thomas Hall. She told him again that Hall was not in her house, and that she did not know where he lodged. She also said that, if Wyet did not behave quietly and civilly, she would go down to the fort and tell the governor about his uncivil behaviour.

The manuscript became difficult to read in the next part. The visible wording showed that Captain Wyet answered with abuse. He referred to the governor and then insulted Elizabeth Long. He called her a whore. He said he would both swear to it and prove it. He also told her to let the governor do his worst. The remaining words in that sentence were unclear.

Elizabeth then called Edward Sutherland, who was at the shop, and Thomas Summers, who was also in her house at the same time. She asked them both to witness what Captain Wyet had said.

When Wyet heard this, he called out to Summers and Sutherland and told them to come out to him. The manuscript became unclear again. The visible wording showed that he again used the word “whore” and spoke about business before going to the governor. The record stated that Edward Sutherland could relate all of this.

Captain Wyet was then sent for, so that he could answer for his behaviour towards Elizabeth Long.

Edward Sutherland gave evidence under oath. He said that he was at Elizabeth Long’s house with Thomas Summers. The time was about eight o’clock at night, or perhaps later. The manuscript was unclear over the exact wording. Captain Wyet came there at about nine o’clock.

Elizabeth Long got up and told Wyet that the man he wanted was not there. Wyet answered that he was there and said he would break open the door because he had the governor’s orders. Elizabeth asked him to come in. The manuscript then became hard to read. The visible wording showed that Sutherland heard Wyet say that he knew Elizabeth Long to be a rogue and a thief.

Thomas Summers gave evidence under oath. He said the same as Edward Sutherland.

Captain Wyet said that he had heard Richard Bawley promise him something about the ship Merchant Bay. The manuscript was unclear at this point. The visible wording showed that Wyet said he had seen Mr Fryer and Edward Long together. He asked for Richard Bawley to be sent for, so that Bawley could say what he knew about the matter.

Interpretations

Captain Wyet’s claim that he had the governor’s order mattered because he used official authority to justify coming to Elizabeth Long’s house and threatening to force entry. The issue was not only insult. It also concerned whether a captain could use the governor’s name to enter a private house at night.

Elizabeth Long’s response showed how she tried to defend her household without denying public authority. She did not simply resist Wyet. She threatened to report his behaviour to the governor, which placed her complaint inside the island’s chain of command.

The witnesses were called at once because the quarrel depended on spoken insults and threats. Elizabeth Long asked Edward Sutherland and Thomas Summers to hear and remember Wyet’s words. Their presence turned a private night-time confrontation into evidence fit for the council.

The insults “whore”, “rogue” and “thief” were serious claims against reputation. They accused Elizabeth Long of sexual dishonour, criminal character and theft. In a small settlement, such words could damage social standing and needed formal answer.

Captain Wyet’s request to call Richard Bawley shifted the dispute towards the ship Merchant Bay, Mr Fryer and Edward Long. He appeared to argue that his visit had a reason connected with shipboard or maritime business, though the manuscript does not make that reason clear.

Speculations

Captain Wyet’s repeated claim that the man he sought was inside the house suggests that he believed Elizabeth Long was hiding someone from him. His threat to break open the door was perhaps meant to force access before the person could leave or before the matter could be taken to the governor.

Elizabeth Long’s immediate call for witnesses probably aimed to protect herself against Wyet’s authority and status. By making Sutherland and Summers hear the insults, she created evidence before Wyet could deny what he had said.

195

195

The said Richard Rumley being sworne saith that on friday
night Last he saw the said M[r] Wyet and his mate fight against
the said Edw[ard] Long and did not see any uncivill action by them

Whereupon It is ordered

That the Said Cap[t] Wyet be fined but twenty shillings
for his abuse and Acknowledging himselfe to be in
Drink besides the said five shillings more
to the Church. And as to the other business the Governo[ur]
Refers them to abide upon Pawbone for so doing

Margin Notes:
The Wyet fined 20
[...][...] Long for abuseing
[...][...] 5 more to y[e]
Church

Richard Rumley gave evidence under oath. He said that, on the previous Friday night, he saw Mr Wyet and his mate fighting against Edward Long. He did not see Edward Long or the other people with him behave uncivilly.

An order was then made.

Captain Wyet was fined £1 0s 0d for abusing Elizabeth Long. He also admitted that he had been drunk. A further £0 5s 0d was to be paid to the church.

The governor referred the other matter to Pawbone. The manuscript gave no clear explanation of what Pawbone meant here, but the order stated that the parties were to abide by that decision or course.

Interpretations

Richard Rumley’s evidence narrowed the issue. He confirmed that a fight had taken place involving Wyet, Wyet’s mate and Edward Long, but he did not support Wyet’s claim that Edward Long’s side had behaved improperly. That weakened Wyet’s defence.

Wyet’s admission that he had been drunk mattered because the fine punished abusive conduct while also recognising drink as part of the offence. The council treated drunken insult and disorder by a ship captain as behaviour that required formal correction.

The extra £0 5s 0d paid to the church functioned as a moral penalty as well as a financial one. It marked the offence as a public wrong, not only a private insult to Elizabeth Long.

The reference to Pawbone is unclear in the manuscript. It may have been a person, place, procedure or damaged word. Since the record did not explain it, only its function can be stated safely: the governor used it to separate the unresolved “other business” from the punishment for Wyet’s abuse.

196

196

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held
on Fryday the 5:th day of Aug:st 1701
Att Fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Gov[ernour]
Thom[as] Goodwin 2d of C[ouncil]

Whereas by the Generall Letter sent to us the
Govern[our] and Councill by the R:Honourable Company dated
the [...] day of [...] last and the 16 day of the last past does
appear that considering the extraordinarity of charge they have been
at here in the maintaining of the said Island, and having withall
an no benifit only more than the preserving of their stock in Oxen
yet is not that much had as we can, that their revenews might
prove good, themselves being over by their settled Revenues considering
moreover that losses that may ensue many may they have
being in the Countrey are greatly prejudiced for want of flowes in
the Island to their and all there sprovi[si]ons in with brought
down to dispose of the Ships being forced to Incourage and [...]
their friends, or else be Constraind to lie out in which place some
amongst them having had there Houses wash[t] away by the late
flood to their great Damages For John Day Jeremiah Grandy
Josiah Thomas Dixon, Richard Harding, Seth Greentree, Orlando
Bagley Jun[r] and Charles Bernard moved them by their humble
Petition presented unto us, the 31 of the last month and forth that
by y[e] aforesaid Reasons, and likewise makeing use of this opportunity
to augment and accrue what we Can, to our said R: Honourable
masters Rent and Revenues

Margin Notes:
The Comp[anie]s Orders
to Lett out what Land
they Can spare &c

A consultation was held on St Helena on Friday 5 August 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

A general letter had been sent to the governor and council by the Right Honourable Company. It was dated the [...] day of [...] last and the 16th day of the previous month. The letter stated that the Company had carried an extraordinary cost in maintaining St Helena.

The Company had received little benefit from the island, apart from preserving its stock of oxen. The letter also showed concern that the Company’s revenues should be improved as far as possible. The Company’s settled revenues were not enough for the burdens placed on it.

The consultation then turned to losses suffered by people in the country. The manuscript became difficult to read in this section. The visible wording showed that inhabitants in the country had suffered because of a shortage of [...] on the island. Their provisions had to be brought down for sale to ships. They were forced to encourage and [...] their friends, or else remain out in those places.

Some inhabitants had also had their houses washed away by the recent flood. This had caused them great damage.

John Day, Jeremiah Grandy, Josiah Thomas Dixon, Richard Harding, Seth Greentree, Orlando Bagley Junior and Charles Bernard then submitted a humble petition to the governor and council on 31 July 1701. They relied on the reasons already stated. They also used the opportunity to ask for a course that would increase and improve the rents and revenues of the Right Honourable Company.

Interpretations

The consultation linked private distress to Company finance. The petitioners had suffered damage and difficulty in the country, but their request was framed as something that could also raise rent and revenue for the Company. This made relief acceptable because it served both settlers and the Company.

The Company’s order to let out spare land showed how land was treated as a source of revenue. Unused or spare land could be converted into rent. The council was therefore expected to manage land not only as settlement space but as an asset for the Company.

The reference to oxen showed one of the Company’s practical reasons for maintaining St Helena. The island helped preserve livestock, which mattered for supplies, transport and provisioning. The Company still questioned the cost because that benefit did not produce enough revenue on its own.

The flood damage gave the petition urgency. Houses had been washed away, and the country inhabitants needed a way to recover. The council’s response had to balance local hardship with the Company’s pressure for income.

197

197

Upon mature Consideration
It is agreed and ordered

That wee transport our selves and take a Veiw of y[e] Ground
to see what houses may be Regularly built, and finding y[e] Row
of Land which lyes behind M[rs] Matthews Goodwins said house
from thence what we have allowed to the aforesaid Samuell
Berryman the thirty foot square next and adjoyning to the said
M[r] Thomas Goodwins house backwards to [...] aforesaid quantity
quantity next to the said Sam[ue]ll Berrymans to Thomas Dixon the
same quantity Joyning to the said Thomas, to Richard Harding the
same quantity Joyning to the said Richard, to John Greene the
same quantity Joyning to Samuel Grandy, to [...] Grandy the
same quantity Joyning to the said Grandy, to John [...] and Jonas
orlando Bagley Jun[ior] the same quantity joyning to the said
the said [...] and a space of twenty foot between [...]
Joyning to the said M[r] Thomas Goodwins and 40 foot between the waters
or [...] Lanes remaining into [...] [...]
to build Houses [...] in a beautiful [...] same
Joyning [...] them of the [...], and to comply with their need
[...] and [...] in Common and to hold the said Lands
aforesaid to their heirs for ever so as they may and shall
not sell nor make over the same or any parte thereof to any
person or persons whatsoever but each of their first [...]
[...] which was formerly from the said [...]
appurtenant and [...] keep and
and to be [...] Richard Harding
[...] for sure unto [...]
John Gardner [...] James [...]
or themselves or [...] so is also agreed
between us the Governour and Councill John Matthews
that said [...] shall build such house
by the first day of March 1702 thereabouts shall not build his house
y[e] 25th day of March 1702 that his right to the said
Land passing therein shall be made void, and also shall
not to sell or [...] the said to any other Person without the
Govern[our] and Councills leave and Consent, and that this Constitution
and agreement shall and be in y[e] Court Bookes a perpetuall Title
for y[e] said persons concerned and a Copy thereof to be delivered to
them when required. Signed by y[e] Clerke as a true Copy

Margin Notes:
Land allotted to
severall Persons on
Chargeable valley to
build houses upon,

After careful consideration, it was agreed and ordered that the governor and council should go to the site and inspect the ground themselves. They were to see what houses could be built there in an orderly way.

They found a row of land behind Mrs Matthews Goodwin’s house. From that point, land was laid out in plots of 30 feet square.

A plot of 30 feet square had already been allowed to Samuel Berryman. It lay next to Thomas Goodwin’s house, behind it.

The next plot of the same size was granted to Thomas Dixon. It joined Samuel Berryman’s plot.

The next plot of the same size was granted to Richard Harding. It joined Thomas Dixon’s plot.

The next plot of the same size was granted to John Greene. It joined Richard Harding’s plot.

The next plot of the same size was granted to Samuel Grandy. It joined John Greene’s plot.

The next plot of the same size was granted to [...] Grandy. It joined Samuel Grandy’s plot.

The next plot of the same size was granted to John [...] and Jonas Orlando Bagley Junior. It joined the previous plot.

A space of 20 feet was left between [...]. A space of 40 feet was also left between the watercourses or lanes. The manuscript became difficult to read here, but the visible wording showed that the layout was meant to allow houses to be built in an orderly and attractive row, with shared use of the remaining common space.

The land was granted to the named people and to their heirs for ever. They were not allowed to sell it, transfer it or make over any part of it to anyone else. The manuscript became unclear in the next part, but the visible wording showed that each person’s first [...] was to be kept, together with the appurtenances belonging to the land.

The manuscript was also unclear in the following lines. Richard Harding, John Gardner and James [...] were mentioned. The visible wording suggested that further agreement was made about the people concerned, either acting for themselves or for others.

It was also agreed between the governor and council and John Matthews that the people granted this land had to build houses on it. The manuscript gave two dates. One part stated that a house was to be built by 1 March 1702. Another stated that, if the house was not built by 25 March 1702, the right to the land would be void.

The grantees were also not allowed to sell or transfer the land to anyone else without the leave and consent of the governor and council.

This constitution and agreement was to be entered in the court books. It was to stand as a permanent title for the people concerned. A copy was to be delivered to them when required, signed by the clerk as a true copy.

Interpretations

The order converted spare land into planned settlement. The governor and council did not grant land casually. They inspected the ground, measured plots, left spaces for access and water and required houses to be built in a regular row.

The 30-foot-square plots created small, standardised house lots. This made the land easier to control, compare and record. It also prevented informal or uneven building on land that the Company wanted to turn into revenue.

The ban on sale or transfer kept the land under council control. Even though the grants were said to run to the heirs of the grantees for ever, the holders could not freely sell them. Their title was therefore hereditary but restricted.

The building deadline made the grant conditional. Anyone who failed to build by the required date could lose the land. This prevented people from taking plots and leaving them empty.

Entry in the court books gave the agreement legal force. The written record became the continuing proof of title, and a certified copy could be issued when needed.

Speculations

The inspection and measured layout probably responded to the Company’s instruction to raise revenue from spare land while keeping building under control. The council used the grants to create houses, rents and a more orderly settlement instead of allowing scattered private occupation.

The deadline to build by March 1702 suggests that the council wanted quick settlement, not speculative holding. The land was granted for construction and occupation, not for later resale.

198

198

John Gardner at the same time, agreed desired that he might
have y[e] Same quantity of Land, as those persons aforesaid hath,
which we have granted him on the same Conditions; lying over
an alley between the houses before Alledged, and the Said
Ground.

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day the 10 day of August 1701 Att Fort James

Pr[e]s[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin 2d of Councill.

Thomas Smoultor Petitioned that we would be pleased
to grant him liberty to Enlarge his House in y[e] Fort valley, by
takeing in and building of an Alley that is betwixt his house and
John Gidens, but it being had always a Constant passage
for all his neighbours thereabout to go backward, it is thought
very necessary to be Continue.

It is therefore ordered.
That the said alley be left open that People may pass
through as usuall.

Margin Notes:
Tho[s] Smoultor had lib[er]ty
gr[an]t to Enlarge his house
in Chappell valley to
gr[...] him [...][...]ing it [...][...]

John Gardner asked at the same time for the same amount of land as the people already named. This was granted to him on the same conditions. His plot lay across an alley between the houses already described and that ground.

A consultation was held on St Helena on Tuesday 10 August 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Thomas Smoultor petitioned for permission to enlarge his house in Fort Valley. He wanted to take in and build over an alley between his house and John Gidens’s house.

The council refused this request. The alley had always been a regular passage for all the neighbours nearby, who used it to go to the rear of their houses or ground. The council thought it necessary for the passage to remain open.

An order was therefore made. The alley was to be left open so that people could pass through it as usual.

Interpretations

John Gardner’s grant extended the earlier land arrangement. He was not given separate terms. He received the same amount of land and was bound by the same conditions as the other grantees. This kept the new row of plots under one shared set of rules.

Thomas Smoultor’s petition showed the tension between private building and shared access. He wanted to enlarge his house by absorbing an alley, but the council protected the passage because neighbours depended on it.

The alley functioned as common infrastructure. It was not treated as waste space between houses. It allowed movement to the back of nearby properties, so closing it would have damaged several households.

The council’s refusal showed that house enlargement required public approval when it affected neighbours or established routes. Private improvement was allowed only where it did not harm common use.

199

199

John Facknald made Complaint that he might be
mett with Richard Alexander, who asked him why he had
made a report of his ox & horse, to whome replyed the said was
[...] to his knowledge but if he had he would unsay it againe
whereupon the said Alexander answered it is not y[e] first time
that you have made such stories amongst y[e] goods make up
where

Resolved
That the said Richard Alexander be Summoned to
appeare before us this day fortnight

Robert Leech desired by petition being
bound out that his Clogg & Shooes being old
he wanted to goe abroad to provide his goods, and all of wood
with them whereupon such his journey remained during
soon and when his said journey was all [...]
he shou[l]d Enjoy what he received

The said Robert Leech crave leave y[e] said hoggs
dogg being he built his [...] to run [...] of his
dogg, and staying there to see how he came they
gave away from him y[e] [...] of his great [...]
danger that he should lose them

Then the said Leech desired there might be Some
Examined on oath one Peter Ward whom he saith y[e] Compa[nie]s
officer went to see the place to in whole was the [...] and
heard him and others saw the effort [...] at Chappells
amongst all the Widdow Other he did [...] [...]
member y[e] place he told y[e] Pope a stranger stood with
one there was at his left

Hennett Leake being Examined saith he saw his Cattle
abroad and made [...] to shut Guines [...] but whether
he did or no he Cannot tell

Margin Notes:
John Facknald Com-
plaint ag[ain]st Richard
Alexander for say-
ing he made a report
of his

John Leech Complains
ag[ain]st Robert Leech for
Shooting his Clogg &
stealing of him.

John Facknald made a complaint. He said that he met Richard Alexander, who asked why Facknald had made a report about Alexander’s ox and horse. Facknald answered that, to his knowledge, he had made no such report. He said that, if he had done so, he would withdraw it.

Richard Alexander then answered that this was not the first time Facknald had spread such stories among the goods being made up. The manuscript became unclear at this point, so the exact place or setting could not be fully recovered.

A resolution was made. Richard Alexander was to be summoned to appear before the governor and council on that day two weeks later.

Robert Leech then petitioned the council. The manuscript became difficult to read in this section. The visible wording showed that he was bound out, and that his clogs and shoes were old. He wanted permission to go abroad so that he could provide goods for himself. The passage also referred to wood and to a journey. The court appears to have allowed him to go, with the understanding that, once the journey was completed, he would keep what he received.

Robert Leech then asked leave concerning a dog and hogs. The manuscript was unclear, but the visible wording showed that a dog had been shot, that hogs had gone away from him and that he feared he might lose them. He said the matter put him in great danger of loss.

Leech then asked for witnesses to be examined under oath. One of them was Peter Ward. Leech said that a Company officer went to see the place where the incident had happened. The manuscript was difficult to read here. The visible words referred to Chappell’s, to the widow, to a stranger and to a place shown to Pope. The exact sequence of events could not be recovered from the surviving wording.

Hennett Leake was examined. He said that he saw Leech’s cattle abroad. He made [...] to shut Guines [...], but he could not say whether this was done.

Interpretations

John Facknald’s complaint concerned reputation and false reporting. Richard Alexander accused him of spreading stories about an ox and horse. The council treated this as a matter serious enough to require Alexander’s appearance.

The summons showed how the council controlled quarrels before they grew. Rather than decide the matter at once, it ordered Alexander to appear two weeks later so that the complaint could be heard properly.

Robert Leech’s petition showed the restricted position of a bound person. He needed permission to travel or go abroad to get what he needed. His old clogs and shoes were not only personal hardship. They showed that labour, movement and basic provisioning were subject to supervision.

The complaint about the dog, hogs and cattle showed how valuable animals were in the island economy. A shot dog could affect the control of hogs or cattle. Losing animals created a direct risk to livelihood and property.

The request to examine witnesses under oath showed that Leech tried to turn a confused property dispute into sworn evidence. The council needed testimony about place, movement and who saw what before it could judge responsibility.

Speculations

Richard Alexander’s complaint about repeated stories perhaps suggests that the quarrel over the ox and horse was part of a longer pattern of accusations between neighbours. The order to summon him two weeks later gave the council time to hear the matter without deciding it from Facknald’s account alone.

Robert Leech’s concern about the dog probably reflected a practical fear that the loss of the animal would make it harder to manage hogs or cattle. The complaint therefore treated the dog as working property, not merely as a household animal.

200

200

Resolved

That y[e] said Robert Leech be fined for killing the said
John Leechs Clogg and did not doe according to y[e] Law more
about it but found hathen doe y[e] Brushing of said James
Sick, and the said James Leech should have a Clogg more for
urging and by following on the said Cattle haveing been fined
for killing of said James [...] for the judges of Court
Equally between them

Mary Seales widdow of William Seales
hath desired that y[e] following agreement
might be Entred in the Councill books between her
Thomas [...] which is as followeth

That the said Mary Seale have four Acres of her dead
husbands Land for Employing the house as y[e] conveniency
and the thirds of y[e] Plantation yes is planted, and dee deed worke
of his y[e] said late blackman Every weeke if she has Occasion

And whereas y[e] said Walter [...] have the other six Acres
Land of the Plantation of y[e] Provening and to have Liberty to be
[...] one time when she has Occasion without
y[e] Pr[omi]se of his mother

Margin Notes:
Rob[er]t Leech fined half
a Dollar for the killing
John Leech,

Mary Seales widdow
Son desired y[e] form[er]
Councill with her [...]
be Recorded in the
Councill book

Mary Seale to have
acres of her dec[ease]d
Husbands Land

W[illia]m Seale to have y[e]
other 6 acres of Land

A resolution was made.

Robert Leech was fined for killing John Leech’s dog. The manuscript was difficult to read in the next lines. The visible wording showed that the court did not proceed further under the law, but imposed a penalty instead. The margin note stated that Robert Leech was fined half a dollar for killing John Leech’s dog.

The record then became unclear again. The visible wording referred to James Leech, to cattle being followed or driven, to another dog being due to him and to the costs of court being divided equally between the parties. The exact reason for that further arrangement could not be fully recovered from the manuscript.

Mary Seales, widow of William Seales, asked for an agreement to be entered in the council books. The agreement was between her and Thomas [...].

The agreement stated that Mary Seales was to have four acres of her dead husband’s land. This was for the use of the house and its convenience. She was also to have one third of the plantation that was planted. She was to have the work of her late husband’s black man every week, when she needed it.

Walter [...] was to have the other six acres of the plantation land. The manuscript was difficult to read at the end of this section. The visible wording stated that he was to have liberty to [...] at one time when Mary had need, without the promise or permission of his mother.

Interpretations

Robert Leech’s fine settled the killing of John Leech’s dog as a punishable injury to property. The dog had value because it was tied to the handling of cattle or other animals. The court therefore treated its killing as more than a minor quarrel.

The half-dollar fine, together with divided court costs, showed that the council used money penalties to end small property disputes. The damaged wording prevents a full reconstruction, but the order clearly balanced punishment, compensation and costs.

Mary Seales’s agreement showed how a widow’s share could be recorded and protected through the council books. Her rights were not left to private memory. They were entered in an official record so that the division of land, plantation produce and labour could be enforced later.

The split between four acres and six acres separated Mary Seales’s widow’s provision from the remaining plantation land. Her four acres were tied to the house and its convenience. The remaining six acres were assigned to Walter [...], which suggests a family or inheritance arrangement.

The weekly work of the late husband’s black man was part of the estate settlement. Labour was divided as an asset, like land and planted ground. Mary Seales’s right to use that labour when needed showed how slave work was allocated within household inheritance.

201

201

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day the 26th day of Aug:st 1701 Att Fort James

Pres[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin 2d in Councill

Richard Ray did make Complaint
that Rich[ard] Barret came into y[e] Governo[ur] to see Matthew
Barret from Nottingham House, haveing Some business to
him, but when he said Ray would make the said house to speake to
the said Barret, George Jackson Jo Redman and Charles Howard
being thereat, saw three strang[e]s keep him in Delivering his message
and threw stones at him, and knockt him by y[e] temples, and broke
his hatt of his head and threw it on y[e] ground

The said persons being Called and Examined denied
what the said Ray hath alledged against them, and haveing
no proofe to prove y[e] Contrary

It is therefore ordered

That neither said persons Exceed the time we denounce
them not to attempt presume to change the Governo[ur]s messangers
for y[e] future, and not to keep ill orders and unreasonable Concern
their houses, that is to stay not after ten of y[e] Clock at night, and
in case hereafter an Indictment be preferred against according
as y[e] Law directs

Margin Notes:
Rich: Ray Complains
ag[ain]st Geo Jackson, John
Redman & Charles
Howard Interrupt-
ing him to deliver
the Govern[our]s Message
to Matth: Bagett

A consultation was held on St Helena on Tuesday 26 August 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Richard Ray made a complaint. He said that Richard Barret came to the governor because he had business with Matthew Barret at Nottingham House. Richard Ray was sent to that house to speak to Matthew Barret.

George Jackson, John Redman and Charles Howard were there. Ray said the three men stopped him from delivering the governor’s message. They threw stones at him, struck him near the temples, knocked his hat from his head and threw it on the ground.

George Jackson, John Redman and Charles Howard were called and examined. They denied what Ray had alleged against them. Ray had no proof to show that their denial was false.

An order was therefore made. The men were warned not to obstruct the governor’s messengers in future. They were also warned not to keep disorderly or unreasonable company in their houses after ten o’clock at night. If such conduct happened again, an indictment would be brought against them according to law.

Interpretations

Richard Ray’s complaint turned on the protection of the governor’s messenger. A message sent by the governor carried official authority. Interfering with the messenger was therefore treated as interference with government business, not only as an assault on Ray.

The council did not convict the men because Ray lacked proof. Their denial was enough to prevent punishment in this hearing. Even so, the council issued a warning because the alleged conduct touched public order and the governor’s authority.

The ten o’clock rule showed how the council linked night-time gatherings with disorder. Houses were private spaces, but the council still regulated them when late company, violence or obstruction threatened public control.

The threat of indictment marked the next step. The council used this hearing as a warning, but it made clear that a repeated offence would be treated through formal criminal process.

202

202

Island S:t Helena

By the Govern[our]
and Councell in Councill

Whereas to our great greife and Sorrow
we see that y[e] good Cause that God of Lord of hosts hath so long
deprived of all the Land have taken to drive out drunkenness
Swearing whoredom Gaming sending unto us such wholesome
Laws lately Confirmed by our King and Parliaments their Subjec[ts]
Still had thereof Continue Just Since the two former of
more Vices chiefly has been more Committed than Ever since
the Coming of the said Laws by y[e] all Example of the execution
S[ou]th Laws as they stand and five Examples out then drunk-
enness the offence such to often Reiterated Practice having
such little People Obey in Such horrid Confusion that
it was y[e] time when all such persons and [...], for the
Roads as being ruined of [...] good names, by from there vices
especially the Sinanousess of said vices have Justly Already
and to be feared will bring upon this said Place the said [...]
Judgment of God Almighty, and undoubtedly many Corh[am]
were some [...] means way Judged by
the Transgression of these the former y[e] said vices since y[e] many have
to but take little notice of y[e] Said Judgement we fear

Therefore these are in his majesties name to give notice
to all such persons as shall still Joyn that y[e] Selling of strong drink
be Ordinarily permitted for the means necessity when necessary [...]
resolved to Inforce y[e] Power that the providence of god hath bestowed
upon us, to execute the said Laws without of statute to the utmost
rigour that y[e] aforesaid Vices and wickedness be suppressed, and to
this End we forbid all Assemblies upon what account soever to be
held at any house whatsoever all [...] past in y[e] Evening
whether it be shipping time or not, unless it be only of those
that belongs to y[e] house whose Landlord and [...] we doe
also to oblige to retire themselves and go to bed at that time
which meeting we know by too said an Experience that by a
foolish drunkenness and Gameing hath brought some of our
youths to Commit great mischiefe, and to disable themselves
to do the next dayes duty due to their Employers and familyes

Margin Notes:
An Address from
ag[ains]t Vice & Immorality

our Hon[oura]ble masters
are humbly desired
to Ratiffie them-
selves this order
if they think it
for our the least
since are to un-
reasonable to
lay a further rest
while no force

The governor and council issued an order in council on St Helena.

They said that they felt great grief and sorrow because drunkenness, swearing, sexual misconduct and gaming had continued. They said that God, the Lord of hosts, had long shown his displeasure against the land. They also said that good laws had recently been sent to them and confirmed by the king and Parliament for the king’s subjects.

Even so, the people had not obeyed those laws. The council said that some of the same vices had been committed more often than before the laws arrived. The manuscript was difficult to read in this section, but the visible wording showed that the council blamed the lack of firm enforcement and the lack of clear examples of punishment. Drunkenness was singled out as an offence that had been repeated often.

The council said that these repeated offences had brought the people into great confusion. The manuscript became unclear again, but the visible wording showed that the council thought such behaviour ruined good names and threatened the moral state of the island. They said these sins had already justly brought, and might still bring, the judgement of Almighty God upon St Helena.

The council said that many people had been judged or punished in some way because of these offences, but others had taken little notice of that judgement.

Notice was therefore given in the king’s name. The sale of strong drink would still be allowed only where ordinary necessity required it. The wording was partly unclear, but the council stated that it had resolved to use the power given to it by God’s providence. The laws against the named vices would be enforced with their full severity so that wickedness could be suppressed.

To achieve this, all gatherings in any house were forbidden after [...] in the evening, whatever their purpose. This applied whether ships were present or not. The only people allowed to remain were those who belonged to the house.

Landlords and [...] were also required to withdraw and go to bed at that time. The council said that experience had shown the harm caused by such meetings. Foolish drunkenness and gaming had led some of the island’s young men to commit serious mischief. It had also left them unable to do the next day’s work owed to their employers and families.

Interpretations

The order used religious language to support civil enforcement. Drunkenness, swearing, sexual misconduct and gaming were treated as sins, but they were also treated as threats to labour, discipline and public order. The council joined moral reform with practical government.

The reference to laws confirmed by the king and Parliament gave the order wider authority than local custom alone. The governor and council presented their action as enforcement of royal law on St Helena, not merely as a local preference.

The restriction on house gatherings was a direct form of social control. The council did not only punish offences after they occurred. It tried to prevent them by controlling night-time assembly, drinking and gaming in private houses.

The rule applied even during shipping time. That mattered because the arrival of ships often brought drink, strangers, trade, wages and disorder. The council made clear that maritime activity did not suspend local discipline.

The order linked disorder to labour failure. Young men who drank and gambled at night were said to be unfit for work the next day. The council therefore treated vice as an economic problem for employers and families as well as a moral offence.

Speculations

The broad ban on evening gatherings was probably meant to solve an enforcement problem. Instead of trying to prove each act of drunkenness, gaming or sexual misconduct, the council tried to remove the night-time meetings where those offences were thought to begin.

The request in the margin for the Honourable Company’s approval suggests that the council wanted the order strengthened by higher authority. Local officers perhaps feared that the restriction might seem severe, so Company ratification would make enforcement harder to challenge.

203

203

but to prevent it therefore it is Enjoyned to Every Inhabitant to
repaire to their owne and perticuler houses Immediately after Taps
too which for those who doe refuse shall be severly [...]
till a Tenth of y[e] Stock and if any Person or Persons Never
be found to Assist in the suppressing of the aforesaid Vices present
to transgress this order that they for default of such forfeits
to y[e] Poor and given [...] every of the Small Lamp:s and the
Person proved it said by Witnesses. According as it pleases
Govern[our] and Counsell that this be Exactly Executed we doe order
the Church wardens and Command all our officers to Informe
us of Delinquents that are in same of being fined according
-ly and to Certifie us how they [...] them here to Consider
what y[e] same Commands should do advise the people in y[e] sermons
hereafter that this Controversy this said method of the Gospel
these it has executed thing might not of these shall be Transgressed
not had before some Ends, would ye take away y[e] Occasion
thing from among you.

Dated at Fort James this
26th day of August 1701

Step[hen] Poirier
Thom[as] Goodwin

The Petition of Andrew Alexander to y[e]
Govern[our] and Councill was here presented wherein the
said Alexander requested them to Consider y[e] Constant
Service he had done the said Island with his house, plantation
and Land at Sproneman Thomas Ellison hath to grant unto him
Thomas Goodwin hath measured about five Acres of Land
to his other Land in Exchange of none of y[e] Comp[anie]s Land
was Considered and Accordingly ordered

That the said Dixon have y[e] said house plantation
and 15 Acres of Land at y[e] Rates of five pounds per annum
for y[e] terme of twenty nine years, and that Leases be made
Accordingly

Margin Notes:
Vera Copia p[er] me
Jo Alexander

Thom: Deacon to have and
Perm[issi]on all for house
and Land at Sproneman

To prevent those offences, every inhabitant was ordered to go back to his or her own house immediately after taps. Anyone who refused was to be severely [...]. The manuscript became difficult to read here, but the visible wording showed that a financial penalty was also imposed. Part of the penalty was to go to the poor.

Any person who failed to help suppress drunkenness, swearing, sexual misconduct and gaming, or who broke this order, was to forfeit the amount set by the governor and council once the offence had been proved by witnesses.

The governor and council ordered the churchwardens, and commanded all officers, to report offenders to them. Those offenders were then to be fined accordingly. The officers were also to certify what they had done, so that the governor and council could consider what further action should be taken.

The manuscript became unclear in the next lines. The visible wording showed that the ministers were to advise the people in future sermons. The order was presented as a Christian method of correction, intended to remove the occasion for these offences from among the people.

The order was dated at Fort James on 26 August 1701.

Stephen Poirier signed it.

Thomas Goodwin signed it.

A true copy was certified by John Alexander.

Andrew Alexander’s petition was then presented to the governor and council. He asked them to consider the constant service he had done for St Helena. The petition concerned his house, plantation and land at Sproneman. Thomas Ellison was mentioned. The wording was unclear at this point, but the visible text showed that Thomas Goodwin had measured about five acres of land next to Alexander’s other land. This was connected with an exchange involving Company land.

The matter was considered. An order was made.

Thomas Dixon was to have the house, plantation and 15 acres of land at Sproneman. He was to pay £5 0s 0d a year. The term was to last 29 years. Leases were to be made accordingly.

Interpretations

“Taps” meant the evening signal after which people were expected to stop public activity and return home. The order used a military-style time marker to control the whole settlement, not only soldiers.

The order relied on local officers and churchwardens as enforcement agents. They had to report offenders, so moral discipline was turned into an administrative duty. The council did not rely only on preaching or private correction.

The direction to ministers linked punishment with religious instruction. The council wanted sermons to support the order, so that obedience would be taught as a Christian duty as well as a legal requirement.

The penalty payable to the poor gave the fine a public moral purpose. Money taken from offenders was not only punishment. It was also directed towards parish relief.

Andrew Alexander’s petition showed how claims to land could be built on service to the island. The council considered land, plantation, measurement, exchange and lease terms together. This made landholding a reward, a revenue source and a controlled grant from the Company.

The lease to Thomas Dixon gave him use of the Sproneman property for 29 years, but not outright ownership. The annual rent of £5 0s 0d kept the land within the Company’s revenue system.

204

204

Whereas on Saturday last being the 23 Instant Elizabeth
Johnson Came and made Complaint to y[e] Govern[our] that Alexander
Frayer did beat y[e] Boy Dal Bertrand Oldomans house, and
throwing some few words, he kickt her and threw her against y[e]
Dryer wall, Insomuch that being about Six months gone with
Child she is afraid such blowes will be the Cause of her miscarrying
and desired that he may be proceeded against for his Misdemean[our]
who was then Committed to prison untill this day and the truth
of y[e] matter Examined

The said Alexander Frayer being Examined Saith y[t]
he dont Remember that he kickt y[e] said Eliz[abeth] Johnson, and if y[e]
he did is Sorry for it

Arthur Bradley first being sworne, saith that on y[e] said day
as Alexander Frayer asked him if he would go and Drink a
dram, who both went into Bertrand Oldomans house and y[e]
Frayer called for some Arrack, The said Bertrands wife told him
she would not draw without money, whereupon Alexander Frayer
haveing one at last, asked after they had drank their dram a peice
y[e] said Old Woeman asked the said Frayer where y[e] Boatswain did
meaning a black womans of y[e] Comp[anie]s who replyed she is as honest
a woman as you are, whereupon y[e] word Rascalls hussy and amongst such
like discourse he called him Runaway Rogue, upon w[hi]ch the said
Frayer offered to kick her and threw her against the wall, dure-
which Mrs Being immediately pulled short to prevent further
mischeife, the said that the struck him, who there he downed
against and that he kickt her, or push her w[i]th his foot

Leak Bertrand sworne saith that on y[e] day aforesaid
the said Frayer and Bradley came into their house and
called for some Arrack, whereupon comes also the said Frayer
asked her why she told so many lies of him, what lies said she,
why says he you told M[r] Hutchinson that I said I would beate his Cone
and my matters to morninge her husband you are a lying Rogue
said she I never said so to you you gave to your Black shoee the said
Frayer answered dont prate but if she is honest then you are an
haveing such like discourse the said Eliz[abeth] Johnson took up a stick
and struck him over y[e] head upon which he made an offer to
kick her, but did not see him do it, but saw him throw her down
and when she gott up againe said damn you for a dogg if I had
a knife I would stick you to the heart

Margin Notes:
Eliz[abeth] Johnson Comp[laint]
ag[ainst] Alexander Fraiger
for kicking & abuseing
of her &c.

On Saturday 23 August 1701, Elizabeth Johnson came to the governor and made a complaint against Alexander Frayer. She said that Frayer had beaten the boy at Bertrand Oldoman’s house. After some words had passed, he kicked her and threw her against the dryer wall. She was about six months pregnant. She feared that the blows might cause her to miscarry. She asked for Frayer to be prosecuted for his misconduct.

Frayer was then committed to prison until the council could examine the truth of the matter.

Alexander Frayer was examined. He said that he did not remember kicking Elizabeth Johnson. He said that, if he had done it, he was sorry for it.

Arthur Bradley gave evidence under oath. He said that, on that day, Alexander Frayer asked whether he would go and drink a dram. They both went into Bertrand Oldoman’s house. Frayer asked for arrack. Bertrand’s wife said she would not draw any drink unless she was paid.

The manuscript was difficult to read at the next point. The visible wording showed that Frayer eventually obtained some arrack. After Frayer and Bradley had each drunk a dram, the old woman asked Frayer where the boatswain was. She meant a black woman belonging to the Company. Frayer replied that the woman was as honest as the old woman was.

An argument followed. Words such as “rascal”, “hussy” and similar insults were used. The old woman called Frayer a runaway rogue. Frayer then tried to kick her and threw her against the wall. He was immediately pulled back to stop further harm. The manuscript became unclear in the last part of Bradley’s evidence, but the visible wording showed that Elizabeth Johnson struck Frayer, and that Frayer either kicked her or pushed her with his foot.

Leak Bertrand gave evidence under oath. She said that Frayer and Bradley came into the house on the day in question and asked for arrack. Frayer then asked her why she had told so many lies about him. She asked what lies he meant.

Frayer said that she had told Mr Hutchinson that he had said he would beat his [...]. The manuscript was unclear at this word. The visible wording then referred to “my matters” and to morning, but the full sense could not be recovered.

Leak Bertrand said that her husband called Frayer a lying rogue. She said that she had never said that to him. The manuscript became difficult to read in the next phrase, which mentioned a black shoe or a black woman.

Frayer answered, “Don’t prate.” He then said that, if the black woman was honest, Leak Bertrand was an [...]. The insulting word was unclear in the manuscript, but the sense was that he abused her.

During this exchange, Elizabeth Johnson picked up a stick and struck Frayer over the head. Frayer then made as if to kick her. Leak Bertrand did not see him kick her, but she did see him throw Elizabeth Johnson down.

When Elizabeth got up again, she said, “Damn you for a dog. If I had a knife, I would stick you to the heart.”

Interpretations

The complaint was serious because Elizabeth Johnson was pregnant. Her fear was not only that she had been insulted or struck. She feared that the assault might cause a miscarriage. That made the alleged violence a threat to her body and to her unborn child.

Frayer’s answer did not directly deny the whole event. He said he did not remember kicking Elizabeth Johnson, and that he was sorry if he had done it. This left room for the council to treat drunkenness, confusion or evasion as part of the case.

The house of Bertrand Oldoman functioned as a drinking place. Arrack was requested, and Bertrand’s wife refused to serve it without payment. The quarrel therefore began in a setting where drink, credit, insult and household authority met.

The Company’s black woman was drawn into the dispute through talk about her honesty and status. The argument showed how insults about slaves or Company dependants could provoke wider conflict among free inhabitants and householders.

The witnesses gave different degrees of certainty. Arthur Bradley said Frayer kicked or pushed Elizabeth Johnson with his foot. Leak Bertrand said she saw him throw Elizabeth down but did not see him kick her. The council therefore had evidence of violence, but the exact form of the blow was contested.

Speculations

Frayer’s claim that he did not remember kicking Elizabeth Johnson perhaps reflected drink rather than innocence. The quarrel began with arrack, and the earlier order against drunkenness makes the setting important. The council probably had to judge whether drunken violence had turned a drinking-house argument into an assault.

Elizabeth Johnson’s threat with a knife after she got up suggests that she saw herself as injured and in danger. Her words were violent, but they came after she had been thrown down. The detail may explain why the council needed sworn evidence to decide how far each person was responsible.

205

205

upon the whole It is ordered

That the said Frayer do Continue in Prison till Such time
as we shall be Certainly Informed whether the said Edw[ard]
Johnson is in a Capacity to Travaile or no; or Else to finde bailes
for his personall Appearance next Court day or when required.

And Accordingly M[r] Edmund Conk Audomar
offered to baile him, And were Accepted of

Margin Notes:
Frayer to
remain in Prison till
Day of Edward Johnsons
other good behaviour

After the whole matter was considered, an order was made.

Alexander Frayer was to remain in prison until the governor and council had certain information about whether Elizabeth Johnson was able to travel. If he did not remain in prison, he had to find sureties for his personal appearance at the next court day, or whenever he was required.

Mr Edmund Conk and Audomar offered to stand as sureties for him. They were accepted.

Interpretations

The order kept Frayer under control while the council waited to learn the result of Elizabeth Johnson’s injuries. Because she was pregnant and feared a miscarriage, the council needed to know whether her condition became worse before deciding how far to proceed.

Bail gave the council another way to secure Frayer’s appearance. If he left prison, Edmund Conk and Audomar became responsible for ensuring that he appeared when required. This protected the court’s authority without requiring continued imprisonment.

The wording in the margin appears to link Frayer’s imprisonment to Elizabeth Johnson’s condition and to his future good behaviour. The legal effect was conditional restraint: he was not fully released, and the matter remained open.

206

206

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesda[y]
The 9th day of Septemb[er] 1701 Att Fort James

Pres[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Thomas Goodwin 2d of Counc[ill]

Whereas M[r] Eaton and Erasmus Purling Church wardens
for this present yeare Informed the Govern[our] Councill that Thomas
Eaton had a [...] Sarah Sinnig lived in Adultery, Tho having a [...]
band now absent from the said Island and in one eye being [...]
which they desired that some Lawfull course might be taken to
prevent such wicked and unlawfull doings, And in order thereunto
they were both Sumoned to appeare before us this day, who be-
ing Examined Saith as followeth

Sarah Sinnig Saith very Impudently that she
doth acknowledge to be with Child begotten by y[e] said Eaton
and that she dont nor will not owne any other man to be the
husband but him, her former husband being banished off
the said Island severall years past

The said Thomas Eaton Saith that he and y[e] said Sarah
Sinnig hath Contracted matrimony, and that she is his wife he
got, and will do his Endeavours to maintaine her and y[e] child [...]
well as possible he Can, for asforeseeing both there Inconvenien[ce]

It is ordered

That y[e] said Thomas Eaton be Confined within y[e] fort untill
an outward bound ship shave here, and then to be transported
to Bombay, or Detilld Each time as y[e] Govern[our] and Councell
fully Certifyed wherefore y[e] said Sarah Sinnig should it and a
Liveing, and that y[e] said Sarah Sinnig do not presume to Come with
y[e] fort, or have any Converse w[i]th the said Thomas Eaton on pain
of being Punished.

Margin Notes:
[...] made by the Church
wardens ag[ain]st Thomas
Eaton & Sarah Sinnig
for Living together in
Adultery

Thom[as] Eaton confined
untill an Outward
bound Ship arrives &c
then to be transported
to Bombay &c

A consultation was held on St Helena on Tuesday 9 September 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Mr Eaton and Erasmus Purling, the churchwardens for that year, informed the governor and council that Thomas Eaton and Sarah Sinnig were living in adultery. Sarah had a husband who was absent from St Helena. The manuscript became difficult to read at this point, but the visible wording showed that he had been away from the island for several years.

The churchwardens asked that a lawful course be taken to stop the wrongdoing. Thomas Eaton and Sarah Sinnig were therefore summoned to appear before the governor and council that day.

Sarah Sinnig was examined. She openly admitted that she was pregnant with a child fathered by Thomas Eaton. She said she did not, and would not, acknowledge any other man as her husband except Eaton. She said her former husband had been banished from St Helena several years earlier.

Thomas Eaton was examined. He said that he and Sarah Sinnig had contracted matrimony. He said that she was his wife, that he had made her pregnant and that he would do his best to maintain her and the child as well as he could. The manuscript was unclear at the end of this statement, but the visible wording suggested that he spoke about the inconvenience caused by their situation.

An order was made.

Thomas Eaton was to be confined within the fort until an outward-bound ship arrived. He was then to be transported to Bombay, or detained until the governor and council were fully certified about the matter. The manuscript became unclear in the next part, but the visible wording showed concern over how Sarah Sinnig should live.

Sarah Sinnig was ordered not to come within the fort. She was also forbidden to have any conversation or contact with Thomas Eaton. If she disobeyed, she would be punished.

Interpretations

The churchwardens’ complaint showed that sexual conduct was monitored through parish officers as well as by the governor and council. They acted as moral informers and brought the case into formal government.

Sarah Sinnig’s absent husband created the legal problem. Even though he had been banished from the island, the council did not accept her relationship with Thomas Eaton as lawful. Her claim that Eaton was now her husband was therefore treated as adultery, not as remarriage.

Thomas Eaton’s statement that he had “contracted matrimony” meant that he claimed a marriage agreement with Sarah. The council’s order showed that this claim was not accepted as enough to override her existing marriage.

Transportation to Bombay was used as a disciplinary measure. Eaton was to be removed from St Helena when a suitable ship arrived. This protected the island’s moral order by separating him from Sarah and placing him under Company authority elsewhere.

The ban on Sarah entering the fort or speaking with Eaton was a direct attempt to prevent the relationship from continuing. The council punished the case not only by confinement but by controlling movement, contact and access.

207

207

[...] Oswald made Complaint
that on Friday night last
Parlebien had take [...]
to the Island he had not a shirt to his back, and that he had
some Secret, and had made a difference between man and wife
meaning Thomas Oakley and his wife, and that y[e] saw the said
Parlebien drunk at y[e] said Oakleys house on y[e] 23 of July last

Likewise

Thomas Oakley wife made Complaint of the said Peergreen
Parlebien that he Called her whore, and that she was a Whores
whore.

The said Parlebien Saith he Cannot remember that he said
any such thing to y[e] Decee, neither doth he know any honour
of the said Oakleys wife, and what he said he is Sorry for it being
under an Oppression

It is ordered

That y[e] said Parlebien from his being very sorry for what
he had both of his said words and all others of the like sort
and forbidden for the future to affront y[e] Decee any more and
desireing y[e] said Oakleys wife, and fined five shillings for being
Drunke

The said Thomas Oakley wife Complained to y[e] Governour
that on Saturday night last one Samson the Companys slave
known by the name of Booty and knocked severall times who being asked by her wherefore
he made answer he would goe home to speak the Governo[ur]s message,
upon he was very angry and Challenge her and resolved to goe out and
fight him, and Samuel Bradley after forced the door open of the y[e] house

The said Samson being Examined saith it was he went
from the Fort but as y[e] Governo[ur]s slave he went to M[r] Leechs heading to him
Governour send him to get a Bottle of Punch, but getting none went to
Thomas Oakleys house, and y[e] door there being shut, there to whom wee
Rapily after Gingers at y[e] door to shake of Maggs as y[e] door was open
it being opened besides y[e] path being standing close to him M[r] Oakley
told him he could not make a Bottle of Punch, he went away, and
is almost sure y[e] Door was not [...] but only latch

Margin Notes:
[...] Oswald Compl[ain]ts
ag[ainst] Peergreen Parlebien
for Calling him Naked
Rogue &c

Thom[as] Oakleys Wife Comp[lain]s
ag[ainst] Parlebien for Called
her whore

Peergreen Parlebien
fined 5s for being drunk

Thom[as] Oakleys Wife Comp[lain]s
ag[ainst] John Samson for house
being troublesome to her
and to fight him &c
forcing her door open
with his foot.

[...] Oswald made a complaint. He said that, on the previous Friday night, Peergreen Parlebien had [...]. The manuscript became difficult to read here. The visible wording showed that Parlebien said Oswald had come to the island without a shirt to his back. Parlebien also said that Oswald had some secret and had caused trouble between a husband and wife. This referred to Thomas Oakley and his wife.

Oswald also said that he saw Parlebien drunk at Thomas Oakley’s house on 23 July 1701.

Thomas Oakley’s wife also made a complaint against Peergreen Parlebien. She said that he had called her a whore and a whore’s whore.

Parlebien said that he could not remember saying any such thing to the deceased or [...]. The manuscript was unclear at this word. He also said that he knew no dishonour against Thomas Oakley’s wife. He said he was sorry for anything he had said, because he had been under oppression. The exact meaning of that excuse was not clear from the manuscript.

An order was made. Peergreen Parlebien was treated as very sorry for the words he had spoken, both those words and others of the same kind. He was forbidden to insult [...] Oswald again in future. He was also required to ask Thomas Oakley’s wife for pardon. He was fined £0 5s 0d for being drunk.

Thomas Oakley’s wife then complained to the governor about Samson, a Company slave known as Booty. She said that, on the previous Saturday night, Samson came to her house and knocked several times. When she asked why he was there, he answered that he would go home to speak the governor’s message. The manuscript became difficult to read in the next lines. The visible wording showed that someone became very angry, challenged another person and wanted to go out and fight him. Samuel Bradley then forced open the door of the house.

Samson was examined. He said that he had gone from the fort as the governor’s slave. He went to Mr Leech because the governor had sent him to get a bottle of punch. When he got none there, he went to Thomas Oakley’s house. The door was shut.

The manuscript became unclear at this point. The visible wording showed that Samson knocked at the door and that the door was opened. Mr Oakley stood close to him and told him he could not make a bottle of punch. Samson then went away. He said he was almost sure that the door had not been locked, but only latched.

Interpretations

The complaint against Peergreen Parlebien concerned both insult and disorder caused by drink. The words reported against Oswald attacked poverty, secrecy and interference in a marriage. The words reported by Thomas Oakley’s wife attacked sexual reputation. In a small island community, both kinds of speech could damage standing and household peace.

Parlebien’s defence did not clearly deny the insults. He said that he could not remember saying them and that he was sorry for what he had said. The council therefore treated drunkenness and abusive words as connected.

The fine of £0 5s 0d punished drunkenness, while the required apology addressed the personal injury to Thomas Oakley’s wife. The order combined moral correction, public discipline and repair of reputation.

Samson’s status as the governor’s slave mattered because he claimed to be acting on the governor’s business. His errand for punch placed him under official household authority, but the complaint showed how such errands could still disturb private houses at night.

The dispute over the door mattered because it turned the incident from a nuisance into a possible breach of the household. Thomas Oakley’s wife complained of forced entry, while Samson said the door was only latched and that he left when told no punch could be made.

208

208

[...] being sworne saith that he was [...]
said [...] doore Just after Taps too and
saw a man knock but very Easil[y] at it w[i]th his fingars with which
opened without any other blow, and heard him aske the said Oakeley
whether he would make him a boule of punch or no, who said he
Could not, Then they both went away Home

It is therefore ordered

That upon y[e] said Richard Headmans oath the Said Samson
be discharged with only a Check

M[r] Tho[mas] Goodwin who made Choice of a peece of ground for
a garden Joyning to M[r] Wragghoms and Charles Stewart
ground, of which they two dollars p Ann[um] to the R[igh]t Hon[oura]ble Comp[anie]s
as others do who have had y[e] same priviledge since y[e] Last order
sent us from y[e] Said Hon[oura]ble Comp[anie]s by y[e] good Ship Nathaniel
Cap[t] Charles White Commander

It is ordered

That the said M[r] Goodwin have y[e] said peece of land
Paying annually y[e] said Sume of two dollars y[e] Annum to
begin from y[e] 25 day of March next Ensuing and that he have
a Lease thereof when demanded to keep by him as a due Title to
the said peece of ground.

Whereas Edmond Crosley free planter haveing lately had a little
upon part [...] [...][...] house & land belonging
to y[e] said Island for that he haveing suffered great Loss of his
Plantation by y[e] late dreadful flood, y[e] s[ai]d [...] amount[s]
to as followeth

Given y[e] said Crosley in Cash 5:15: [...]
To make up [...] 1:10:0
To a Hogg wrought 0:09:0
To [...] as debt in [...] 19:0
To [...] in Cash 8:7:6
Besides 330 lb [...] worth of seuerall
Goods to repair his plantation
Abated him y[e] [...] 2:1:04:00
Collecting the same
Came to him again 11:18:10½

Margin Notes:
John Samson dismist
of y[e] foregoing Crime

M[r] Thom[as] Goodwin to
have a peece of ground
for a garden Joyning
to M[r] Wragghoms &
Char[les] Stew[ar]t Land he
Paying two Dollars
p Ann[um]

An Acco[un]t of Edmond
Crosleys Petition upon
a briefe &c.

[...] gave evidence under oath. He said that he was at [...] door just after taps. He saw a man knock very gently on it with his fingers. The door opened without any other blow.

He heard the man ask Thomas Oakley whether he would make him a bowl of punch. Oakley said that he could not. They both then went away home.

An order was made. On Richard Headman’s oath, Samson was discharged with only a reprimand.

Mr Thomas Goodwin had chosen a piece of ground for a garden. It joined the ground of Mr Wragghorn and Charles Stewart. He was to pay two dollars a year to the Right Honourable Company, as others did who had received the same privilege since the last order sent by the Honourable Company in the good ship Nathaniel, commanded by Captain Charles White.

An order was made. Mr Goodwin was to have the piece of land. He was to pay two dollars a year from 25 March 1702. He was also to have a lease when he asked for it, so that he could keep it as his proper title to the ground.

Edmond Crosley, a free planter, had recently petitioned for help because part of his house, land or plantation had suffered in the recent dreadful flood. The manuscript was unclear in the opening words of this entry, but the visible wording showed that the council was recording an account of relief connected with his flood losses.

The account listed several sums and items connected with Crosley’s relief.

A cash payment of £5 15s [...] was recorded for him. The pence could not be read.

A further £1 10s 0d was recorded to make up [...]. The purpose of this item was not fully recoverable from the manuscript.

A hog valued at £0 9s 0d was recorded.

A debt of £0 19s 0d was recorded. The manuscript did not clearly show what the debt related to.

A further cash sum of £8 7s 6d was recorded.

He also received 330 pounds of [...], together with several goods for repairing his plantation. The item measured at 330 pounds could not be read.

A reduction of £2 1s 4d was allowed to him. The reason for this reduction could not be read.

After the account was collected and balanced, the sum due back to him came to £11 18s 10½d.

Interpretations

Richard Headman’s oath resolved the complaint against Samson. His evidence contradicted the claim that the door had been forced. The council therefore treated the incident as a minor fault rather than a punishable breaking into the house.

A reprimand allowed the council to mark Samson’s behaviour without imposing a fine or harsher punishment. The decision turned on sworn evidence about the door, the time after taps and the brief request for punch.

Goodwin’s garden grant showed how small pieces of Company land were leased for private use. The annual rent of two dollars kept the land within the Company’s revenue system, while the lease gave Goodwin written proof of his right to use it.

The reference to the ship Nathaniel showed that the council was following recent instructions from the Company. Land privileges were not being granted only by local custom. They were tied to orders sent from England through Company shipping.

Edmond Crosley’s account showed that flood relief was handled through a formal reckoning. The council did not simply grant help in general terms. It recorded cash, goods, an animal, debts, repairs, abatements and the balance due. This made relief part of the Company’s accounting system.

Speculations

The decision to discharge Samson on Richard Headman’s evidence probably avoided turning a night-time nuisance into a larger charge against the governor’s own slave. Once forced entry was not proved, the council could close the matter with a warning.

Goodwin’s lease beginning on 25 March 1702 suggests that land rents were being aligned with the usual annual accounting year. This made the garden grant easier to enter into the Company’s rent system.

209

209

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consul[tation] Held on
Tuesday the 23 day of Sept[em]b[e]r 1701
James

Pres[en]t
Step[hen] Poirier Govern[our]
Tho[mas] Goodwin 2d in Councill

Thomas Coales made Complaint of Charles Howard saying
that he came Master to him the sume of Eighteen Shill[ings] and Six pence
which he denyes to Say him oweing him Fifteen Shill[ings] to time

The said Charles Howard says he owes the said Thomas
Coales but Eleaven Shill[ings] which he hath offered to Pay him severall
times but refused to receive it

The said Thomas Coales desired that James Wilson might
be called and Examined to prove the said sume of Eighteen Shill[ings] Six
Pence, who being sworne Saith that he Charles Howard and severall
others were sitting at Shuffle board and knows that y[e] said Charles
received five Shillings of y[e] Pay of Thomas Coales, and heard him
say y[e] said Howard that he did [...] in parch[ase] [...] and owes to pay
Eighteen pence more, and this Depon[en]t never knew anything
he thinks y[e] said Charles Howard owed but paid Eighteen

It is ordered

That the said Charles Howard Pay unto y[e] said Thomas Coales
the sume of fourteen Shillings and nine Pence, and Charges of
Court Equally between them

Whereas y[e] Sheep belonging unto y[e] heires of Jonas Beale dec[ease]d
being much decayed, and will daily decay more & more
therefore it was thought fitt that the said Sheep shall be putted
down to y[e] most of y[e] [...] Exposed to a publique Sale, and converted
to y[e] Sole use and Benefitt of the said heire

Margin Notes:
Thom[as] Coales Complaint
ag[ain]st Charles Howard
that he owes him Eighteen
shill[ings] which he denyes to
pay him saying its not
so much

Cha[rles] How[ard] to pay Tho[mas]
Coales Fourteen Shillings
nine pence

Jonas Beales sheep to
be Sold down & y[e] Tender
the best & money made
of them for y[e] use of y[e] heires.

A consultation was held on St Helena on Tuesday 23 September 1701 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, the governor, was present. Thomas Goodwin, second member of council, was present.

Thomas Coales made a complaint against Charles Howard. He said that Howard owed him £0 18s 6d. Howard denied owing that amount. Coales said that Howard owed him £0 15s 0d at least.

Charles Howard said that he owed Thomas Coales only £0 11s 0d. He said he had offered to pay that sum several times, but Coales had refused to accept it.

Thomas Coales asked for James Wilson to be called and examined. He wanted Wilson to prove the debt of £0 18s 6d.

James Wilson gave evidence under oath. He said that he, Charles Howard and several others had been sitting at shuffleboard. He knew that Charles Howard had received £0 5s 0d from Thomas Coales’s pay. He also heard Howard say that he had [...] in purchase [...] and had to pay £0 1s 6d more. The manuscript became difficult to read in the next part, but Wilson appeared to say that he knew of no other sum owed by Charles Howard except the amount already paid or admitted.

An order was made.

Charles Howard was to pay Thomas Coales £0 14s 9d. The court charges were to be divided equally between them.

The council then dealt with the sheep belonging to the heirs of Jonas Beale, deceased. The sheep had greatly declined in condition and would continue to decline each day.

An order was therefore made. The sheep were to be put down to the best advantage and exposed to public sale. The money raised from them was to be used only for the benefit of Jonas Beale’s heirs.

Interpretations

The dispute between Thomas Coales and Charles Howard showed the council acting as a small-claims court. The sums were modest, but the council still heard the complaint, examined a witness under oath and fixed a middle figure between the amounts claimed and admitted.

Shuffleboard mattered here because the debt was tied to a social setting where men gathered, played and handled money. The council had to sort what had been paid, what had been promised and what remained due.

The equal division of court charges suggests that neither side fully proved his position. Coales did not recover the full £0 18s 6d, but Howard was ordered to pay more than the £0 11s 0d he admitted.

The order for Jonas Beale’s sheep protected an inheritance. The animals were losing value, so delay would harm the heirs. A public sale turned decaying livestock into money that could be preserved for them.

Speculations

The council probably chose £0 14s 9d because the evidence did not support either party’s full account. The figure allowed Coales more than Howard admitted but less than he claimed, which suggests a compromise based on uncertain proof.

The public sale of the sheep was probably meant to prevent private misuse of the heirs’ property. By selling the animals openly, the council could preserve their value and reduce the risk that someone would take advantage of the heirs’ estate.

210

210

[...] made Complaint to y[e] Govern[our] & Councill
that seven dollars in or about y[e] house
Philip Leggatt were at the said Fullers house, and Receiving her
with [...] carried out in ordering of making search for y[e] said
money at y[e] request of the wife himselfe being then Indisposed,
the Marshall was Informed that y[e] said Fuller had received two
very remarkable pieces of 8 from Edward Crosby with w[hi]ch [...]
told her he had lost before amongst severall other upon which
y[e] said Fuller and all y[e] Persons aforesaid were summoned to
appeare before us this day and likewise the said Daniel Joseph
wife who being examined how or where she came by those
two pieces of 8 saith that she being a nurse keeping of y[e] said
Fullers wife She being very ill, and She went out of y[e] house
on Last Sunday and carried in y[e] morning found on a stone
as she was washing her hands, two pieces of 8 and with
She carried and showed the said Fuller who said they were his
he haveing lost them [...] amongst w[hi]ch was one very like
one of these they found, and did believe that his wife threw them
out at y[e] window and because y[e] money and about two hours
after M[r] [...] hold his tongue y[e] but y[e] money for he would not
sheare it was his and would redeliver his black about the
money that the said Bradley lost thinking it preserved three
two dollars might be his, whereupon both that when y[e] said
Bradley produced y[e] said Fuller some money for goods he bought
of him after y[e] said Bradley offered y[e] said Fuller one certain
w[hi]ch share in it was like one of these she found he could
mean y[e] said Grace regard w[i]th another maid examined

John Fuller freed [...] being Examined saith that
when the said Crosby wife gave him the aforesaid money
he bid her say nothing of them because he intended to examine
his Blacks, to see if they knew any thing of it or no.

Edward Crosby Junior being sworne saith that the said
Bradley desired him to go w[i]th him to y[e] said Fullers house to treat
upon some Goods to buy of him, [...] they bargained and said
y[e] said Bradley Pay y[e] said Fuller about five dollars, amongst
which y[e] said Fuller refused one being not good as he thought,
the w[hi]ch dollar y[e] said Bradley took and gave y[e] said Fuller
another, whereupon y[e] said Fuller refused the aforesaid threw
y[e] minde, and a little while after y[e] said Bradley quarrelled w[i]th
the said Fuller and puld his cloaths off to fight him, and

Margin Notes:
seven dollars
in or about y[e] house of
John Fuller &c.

A complaint was made to the governor and council about seven dollars lost in or near John Fuller’s house. Philip Leggatt was mentioned, but the manuscript was unclear at that point. The visible wording showed that people were at Fuller’s house and that a search for the money was ordered at the request of Fuller’s wife, because Fuller himself was then ill.

The marshal was told that Fuller had received two very noticeable pieces of eight from Edward Crosby’s wife. The manuscript became unclear here, but the visible wording showed that someone said the pieces matched money that had been lost before with several other coins.

Fuller and all the people involved were summoned to appear before the governor and council that day. Daniel Joseph’s wife was also summoned. She was asked how and where she came by the two pieces of eight.

Daniel Joseph’s wife said that she was nursing Fuller’s wife, who was very ill. On the previous Sunday morning, she went out of the house. As she was washing her hands, she found two pieces of eight on a stone. She carried them in and showed them to Fuller. Fuller said they were his. He said he had lost money, and that one of the missing coins was very like one of the coins she had found. He believed that his wife had thrown them out of the window.

The manuscript became difficult to read in the next section. The visible wording showed that, about two hours later, someone told another person to hold his tongue about the money. It also showed that Fuller did not want to swear the coins were his. The passage referred to his black people, to questioning them about the money and to money lost by Bradley. Fuller seemed to think that two or three of the dollars might be Bradley’s.

The record then turned to money paid by Bradley to Fuller for goods. The manuscript was unclear, but the visible wording showed that Bradley had produced money for goods he bought from Fuller. One coin offered by Bradley looked like one of the coins later found by Daniel Joseph’s wife. Grace and another maid were also examined, but the wording did not preserve their evidence clearly.

John Fuller, a freed [...], was examined. He said that, when Crosby’s wife gave him the money, he told her to say nothing about it. He said he wanted to examine his black people first, to see whether they knew anything about the money.

Edward Crosby Junior gave evidence under oath. He said that Bradley asked him to go with him to Fuller’s house to discuss buying goods from Fuller. A bargain was made. Bradley paid Fuller about five dollars.

Among those dollars, Fuller refused one because he thought it was not good. Bradley took that coin back and gave Fuller another. The manuscript became unclear in the next words. A little while later, Bradley quarrelled with Fuller, took off his clothes and prepared to fight him.

Interpretations

The complaint centred on lost Spanish dollars, also called pieces of eight. These coins circulated as valuable silver money. The court paid close attention to marked or unusual coins because they could be recognised and traced.

The search began because money was missing in or near Fuller’s house. That made the household the centre of the inquiry. The council examined not only the owner but nurses, servants, black people, buyers and visitors who had handled or seen money there.

Daniel Joseph’s wife mattered because she found two pieces of eight while nursing Fuller’s sick wife. Her role placed her inside the household at a time when Fuller’s wife was ill and money may have been moved or thrown from the window.

Fuller’s decision to tell Crosby’s wife to say nothing showed an attempt to control the inquiry before it became public. He said he wanted to question his black people first. This showed that slaves or black dependants were treated as the first people to suspect or examine when money went missing in a household.

Bradley’s earlier payment for goods made the case harder to untangle. Money had already passed between Bradley and Fuller before the discovery of the two coins. The court therefore had to decide whether the found coins belonged to Fuller, Bradley or someone else.

Speculations

Fuller’s reluctance to swear that the coins were his probably showed uncertainty about ownership. The coins looked familiar, but the movement of money through purchases, household illness and possible loss made firm proof difficult.

The belief that Fuller’s wife may have thrown the coins out of the window perhaps reflected her illness. The detail offered a way to explain how money could be found outside the house without accusing a visitor or servant directly.

211

211

a little while after saw the said Bradleys wife give him a bagg
with some money in it, but what he did w[i]th it he Cant Tell.

Philip Leggett sworne saith that amongst that money as
the said Bradley saith he lost there was two very Remarkable
dollars y[t] he saw y[e] on y[e] Table when the said Bradley paid
the said Fuller for y[e] cloth he bought of him.

upon y[e] whole It is ordered

That the decision of this matter be Refered to y[e] Jury at
the next quarterly sessions

Jonathan Dutton made Complaint to y[e] Govern[our]
and Councill that whereas he the other night found in the house
of a black man one of his negroes who hath a moneth at two times
taken away some [...] when asked question of them, or any one
of them, and Carding of [...] of y[e] said Black, which
the said Black refused to, and after designing him, which said Black
hath since attempted to break one of his leggs under a buttress in
y[e] said Hawks service, therefore desired that y[e] said Black
may be obliged to deliver him his knife againe and to make pay-
ment for y[e] wrong of him

The said Edward Heath denyes that Ever y[e] said Dutton
demanded the said knife according to agreement between him
and consequently to make any satisfaction for y[e] [...].

after severall debates It is ordered

That the decision of this business be left to y[e] Jury at the
next Quarterly Sessions

Margin Notes:
The decision of this
matter referred to the
Jury next Quart[erly] Sessions

Jonathan Dutton Comp[laint]
M[r] Edw[ard] Heath for
having his Black
[...] Black having
[...] one of his
leggs in y[e] Black
&c.

The decision of this Bus[iness]
left to Jury next
Q[uarte]r Sessions

A little while later, Edward Crosby Junior saw Bradley’s wife give Bradley a bag with money in it. He did not know what Bradley did with it.

Philip Leggett gave evidence under oath. He said that, among the money Bradley said he had lost, there were two very noticeable dollars. Leggett had seen those dollars on the table when Bradley paid Fuller for the cloth he bought from him.

After the whole matter was considered, an order was made. The decision was referred to the jury at the next quarterly sessions.

Jonathan Dutton then made a complaint to the governor and council. The manuscript became difficult to read in this section. The visible wording showed that Dutton had found one of his black people in the house of another black man on a recent night. It also showed that something had been taken away at two different times during the previous month. A knife was then mentioned. Dutton asked for the black man to be made to return the knife and to make payment for the wrong done to him.

The passage also referred to Edward Heath and to a black man who had tried to break one of Dutton’s legs under a buttress while in Hawks’s service. The exact connection between the knife, the alleged taking of goods, Edward Heath, the black man and Hawks’s service could not be fully recovered from the manuscript.

Edward Heath denied that Dutton had ever demanded the knife from him according to the agreement between them. He also denied that he was bound to make any satisfaction for the [...].

After several debates, an order was made. The decision in this business was left to the jury at the next quarterly sessions.

Interpretations

Philip Leggett’s evidence strengthened the need for a formal jury decision in the money case. He identified two distinctive dollars as part of Bradley’s money and placed them on Fuller’s table during the earlier purchase. That linked the found coins to the disputed payment, but it did not prove who owned them after they changed hands.

The referral to the quarterly sessions showed that the council did not settle the coin dispute itself. The matter involved contested ownership, several witnesses and possible theft. It was therefore moved to a jury, where the evidence could be weighed more formally.

Jonathan Dutton’s complaint involved slaves or black dependants, property and possible injury. The manuscript was unclear, but the visible wording showed that Dutton wanted both the return of a knife and compensation for a wrong. The case therefore joined personal property with discipline over black labourers or servants.

Edward Heath’s denial turned on whether Dutton had properly demanded the knife under an agreement. This made the dispute partly about procedure. Heath did not merely deny the complaint. He denied that the condition for repayment or satisfaction had been met.

The second referral to the quarterly sessions showed that the council treated both disputes as unsuitable for immediate decision. Each involved contested facts, unclear responsibility and claims that required a jury’s judgment.

212

212

Sarah wife of Arthur Bradley made Complaint to the
Govern[our] and Councill that she being yesterday at y[e] house of John
Fuller discoursing w[i]th two Gentlemen belonging to the Shipp
Hannah, Thomas James Broke into the said house and abused
her very grossly by calling her whore, and throwing her downe
against the walls, w[hi]ch of all Cut her Eye brow against a stone

The Said Thomas James Saith y[t] y[e] said Sarah Bradley
struck him and urged him to do what he did, and besides Challeng-
ed him to fight her w[i]th a sword

It is ordered

That the said Thomas James be Continued in Prison till
next releife of y[e] Guard, and then to ride the wooden Horse
with two musquetts at Each Legg, dureing y[e] Govern[our] & Councills
Pleasure

Margin Notes:
Sarah Bradley Comp[lain]s
ag[ain]st Thomas James
for abuseing of her and
Calling of her Whore &c

The Said Tho[mas] James to
Continue in Prison till
next Reliefe day and
to ride y[e] wooden horse.

Sarah, the wife of Arthur Bradley, made a complaint to the governor and council. She said that she had been at John Fuller’s house the previous day. She was talking with two gentlemen from the ship Hannah.

Thomas James then broke into the house. Sarah said that he abused her severely. He called her a whore, threw her down against the walls and cut her eyebrow against a stone.

Thomas James said that Sarah Bradley had struck him and had provoked him to act as he did. He also said that she had challenged him to fight her with a sword.

An order was made.

Thomas James was to remain in prison until the next relief of the guard. After that, he was to ride the wooden horse with two muskets fastened to each leg. This punishment was to last for as long as the governor and council chose.

Interpretations

Sarah Bradley’s complaint treated the attack as both a physical assault and an injury to reputation. The word “whore” attacked her sexual honour. The wound to her eyebrow showed that the quarrel also caused visible bodily harm.

The presence of two gentlemen from the ship Hannah mattered because the insult and assault happened in front of visiting shipmen. That made the injury public and could have increased the damage to Sarah Bradley’s reputation.

Thomas James’s defence tried to shift responsibility onto Sarah. He claimed that she struck him first, provoked him and challenged him to fight with a sword. The council did not accept this as enough to prevent punishment.

The wooden horse was a painful military punishment. The offender was forced to sit astride a narrow wooden frame, often with weights attached to the legs. Here the muskets served as weights. The order placed Thomas James under public bodily discipline after imprisonment.

Speculations

The use of the wooden horse probably reflected Thomas James’s violent entry into the house and the public nature of the insult. The council chose a punishment that exposed and humiliated him, rather than only fining him, because the assault combined housebreaking, abuse and bodily injury.

213

213

Island St Helena

By the Governr & Councill
An Advertisement

Wareas our Hono:ble masters have been so kinde
as to send us the good Shipp Hen wth a very usefull Cargoe which
Shipp wee conceive is about to unload a Badd[e] lbs of ground the now time
that the worke may Be Speedily dispatched, and whereas wee did
appoint our Rendevaco Seignals to be held on monday next being
the 6th instant, and also our muster of ye Exercise of ye Garrison on
Tuesday following but on Considerable Los[s] of tyme to those said, wee
Discharge the Persons already Summoned for ye same, to appearance at the
Said Seignall as aforesaid till further order whereof the same or our
officers and so [...]

Furthermore

Whereas wee have Severalle times perused the Act of Parlia
-ment Entitled the Act against Piracy by which the Governour[s]
of all English Plantations are to take care from Time to Time by sending
tim[e]ly Orders and other officers and Seamen that they being persons
without any Stable abode, under paine of being committed
at their returne in England and that wee may not be found
Guilty of omitting the Said officers & Seamen to them
ready on this Island from these shipps or shipps, Wee do declare
to all those who shall presume to desert and remaine upon
these Said ship or shipps upon any Acct Licence [...] for their
[...] [...] Endeavour [...] both to us and these [...] places
Be sure to worke at once from their masters Plantations as Slaves

Datad at Fort James this 4th day of October
Signed p order of Governr & Councill
p me
Jn° Alexander

Margin Notes:
In Advertisement
to Referr on ye
Generall Court and
next pay for day &c.

[...]
Tho Goodwin
[...] Downing

The governor and council of St Helena issued an advertisement at Fort James on 4 October. The Honourable Company had sent the good ship Hen with a very useful cargo. The manuscript was unclear where the unloading was described, but the ship was expected to unload cargo at once, and the work was to be finished quickly.

A rendezvous signal had already been fixed for Monday 6 October. A muster and military exercise of the garrison had also been fixed for the following Tuesday. Because these meetings would have caused a serious loss of time, the people already summoned were released from attending the signal and the muster until further order. The officers were to be informed, though the final words of this order were unreadable.

The governor and council had also read several times the Act of Parliament against piracy. Under that Act, the governors of all English plantations were required to take care from time to time to give timely orders about officers and seamen. The passage was unclear in parts, but it concerned men without stable homes and the risk of their being dealt with on return to England. The council stated that it must not be blamed for failing to act about officers and seamen who came to St Helena from ships.

All men were warned not to desert their ships or remain on the island without licence. The manuscript was unclear in the next part, but the warning linked desertion to harm done both to the island authorities and to other places. Men who deserted were to be set to work at once for their masters on the plantations as slaves.

The advertisement was signed by order of the governor and council by John Alexander. A margin note connected the advertisement with the General Court and the next pay day. Further words in the margin were unreadable. The names Thomas Goodwin and [...] Downing were also written there.

Interpretations

The advertisement worked as a public order. It was not only a notice. It changed earlier military arrangements, freed summoned men from attendance and redirected time towards unloading the Company’s ship.

The rendezvous signal and garrison exercise formed part of the island’s defence system. Their postponement showed that civil and military routines could be set aside when Company cargo needed labour and speed.

The Act against piracy gave the governor and council a legal reason to control seamen. The concern was not only piracy itself. The Act was used to prevent desertion, regulate movement from ships and protect the Company from blame if officers or seamen disappeared on St Helena.

The threat to make deserters work on plantations as slaves showed how discipline, labour and punishment were joined. Desertion from a ship was treated as a labour problem as well as a legal offence. The island answered it by turning free seamen into forced plantation workers.

Speculations

The signal and muster were probably cancelled because the council needed the same men, time or attention for unloading the Hen. The useful cargo mattered more than the scheduled military exercise at that moment.

The warning against desertion was probably issued because the arrival of a ship created a practical risk that seamen would hide ashore. The council tied the warning to the Act against piracy so that local discipline rested on imperial law as well as island authority.

214

214

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Mon
day the 6th day of October 1701. Att Fort James.

Stepn Poirier Governr
John Coulter Esqr Governr
Thomas Goodwyn major
Edward Edmunds th[e] [...]
Presnt

Wheras yesterday John Coulter Commander of
the ship Mozambque Merchant Compa’s Ship) Received so great
[...] [...] [...] by his Reverend to [...] [...] [...]
Court as Justice Declaring therein that if wee should
provide to [...] him from haveing any provisions of the Said Island he
would yet obteined his goeing a shore, to whome we delivered
a Certain packett of papers Containing an answer of Governr & this
[...] Island aforesd to which he Expressed same According to ye
[...] Governr one minute or less, And whereas this morning
the said Commander sent his Boats commanded and carryed
(as wee suppose) in order putting in water at some of the
Leeward valleys, Upon which we have agreed and Consulted
That Capt Hurly and Mr Edward Edmunds with their [...]
Twelve Negroes slaves do give regress wth power do go and
oppose the Said Boats and Fire in manner following/

That the said Capt Hurly wth the said Party do use all
possible means to hinder them taking in any water But
not to fire at them Except they the first fire Upon them
and that should Come hither that he do examine them
Strictly them to get on ye the said and Come Came ashore to
Destroy ye valley whether any attempt have be made/

Tho Goodwin
Edwd Downing

Margin Notes:
John Coulter Comandr
of the Shipp Mozamb
que to have what pro
visions ye Island afforded him
provided he pay for them
according to ye Governr &
Councill Consent

Captn Jno Hurly & Mr Edmund
Edmunds to have 10 or 12 Seamen & be A Blacks
to oppose ye Seamen
belongg to Comandr ye
above sd John Coulter
from takeing on any
water &c.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Monday 6 October 1701.

Stephen Poirier, governor, John Coulter, Esquire, governor, Thomas Goodwyn, major, and Edward Edmunds were present. The manuscript was unclear after Edward Edmunds’s name.

The day before, John Coulter, commander of the Company ship Mozambique Merchant, had received a serious [...] from his Reverend to [...] Court as justice. The wording was unclear. He declared that, if the governor and council prevented him from receiving provisions from the island, he would still obtain what he wanted by going ashore.

A packet of papers was delivered to him. It contained the governor and council’s answer for the island. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but he expressed himself about it within one minute or less.

That morning, Commander Coulter sent his boats away. They were believed to have been sent to take in water at some of the leeward valleys. The governor and council agreed that Captain Hurly and Edward Edmunds, with their [...] and twelve black slaves, were to go out with authority to oppose the boats.

Captain Hurly and his party were ordered to use every possible means to stop the boats from taking in water. They were not to fire unless the men in the boats fired first.

If any of the men came to Fort James, Captain Hurly was to question them closely. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but the questioning concerned why they had come ashore and whether any attempt had been made to destroy the valley.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Downing.

A margin note added that John Coulter, commander of the ship Mozambique Merchant, was to have whatever provisions the island could supply, if he paid for them according to the consent of the governor and council. It also added that Captain John Hurly and Mr Edmund Edmunds were to have ten or twelve seamen and [...] blacks to oppose the seamen belonging to Commander John Coulter, to stop them taking on water.

Interpretations

The order separated lawful supply from unauthorised taking. Coulter could receive provisions from the island, but only by payment and with the consent of the governor and council. Water and food were treated as controlled resources, not as things a visiting commander could seize at will.

The leeward valleys mattered because they gave ships access to water away from the main fort. The council’s response showed that control of landing places was part of island government. A ship’s boats could threaten that control even without a full attack.

The instruction not to fire first set a limit on force. The council authorised armed resistance, but it also tried to keep the first act of violence on Coulter’s side. This protected the island’s legal position if bloodshed followed.

The use of seamen and black slaves under Captain Hurly and Edward Edmunds showed how defence, policing and coerced labour were combined. The island used both maritime labour and slave labour to enforce orders against a Company ship’s commander.

Speculations

The council probably offered provisions for payment while blocking access to water because it wanted to avoid open rupture with Coulter without surrendering control of the island’s resources. The arrangement gave him a lawful route to supply and made any unauthorised landing harder to justify.

The order to wait until fired upon was probably designed to manage a concrete risk. Coulter had threatened to obtain supplies by going ashore, and his boats had already been sent towards the leeward valleys. The council prepared force, but framed it as defensive action.

215

215

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday the 7th day of Octobr 1701. Att Fort
James.

Stepn Poirier Governr.
Capt Jno Houblon Esqr absent
Thomas Goodwin Major absent
Edward Edmunds 4th in Councill.

Presnt

Whereas Mr Jethro Beadock commander of the
good shipp King William haveing married Sarah ye Daughter of
James Bickley then deceased and the Governr having the Guardians
of [...] Bickley the said Mr Beadock was Sum[m]oned in our
appearance before us in order of giveing us an Acct of his marriage
proceedings, who being asked the reason made answer he thought
that he might marry any person on ye said Island without
the Governour licence being sure that he was as safe from
mummitt[e]s within our Island without as off.

The Said Beadock desired that ye said Mr Beadock might have
his orders not to bring a vessell wherwith which he sudenly
did, and was by us pressed with severall.

Upon mature Consideracion It is ordered.

That the said Mr Jethro Beadock for marrying the said Sarah
and the said Sarah Daughter without ye said Governors Licence
as aforesaid, Contrary to an Act of Parliament made for Such
purposes be fined Twenty shills to the poore of said Island and
found there more to Suffer one months Imprisonment, and the said
Vessell fined five shill: more to ye said poore, but this mitigation
be not for any future president and moreover Considering on the
great poverty of ye said Beadock, and besides being Indebted almost
distracted he be Excused from paying ye fyne aforesaid.

Tho Goodwin
Edwd Edmunds

Margin Notes:
Mr Jethro Beadock
Minister of the good
shipp King Wm bound
homeward from
South Shells for Mart
Jamaica & Jewell &c.
James Bickley Daugh
ter without ye Governr
Licence or the said
Bickleys Consent.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 7 October 1701.

Stephen Poirier, governor, was present. Captain John Houblon, Esquire, was absent. Thomas Goodwin, major, was absent. Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, was present.

Mr Jethro Beadock, commander of the good ship King William, had married Sarah, the daughter of the late James Bickley. The governor had guardianship of [...] Bickley. Beadock was summoned to appear before the council so that he could give an account of the marriage.

He was asked for his reason. He answered that he thought he could marry any person on the island without the governor’s licence. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but he also said that he believed he was as safe from [...] within the island as outside it.

The manuscript was unclear in the next passage. A vessel was mentioned, together with a request or order involving Beadock, but the sense could not be fully recovered. The council stated that several matters were pressed against him.

After consideration, Jethro Beadock was fined £0 20s 0d for marrying Sarah, daughter of James Bickley, without the governor’s licence. The marriage had been made contrary to an Act of Parliament passed for that purpose. The fine was to be paid to the poor of the island. He was also ordered to suffer one month’s imprisonment. The vessel was fined a further £0 5s 0d for the same poor. This reduced punishment was not to be used as a precedent in future cases.

Beadock was then excused from paying the fine. His great poverty was considered. His debts were also considered, and he was described as almost distracted.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

A margin note added that Mr Jethro Beadock was minister of the good ship King William, which was bound homeward from the South Seas for Martinique, Jamaica and Jewell. The note also stated that James Bickley’s daughter had been married without the governor’s licence or Bickley’s consent.

Interpretations

The governor’s licence was treated as a legal control over marriage on St Helena. The case showed that marriage was not only a private or religious act. It also fell under island authority, especially where guardianship, consent and inheritance may have been involved.

The reference to the poor of the island showed how fines were used as local welfare funding. Punishment did not only mark wrongdoing. It also moved money into a recognised public fund.

The refusal to make the reduced punishment a precedent mattered. The council wished to show mercy to Beadock because of poverty and debt, but it also protected its future power to punish similar marriages more strictly.

The margin note’s reference to Bickley’s lack of consent sharpened the issue. Sarah was not presented simply as a woman who married without licence. She was linked to a deceased father, guardianship and missing family consent. That made the marriage a challenge to household authority as well as to government control.

Speculations

The fine was imposed and then excused because the council needed to defend the governor’s authority without pushing a poor and indebted man beyond use. The order preserved the rule, while the remission answered Beadock’s condition.

The note that Beadock was attached to a ship bound from the South Seas towards Martinique, Jamaica and Jewell probably mattered because he was transient. The council may have treated the marriage as a risk because a visiting ship’s officer or minister could leave the island after marrying a local woman without licence or family consent.

216

216

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Wednesday
the 15th day of October 1701 Att Fort James

Stepn Poirier Governr
Jno Houblon Depty Governr
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne
Edward Edmunds 4th in Councill

Presnt

Whereas the Rt Honoble Compa hath been pleased to send
us a Journey, but omitted to give us any Instructions Concerning
whose Servant the Prson, or their Servants sent to us, that If wee have thought fitt
to send for the said [...] and discourse him, who saith the
said Mr Hornby Compa promised him three Pounds p moneth and
his diet at ye first rate Table, however haveing such amts wee
have thought fitt to allow him no more Salary then the
Rt Honoble Court allows Forty shilling p moneth to be sett
at ye Table till wee have Order from our Rt Honoble masters

Thomas Abby Soldr who came to the said Island p the
good ship Rattle Snake that wee would be pleased to give him
Leave and Liberty to take his Passage on board the Shipp Home
Captn Lane Comander now in ye road and bound for Bombay
Upon Consideration that we are not in great necessity of Soldrs
and that being very much skilled in millitary Discipline he may be
usefull at the said Bombay and accordingly

It is ordered

That the said Abby take his Passage on board ye said shipp
Calld, Rld to Bombay, and as for his Passage the said Commander to
agree with one said Mr Hornby the mustar according to his own desire

Margin Notes:
The Governr Sends for Mr
Bland to have ye Journys
Salary be his own
offer but withall to
Commrd order to serve
his Honour

Thomas Abby Soulett’r
Serves ye Compas as a
Souldr five years
at Bombay

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Wednesday 15 October 1701.

Stephen Poirier, governor, John Houblon, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

The Honourable Company had sent a journey [...]. The manuscript was unclear at that word, but the margin note identified the man as Mr Bland. No instructions had been sent about whose servant he was, or about the servant or servants sent with him. Mr Bland was therefore called in and spoken to.

Mr Bland said that Mr Hornby, of the Company, had promised him £3 0s 0d a month and his meals at the first-rate table. The council had no instructions to support that amount. It therefore allowed him only the salary which the Honourable Court allowed, £2 0s 0d a month. He was to eat at the table until further orders were received from the Honourable Company. The margin note added that the governor sent for Mr Bland about the salary for the journey [...], and that the pay had been discussed as his own offer. It also stated that he was ordered to serve the governor.

Thomas Abby, a soldier who came to St Helena in the good ship Rattle Snake, asked for leave to take passage on the ship Home, commanded by Captain Lane, then in the road and bound for Bombay.

The council considered that St Helena was not in great need of soldiers. Abby was also very skilled in military discipline and could be useful at Bombay. Permission was therefore given for him to take passage on the Home to Bombay.

Captain Lane was to agree Abby’s passage with Mr Hornby, the muster, according to Abby’s own request. The margin note added that Thomas Abby, soldier, was to serve the Company as a soldier for five years at Bombay.

Interpretations

The dispute over Mr Bland’s pay showed how appointments from England could arrive without full local instructions. The council did not accept a private promise from Mr Hornby as enough authority. Pay and diet were tied to orders from the Honourable Court and could be reduced until those orders arrived.

The first-rate table marked rank and cost as well as food. Admission to that table placed Mr Bland within the higher Company household on the island, even while his wage was cut.

Thomas Abby’s transfer showed that soldiers were Company labour as well as military personnel. The council judged where his skill was most useful and moved him from St Helena to Bombay because the island had no urgent need for him.

The five-year term at Bombay turned passage into service. Abby was not merely allowed to travel. His movement was linked to a fixed obligation to serve the Company as a soldier there.

Speculations

Mr Bland’s salary was probably reduced because the council wanted to avoid creating a charge on the island treasury without written authority from the Honourable Company. His meals were allowed, but his cash wage was held to the recognised Company rate.

Abby’s departure was probably approved because it solved two practical issues at once. St Helena carried no pressing need for him, while Bombay could use a man trained in military discipline under a five-year term of service.

217

217

Whereas in the Consultation had the 9th day of Septembr Last
Past It was agreed and ordered that Thomas Easton Soldr should be
Confined within the ffort as a Prisoner for Committing adultery
with Sarah Simmons untill such time as an outward bound
Shipp should Arrive here and then to be Sent to Bombay to serve
the Rt Honoble Compa Whereas also who had this day three Choices
Put to him, that is Either to go to Bombay According to our order
or to England or Else remaine on ye said Island till ye Seven
years of Imprisonmt Banishment be Expired that then he
may marry his wife who Choose to go for England being
his native Country, therefore

It is ordered

That the said Thomas Easton Continue Prisoner within
the ffort untill such time as an outward Bound shipp Arrive
here in this road and then to take his Passage for England

Tho Goodwin
Edwd Edmunds

Margin Notes:
Thomas Easton to
Remaine in a prison[er]
untill a shipp arrives
here for England and
then he is to take his
passage on said shipp.

At a consultation held on 9 September 1701, Thomas Easton, soldier, had been ordered to be confined as a prisoner within the fort. He had committed adultery with Sarah Simmons. He was to remain there until an outward-bound ship arrived, and he was then to be sent to Bombay to serve the Honourable Company.

Easton was given three choices on this day. He could go to Bombay under the earlier order. He could go to England. Or he could remain on St Helena until the seven years of imprisonment and banishment had ended, after which he could marry his wife.

Easton chose to go to England, his native country. Thomas Easton was therefore ordered to remain a prisoner within the fort until an outward-bound ship arrived in the road. He was then to take passage for England.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

The margin note repeated that Thomas Easton was to remain a prisoner until a ship arrived for England, and that he was then to take passage on that ship.

Interpretations

Easton’s punishment joined imprisonment, banishment and forced movement. The council did not treat adultery only as a private offence. It used confinement and removal to protect social order on the island.

The three choices gave Easton limited consent within a punishment already fixed by authority. Bombay, England and continued confinement were not equal freedoms. Each option kept him under the council’s control until he was removed or until the seven-year term ended.

The reference to an outward-bound ship showed that punishment depended on shipping. Easton could not be removed until a suitable vessel reached the road. Until then, the fort served as both military site and prison.

Speculations

England was probably allowed as an alternative because it removed Easton from St Helena as effectively as Bombay. The council’s main aim was to take him out of the island community after the adultery with Sarah Simmons.

The option to remain until he could marry his wife suggests that the council saw the offence as a disorder in household and sexual discipline. The seven-year term created distance before any lawful remarriage or marital settlement could be considered.

218

218

Whereas in the Consultation had the 9th day of Septembr Last
Past. It was agreed and ordered that Thomas Easton Soldr: Would be
Confined within the ffort as a Prisoner for Committing adultery
with Sarah Simmons untill such time as an outward bound
shipp should Arrive here and then to be sent to Bombay to serve
the Rt Honoble Compa Whereas also: who had this day three Choices
Put to him, that is Either to go to Bombay According to our order
or to England or Else remaine on ye said Island till ye Seven
years of Imprisonmt & Banishment be Expired that then he
may marry his wife who Choose to go for England being
his native Country: therefore

It is ordered

That the said Thomas Easton Continue Prisoner within
the ffort untill such time as an outward Bound shipp Arrive
here in this road and then to take his Passage for England

Tho Goodwin
Edwd Edmunds

Margin Notes:
Thomas Easton to
Remaine in a Prisoner
untill a shipp arrives
here for England and
then he is to take his
passage on Said Ship.

At a consultation held on 9 September 1701, Thomas Easton, soldier, had been ordered to be confined as a prisoner within the fort. He had committed adultery with Sarah Simmons. He was to remain there until an outward-bound ship arrived, and he was then to be sent to Bombay to serve the Honourable Company.

Easton was given three choices on this day. He could go to Bombay under the earlier order. He could go to England. Or he could remain on St Helena until the seven years of imprisonment and banishment had ended. He could then marry his wife.

Easton chose to go to England, his native country. Thomas Easton was therefore ordered to remain a prisoner within the fort until an outward-bound ship arrived in the road. He was then to take passage for England.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

The margin note repeated that Thomas Easton was to remain a prisoner until a ship arrived for England, and that he was then to take passage on that ship.

Interpretations

Easton’s punishment joined imprisonment, banishment and forced movement. The council did not treat adultery only as a private offence. Confinement and removal were used to protect social order on the island.

The three choices gave Easton limited consent within a punishment already fixed by authority. Bombay, England and continued confinement were not free choices. Each kept him under the council’s control until he was removed or until the seven-year term ended.

The road was the anchorage off St Helena. The order depended on a ship arriving there. Until then, the fort served as both military site and prison.

Speculations

England was probably allowed as an alternative because it removed Easton from St Helena as effectively as Bombay. The council’s main aim was to take him out of the island community after the adultery with Sarah Simmons.

The option to remain until he could marry his wife suggests that the council saw the offence as a disorder in household and sexual discipline. The seven-year term created distance before any lawful remarriage or marital settlement could be considered.

219

219

John Edgley Humbly Petitioned that we would be Pleased
to Entertaine him in the Rt Honble Compa Pay and service
as a Soldier

It is ordered

That the said Edgleys request be granted his Pay Commen
cing from this Day

Tho Goodwin
Edwd Edmunds

Margin Notes:
John Edgly Entertaind
into ye Compa: Service
as a Soldier

John Edgley petitioned to be taken into the Honourable Company’s pay and service as a soldier.

His request was granted. His pay was to begin on that day.

220

220

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Thursday the 17th Day of Octobr 1701 Att the
Rt Hono:ble Compa Castle Goome, near Fort James,

Stepn Poirier Governr & Judge
John Houblon Depty Governr
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne
Edwd Edmunds 4th in Councill

Presnt

After the Court was opened According to the
usuall manner, there persons appointed for Jurors are as
followeth.

John Reid foreman one
John Medge 2
Wm Meers 3
James Race 4
James Waringham 5
Edw Parsby 6
Thomas Dixon 7
Wm King 8
John Avery 9
Thomas Seacres 10
[...] Mills 11
John Edgley 12 who were
all sworne

Jonathan Dufton free Partie made Complaint
of Edward Heath Bls:m an Action of the Case, Saying that
he made a Punctuall Bargaine wth said Edwd Heath to find
a Blackman Slave of his Edwards for ye worke of an other Black
wth a Promise to have both or any one of them when he had any
occasion, and demanded them, and Accordingly having occasion for
that black as Labourer for ye exchange of ye other or home the said

Margin Notes:
Edward Heath Tyrall
about Deceaving Jona:
Dufton Black and ha
ving his legg broken in
ye sd Heath service &c.

A consultation was held on Thursday 17 October 1701 at the Honourable Company’s Castle Goome, near Fort James, St Helena.

Stephen Poirier, governor and judge, John Houblon, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

The court was opened in the usual way. The jurors appointed were John Reid as foreman, John Medge, William Meers, James Race, James Waringham, Edward Parsby, Thomas Dixon, William King, John Avery, Thomas Seacres, [...] Mills and John Edgley. All twelve were sworn.

Jonathan Dufton, a free party, complained against Edward Heath, blacksmith, in an action on the case. He said that a firm bargain had been made with Heath. Under it, one of Heath’s black slaves was to be supplied for the work of another black slave. Dufton said that Heath had promised that both slaves, or either one of them, would be available when Dufton needed them and asked for them.

The case concerned alleged deceit against Jonathan Dufton over a black slave. One black slave’s leg had also been broken while in Heath’s service.

Interpretations

The sworn jury showed that this consultation was acting as a court. The governor sat as judge, and the council formed part of the island’s legal machinery.

An action on the case was a flexible civil claim. Here it was used for an alleged broken bargain and deceit, rather than for a simple debt or direct physical trespass.

The bargain treated slave labour as exchangeable work capacity. The dispute was not framed around the slave’s injury as personal harm to the slave. It was framed through service, labour value and the obligations between Dufton and Heath.

The broken leg mattered because it turned a labour arrangement into a claim about loss and responsibility. The injury occurred while the black slave was in Heath’s service, so the court had to consider who bore the cost of that damaged labour.

221

221

Edward Heath denyed to send them, betraying him, and Since the
said Black hath broken one of his Leggs in ye said Heaths Service
might have kept being worked as aforesd &c. Whereupon ye said Jonathan
Dufton Humbly desired that ye said Edwd Heath might be
ordered to make payment to ye Surgeon for Cureing his Black Legg,
and likewise to receive him Cond ye said Heath /

The said Edward Heath owning ye Bargaine, but denyed that
the said Jonathan Dufton sent for his said Black to his knowledge, and
that he ye Said Heath had told his wife that they might keep both ye
Black one week Longer and a day or two before the said that broke his
Legg, therefore presume to be an injustice to pay for ye Cure/

Mary ye sd Edward Heath wife saith that one of Mr Getlands
the said Jona Duftons mother in law Black girles came to their house
and told she had sent for ye said Black therefore she presented Come home
who told the said Girl to come with him, but when he came home, she
wished him but to Carry a bagg of grass on ye main ridge sent
immediately agreed to the same under whom that hence he broke his Legg,
but that that was not obliged to find ye said Dufton his Black
he having don so since ever & had given him Liberty to keep him one
week Longer as promised and desired when the said Black happend to
break his Legg/

The said Jona: Dufton denyed that any of
the said Mr Heath to be at any charge in his the said Black cure and
Longer offering to take his oath of ye same, and to have ordered the said
Edward Heath wife to ye Contrary as aforesaid Likewise one or other many
such manner the matter therefore became any [...] to insim [...] of
Humphrey Beard without /

Edward Heath request saith of the Jurors to Consider what
damage he makes that Dufton keeps one at Home but his said
his wife who says he told the whole truth that she would send him when
he came home/

John Edgley saith that one of Mr Getlands Black Girls
came to his sister and said some had sent her for Toby who told his the would
said him by and by/

Margin Notes:
whereas

Dufton sent for his
Toby who came to his sister and
said him by and by/

Edward Heath denied that he had failed to send the slaves when required, or that he had betrayed Jonathan Dufton. Since Dufton’s black slave had broken one of his legs while in Heath’s service, Dufton asked that Heath be ordered to pay the surgeon for curing the leg. He also asked that Heath receive the slave back in the condition in which he then was.

Heath admitted the bargain. He denied that Dufton had sent for his slave in any way known to him. He said that he had told his wife that both black slaves could be kept for one week longer. The slave broke his leg a day or two before that extra week ended. Heath therefore argued that it would be unjust to make him pay for the cure.

Mary, Edward Heath’s wife, said that one of Mr Getland’s black girls, belonging to Jonathan Dufton’s mother-in-law, came to their house. The girl said that she had been sent for Toby. Mary said that Toby was told to come home, and that the girl was told to come with him. When Toby came home, Mary asked him only to carry a bag of grass on the main ridge. He agreed at once. His leg was broken while doing that work.

Mary said that she was not obliged to provide Dufton with his black slave, because that had already been done. She also said that permission had been given for him to be kept one week longer. The accident happened within that time.

Jonathan Dufton denied that Heath had been asked to bear any charge for the cure of the black slave. He offered to swear to this. The manuscript was unclear in the next passage, but Dufton also denied that he had given any order to Mary Heath contrary to what had been said. The matter then became unclear, with a possible reference to Humphrey Beard.

Edward Heath asked the jurors to consider what damage had been caused. The manuscript was unclear, but the point concerned Dufton keeping one slave at home while the other was with Heath. Heath relied on his wife’s account and said that she had told the whole truth. She had said that she would send Toby when he came home.

John Edgley said that one of Mr Getland’s black girls came to his sister. The girl said that she had been sent for Toby. His sister said that she would send him shortly.

Interpretations

The dispute turned on control of slave labour under a private bargain. Toby’s injury was treated as a loss in service and value, not as harm to him as a person. The court focused on who had the right to direct his work when the accident happened.

The testimony of Mary Heath and John Edgley mattered because the case depended on notice. If Dufton had sent for Toby, and Heath’s household kept him or put him to work anyway, responsibility could shift towards Heath. If Toby remained there under the agreed extra week, Heath’s defence became stronger.

The black girl from Mr Getland’s household acted as a messenger between households. Her role showed how slave and servant labour also carried instructions, demands and claims between island families.

Speculations

Heath probably stressed the extra week because it gave him a practical defence. If Toby was still with him by permission, the broken leg could be framed as an accident during agreed service rather than a refusal to return Dufton’s slave.

Dufton’s request that Heath receive the slave back in his injured condition suggests that the dispute was not only about the surgeon’s bill. It also concerned who would bear the reduced labour value of Toby after the injury.

222

222

John Oswald Surgeon being sworne saith that about a weeke after
that Jonathan Duffish Clark brought his legg of david ffletcher
wife, and he haveing some discourse about the said Black the said Wom[...]
that y:e said david Duffish had sent for the Black but she sent him
a peice and got a Cabbage of yams to lett on y:e manaridge made w:th
the Black his legg:

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed nigh
an houre, then returned their verdict, that the said Edw:d
ffletcher did sell off y:e said Jona: Duffish, and to stay y:e
Cure of said Black legg, and believe him to his brother
and also to pay y:e damage and Charges of Court.

Arthur Bradley made Complaint against Jno ffletcher
Heathman Constable in behalfe of Cashyer that he had taken from
him twenty seaven Shillings, and had delivered on which was two Bernatha Dollars
which was found in y:e Custody of Geo D[...]y, there fore y:e County
Ordered that y:e said Justice might be Compelled to make him satis-
faction of y:e said money so Taken,

The said Henry Jones & said Bradley Action, saying that
these two whau[...]dred heads of Crofe of Beef [...] gave him
though they were part of some money he lost some time ago,

Jordly wife of david Crobby being sworne saith
that she being at y:e said Gallews house asking to his wife in y:e name
of her husband went out of y:e said house one Sunday morning to search
the house, and as she was stooping found the said two dollars lying
on an Iron oven [...] of which judgement was had upon a Jury viz:t
Their Immediatly p[ro]ceed to y:e said place & said him, the said Jourd over
Deacon, who strove to hide [...] he had got some
money got said two dollars he bobbled put into his Pocket so in another
week since and abou[...] half an houre after to the said Justice B[...]
this desponent not to say any thing about these two Dollars, for he
would Examine his Black to see if he could get any more money of
them, haveing observed (as she thought) that there was some money
of leather, saith that there two dollars now produced was y:e very same
she found & delivered to y:e said Justice.

Edward Crosley being sworne saith that he was at y:e said
Justices house wh[e] y:e said Bradley brought a cow, some yams and
Potatoes of him, and saw the said Bradley pay the said Gallew some
money, amongst which was a mild Spanish Dollar, which the said

Margin Notes:
Celen: Heath on [...]
Jonathan Duff[...]s
pay of the Cure of said
Blacke legg & fored
6:s Damag[e].

At the 23rd day Com-
plaint against [...]
Geo saying that he had
Stolen twenty Seaven
Dollars.

[...]

John Oswald, surgeon, was sworn. He said that about a week after the injury, Jonathan Duffish Clark brought the broken leg of David Fletcher’s wife. The manuscript was unclear here. Oswald had some discussion about the black slave. The woman said that David Duffish had sent for the black slave, but she sent him a piece and got a basket of yams to carry on the main ridge. The black slave’s leg was broken during that work.

The jury withdrew for almost an hour. They then returned their verdict. They found that Edward Fletcher had deceived Jonathan Duffish. He was to pay for the cure of the black slave’s leg. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but the order also concerned returning or delivering the black slave to his brother. Fletcher was also to pay damages and the charges of court. The damages were recorded as 6s 0d.

Arthur Bradley complained against John Fletcher, Heathman, constable, on behalf of Cashyer. Bradley said that Fletcher had taken £1 7s 0d from him. Two Bernatha dollars were also involved. They were found in the custody of George D[...]. Bradley asked that the justice be compelled to make satisfaction for the money taken.

Henry Jones answered Bradley’s action. The manuscript was unclear in parts, but he said that two [...] hundred heads of [...] of beef [...] had been given to him. He said that they were part of money which he had lost some time before.

Jordly, wife of David Crobby, was sworn. She said that she had been at the house of [...] Gallew. She spoke to his wife in her husband’s name. On one Sunday morning she went out of the house to search. As she stooped, she found the two dollars lying on an iron oven [...]. Judgment on this matter was put before a jury.

The manuscript was unclear in the next passage. The jury or officers went at once to the place. Jordly said that [...] Deacon tried to hide [...]. He had got some money. The two dollars were put into his pocket. About half an hour later, Justice B[...] told this witness not to say anything about the two dollars. He said he would examine his black slave to see whether he could get more money from them. Jordly had noticed, as she thought, that there was some money in leather. She said that the two dollars then produced were the same two dollars which she had found and delivered to the justice.

Edward Crosley was sworn. He said that he was at the justice’s house when Bradley brought him a cow, some yams and potatoes. Crosley saw Bradley pay [...] Gallew some money. Among it was a milled Spanish dollar. The manuscript broke off while that dollar was being described.

Interpretations

John Oswald’s evidence mattered because the surgeon’s bill became part of the legal claim. The court treated the cure of the slave’s broken leg as a recoverable cost, tied to the ownership and use of labour.

The jury’s verdict turned the injury into a civil liability. The central issue was not medical harm alone. It was whether deceit and wrongful control of a black slave had caused financial loss to Jonathan Duffish.

The second case showed how small sums, livestock, food and foreign coins moved together in island exchange. Bradley’s payment involved money, a cow, yams and potatoes. The court therefore had to trace value across cash, produce and goods.

The constable and justice appeared in the dispute not only as officers but as men accused of handling contested money. This blurred public authority and private dealings. The court had to judge conduct by men who normally helped enforce order.

Speculations

The instruction by Justice B[...] that Jordly should say nothing about the two dollars was probably important because it suggested concealment. The stated reason was that he wanted to examine his black slave for more money, but the secrecy made the handling of the found coins suspect.

The mention of money in leather suggests that the two dollars may have belonged to a larger hidden amount. That detail would explain why the justice wanted further questioning and why Bradley pressed for satisfaction.

223

223

ffuller refused, and after that the said Bradley and his wife haveing Some
words, he pulled off his Coate to fight y:e said ffuller for takeing his wifes
Part, and then saw the said Bradley wife take off her husbands Shoo[e]
and take what money he had in y:e Stock out, but afterwards shew
her returne him y:e money againe w:ch was in a Bladder, and next
morning the said Bradley told this deponent that he beleived his wife
had pickt his pocket, for he had lost his money And on that day at
Afternoon the[y] made Searche for y:e said Bradleys money, he
was along w:th him at y:e said ffullers house, who altogether being in
Discourse abt y:e said money threw two dollars out of his Pocket
upon enquiry how did I Com about so privately before so many these
Dollars, and when he went home he asked his wife why she had not
was the receiver she never said him of those two dollars she found, who
replyed because y:e said Justice bid thee not Say any thing of them.

Phillip Lagnet Sn:r being sworne saith that he
saw the said Bradley & the said Justice Some money amongst
which he noticed one of y:e aforesaid dollars and heard Bradley say there
next wanting till he had all his money.

The said Bradley made oath that one of those two remarkable
Dollars was one of the twenty seaven Dollars he lost, but Cannot possitively
sweare to the other.

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed about
halfe an houre then brought in their verdict as followeth.

That the said Jno Justice was Com[...]ted to take and to pay
the said Bradley thirty Ducatts and Damage besides Court Charges.

Juries Verdict for Court.

That the said Justice be fined for Steiring money to Stifle the
Evidence and contense hiding y:e Evidence 4 months or 3 [...] on the
said Justice after Some of y:e rest unanimously

Margin Notes:
[...] ffuller Ref[...]
the [...] of y:e Bradly
the [...]
Money Dollar & formed
the same Damage and
the same five Shillings
to the Company.

Fuller refused. Afterwards Bradley and his wife quarrelled. Bradley took off his coat to fight Fuller because Fuller had taken his wife’s part.

Edward Crosley saw Bradley’s wife take off her husband’s shoe and remove the money he had hidden in the stocking. She later returned the money to him. It was kept in a bladder.

The next morning Bradley told Crosley that he believed his wife had picked his pocket, because his money was missing. That afternoon a search was made for Bradley’s money. Crosley went with him to Fuller’s house. While they were all talking about the money, two dollars were thrown from a pocket. The manuscript was unclear about whose pocket it was. The people present asked how these dollars had appeared so privately in front of so many witnesses.

When Crosley returned home, he asked his wife why she had never told him about the two dollars she had found. She replied that Justice [...] had told her not to say anything about them.

Philip Lagnet Senior was sworn. He said that he saw Bradley and the justice with some money. Among it he noticed one of the dollars already mentioned. He heard Bradley say that the rest was still missing until all his money was found.

Bradley swore that one of the two distinctive dollars was one of the twenty-seven dollars he had lost. He could not swear positively to the other.

The jury withdrew for about half an hour. They then gave their verdict. The manuscript was unclear in part, but they found that John Justice was to pay Bradley thirty ducats, with damages and the charges of court.

The jury also gave a verdict for the court. Justice was fined for stirring money to stifle evidence and for hiding evidence. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but the fine or punishment appeared to involve four months or three [...]. Part of the rest was agreed unanimously. Fuller refused [...]. The matter concerned Bradley and the money dollar. The same damages were found, with a further 5s 0d to the Company.

Interpretations

The bladder and stocking showed how money was carried and concealed in daily life. The dispute turned on physical possession, not only on formal ownership. The court traced the money through shoes, pockets, household talk and hidden containers.

Justice’s instruction that the found dollars should not be mentioned became central. The jury treated concealment of evidence as a wrong against the court, not only as a private injury to Bradley. That was why a separate verdict was given for the court.

The ducat award showed that foreign coin and mixed currency circulated in St Helena disputes. The court did not reduce the case to sterling alone. It used the currency form that best matched the money at issue.

Speculations

Fuller’s refusal and Bradley’s attempt to fight him suggest that the quarrel over the missing money had already become a household conflict before it reached court. Fuller’s support for Bradley’s wife made the money dispute into a dispute over credibility inside the household.

The two dollars being produced during a group discussion was probably decisive because it exposed a hidden chain of custody. The court could then connect the missing money, the wife’s silence and Justice’s instruction not to speak about the coins.

224

224

Henry Calles marriner made Complaint against John
Hemmon for an Action of Defamation for that he the said
John Hemmon had reported openly to divers people that there was, nor
never had been any mischief such thing askt God that he had a hand
in it, which is a great staine to his y:e said Calles Reputation there-
fore humbly desired that the said Hemmon might be cleare
him of such a false report, and accordingly to be proceeded against,

John Oswald being sworne saith that he heard the said
Hemmond and Calles have some high words, the said Hemmon
said there’s but little mischief acted on this Island but he was
the main Instrument in it, what is that sayes y:e said Calles
do you mean y:e two Gunn ridge stamps, the said Hemmond
Replyed not only that but many more

Wm Pollard being sworne saith the same as the said
John oswald Capt Bradley Deposed

The said Hemmon saith that he being on y:e Island
one Council day the said Calles Commanded one of y:e soldiers on y:e Guard
to go and Call Somebody whomeupon the said Hemmon asked you
Have no business M:r Calles to Command any man on y:e Guard
what y:e said Calles saith thats Commanders Guard, and as for
what y:e said Calles hath alledged against him he does not Re-
member any thing of it,

Then the Jury withdrew and stayed about half
an houre, Then returned their verdict that the said Hemmon
was Cast in suite, and to pay the said Calles twenty Shillings
Damage, and Charges of Court

Walter Beloved made Complaint against John
Wells for the value of Leonard Hunt in an Action of Defamation
for the giveing him very bad Language, as Calling him Scotch
dogg theife rogue, and such like names, and besides struck him
two blowes in the face the Best blood out of him, There
Hunt desired that he might be proceeded against accord-
ing to his offence.

Margin Notes:
Henry
Calles Complaints
ag:t John Hemons
Defameng of him &c.

Hemons Cast by Calles &c.
to pay Calles twenty
Shillings.

Walt:r Beloved Complain:t
ag:t Kellow Wells for
Leon: Hunt for Defa-
ming of him &c.

Henry Calles, mariner, complained against John Hemmon in an action for defamation. Calles said that Hemmon had openly told several people that there had never been any mischief on the island in which Calles had not had a part. Calles said this seriously damaged his reputation. He asked that Hemmon be made to clear him of the false report and that the case be pursued.

John Oswald was sworn. He said that he had heard Hemmon and Calles exchange angry words. Hemmon said that little mischief had been done on the island without Calles being the main instrument in it. Calles asked whether Hemmon meant the two gun-ridge stamps. Hemmon answered that he meant not only that matter, but many more.

William Pollard was sworn. He gave the same evidence as John Oswald. Captain Bradley also gave the same evidence.

Hemmon answered that, on one council day, Calles had ordered one of the soldiers on guard to call somebody. Hemmon asked Calles what right he had to command a man on guard. Calles answered that it was the commander’s guard. Hemmon said that he did not remember the words which Calles had alleged against him.

The jury withdrew for about half an hour. They then returned their verdict. Hemmon lost the suit and was ordered to pay Calles £1 0s 0d in damages, with the charges of court.

Walter Beloved complained against John Wells on behalf of Leonard Hunt in an action for defamation. Hunt said that Wells had abused him with severe insults, including “Scotch dog”, “thief”, “rogue” and other names of that kind. Wells had also struck him twice in the face and drawn blood. Hunt asked that Wells be proceeded against according to his offence.

Interpretations

Defamation was treated as a public legal injury because reputation shaped credit, authority and trust within the island community. Calles did not only deny an insult. He asked the court to force Hemmon to remove the stain on his name.

The dispute between Calles and Hemmon also touched military authority. Hemmon’s defence shifted attention to Calles giving an order to a soldier on guard. That made the quarrel about reputation partly a quarrel over who could command guarded men.

The jury’s verdict turned spoken accusation into a money penalty. The damages of £1 0s 0d showed that harmful public speech could be valued and punished through civil process.

Beloved’s complaint on behalf of Leonard Hunt combined verbal abuse with physical violence. The court was asked to deal with both the words and the blows together, because insult and assault both damaged standing in the community.

225

225

The said Leonard Hunts wife saith, she doth Acknowledge that
she struck the said Beloved one Blow, but it was because he struck
her first, and as for y:e rest of his declaration she doth deny it,

The said Beloved desired that Robert Leech might be Called and
sworne who Accordingly was and deposed that he being in his Sisters
Hunt at y:e said Beloveds house, and heard them have some words
about a Shirt and Pockett Handkerchif that y:e said Beloved got up and
said god Dam you do you make a theife of me and strike the said Katherne
Hunt by y:e arme but did hear no oth[r] abusive and bad language
but she offering to Come in againe his mother y:e said Beloveds wife &
Hunt her severall Blows on the face, but did not hear her call
the said Beloved any names at all

Leonard Hunt being sworne saith that he saw the said
Beloved strike his wife a blow w:th his hand on her face, after she
struck him for pinching her by y:e arme,

Then y:e Jury withdrew and stayed nigh halfe an houre
Then returned their verdict that y:e said Beloved was Cast on Suite
and fined 6: shillings Damage to y:e Church, and to pay Charges of Circuitry

It was Ordered by y:e Bench

And y:e said Beloved be fined ten shillings more to y:e use
of y:e Church for reflecting on y:e Jury in Court

M[...]
B[...]
Hugh M[...]
Edw Edwards

Margin Notes:
Beloved Cast by Kather:
Hunt & fined to the use
of y:e Church &c:

Beloved fined Ten
shill more for Reflect-
ing on y:e Jury in Court

Leonard Hunt’s wife acknowledged that she had struck Walter Beloved once. She said she had done so because he struck her first. She denied the rest of Beloved’s statement.

Beloved asked that Robert Leech be called and sworn. Leech was sworn. He said that he had been in his sister Hunt’s [...] at Beloved’s house. He heard them argue about a shirt and a pocket handkerchief. Beloved got up and said, “God damn you, do you make a thief of me?” He then struck Katherine Hunt on the arm. Leech heard no other abusive language from her.

Katherine Hunt then tried to come in again. Beloved’s mother, Beloved’s wife and Hunt [...] gave her several blows on the face. Leech did not hear Katherine Hunt call Beloved any names.

Leonard Hunt was sworn. He said that he saw Beloved strike his wife on the face with his hand after she had struck him for pinching her arm.

The jury withdrew for almost half an hour. They then returned their verdict. Beloved lost the suit. He was fined 6s 0d in damages to the church and was ordered to pay the charges of court.

The bench also ordered that Beloved be fined a further 10s 0d for the use of the church, because he had reflected on the jury in court.

The record was signed by M[...], B[...], Hugh M[...] and Edward Edwards.

Interpretations

The verdict reversed Beloved’s complaint. Although he had brought the case, the sworn evidence showed that he had struck Katherine Hunt and had provoked the quarrel. The court therefore treated him as the losing party.

The payment to the church showed how local penalties could support a religious public fund. The church acted as a recipient of fines, so moral discipline and parish finance were linked.

The extra fine for reflecting on the jury showed that courtroom speech was itself regulated. Beloved was punished not only for the quarrel but also for challenging the authority or integrity of the sworn jurors while court was sitting.

226

226

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Saturday
the 18th day of October 1701 Att Fort James.

Pres.t

Hen: Powar Govern.r
John Trull D[e]p: Govern.r
Thomas Goodwin Ensign[e]
Edward Dominis 4th in Coun:ll

Whereas Thomas Easton Sol[d]r being Confined Prison[e]r
in Fort James Humbly desired that we would Please to grant
him his Liberty, offering George Haskinson for his Security in not to
have any Correspondency w:th Sarah Sinning untill seven years be fully
Expired from y:e time of John Sinnings Banishm.t of the said Island,

George Haskison being Called, was very willing to become bound
unto the R:t Hon:ble Comp:ny in y:e Summe of Tenn Pounds Currant money of
the said Island and Accordingly Entred into Recognizance as followeth,

I George Haskison of the said Island free Planter do hereby Enter
into an obligation under Tenn Pounds Currant money of the said Island, Payable
to y:e R:t Hon:ble Company in case Thomas Easton soldier of y:e said Fort
within the Fort, shall or may have any Correspondency with Sarah
Sinning upon any Acco:t whatsoever, untill y:e Termes are expired of seven
years be fully Expired, from the time that y:e said Sarah Sinning[s]
husbands Banishm:t of the said Island, Witness my hand this 18th day
of Oct:r 1705

George Haskison.

Witnesse[ed] p[er] me
Jos: Alexander

Margin Notes:
Thom:s Easton gives George
Hoskison Security
that he will not have
any Correspondence
w:th Sarah Sinning.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Saturday 18 October 1701.

Henry Powar, governor, John Trull, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Dominis, fourth in council, were present.

Thomas Easton, soldier, was confined as a prisoner in Fort James. He asked to be given his liberty. He offered George Haskison as security that he would have no correspondence with Sarah Sinning until seven full years had passed from the time when John Sinning, Sarah’s husband, was banished from the island.

George Haskison was called. He willingly agreed to be bound to the Honourable Company for £10 0s 0d in current money of St Helena.

Haskison entered into a recognisance. He stated that he, George Haskison of St Helena, free planter, bound himself for £10 0s 0d in current money of the island, payable to the Honourable Company. The money was to be due if Thomas Easton, soldier of the fort, had any correspondence with Sarah Sinning for any reason before the full term of seven years had expired from the time of her husband’s banishment from St Helena.

The obligation was signed by George Haskison on 18 October 1705 and witnessed by Joseph Alexander.

Interpretations

The recognisance turned Easton’s release into a financial bond. The Company did not rely only on Easton’s promise. It made Haskison liable for £10 0s 0d if Easton renewed contact with Sarah Sinning.

Haskison’s role as a free planter mattered because he supplied local credit and social control. His standing made him useful as surety. The system used one island resident’s property to restrain another man’s conduct.

The ban on correspondence controlled more than physical meetings. It barred communication “upon any account whatsoever”. The order therefore aimed to prevent renewed intimacy, planning or contact between Easton and Sarah Sinning during John Sinning’s banishment.

John Sinning’s banishment set the time limit for Easton’s restraint. The council linked Easton’s liberty to the punishment already imposed on Sarah’s husband, which showed how adultery was handled through the control of several connected people.

Speculations

Easton was probably released because Haskison’s bond gave the council a practical substitute for imprisonment. The fort no longer had to hold Easton if a financially responsible planter could be made answerable for his conduct.

The seven-year bar on contact was probably designed to preserve the effect of John Sinning’s banishment. Without it, Easton and Sarah Sinning could have resumed contact while her husband remained absent from the island.

227

227

Robert Abbey Mate being desirous to go off in the good Ship
S[...] frigatt Cap:t Lane Commander bound for Bombay we have granted
his request but he Standing Indebted unto the Rt Hono:ble Comp:a
on their Store book of Acco:t y:e Summe of forty Six Shillings.

It is ordered

That the very Abbey take his passage on board y:e said Shipp and
give a bond for the said Summe to be paid the Gen:ll att Bombay, And
According to the said Comp:a Accotant, to have Credit for y:e same
and consequently the Store keeper discharged from y:e said Debt.

Margin Notes:
Rob:t Abbey Sold:r to
go for Bombay and to
have his bond for Forty
Six Shill:s to be paid
y:e Gen:ll of Bombay, he being
so much Indebted to the
Hon:ble Company.

Robert Abbey, mate, wished to leave St Helena in the good ship S[...] Frigatt, commanded by Captain Lane and bound for Bombay. His request was granted.

Abbey owed the Honourable Company £2 6s 0d on its store account book. He was ordered to take passage on the ship and give a bond for that sum. The money was to be paid to the general at Bombay.

When the bond was given, the Company accountant was to credit the sum. The storekeeper was then to be discharged from responsibility for the debt.

Interpretations

The order allowed Abbey to leave, but it protected the Company’s account before he departed. His debt was not forgiven. It was transferred into a bond payable at Bombay.

The store book recorded credit given through the Company store. The storekeeper could be held answerable for unpaid balances, so the bond protected both the Company’s money and the officer responsible for the account.

Bombay acted as another point in the same Company system. Abbey’s debt could follow him across the Indian Ocean because the Company’s accounts, officers and authority connected St Helena to Bombay.

228

228

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on
Tuesday y:e 28:th 1701 Att Fort James./
Octobr

Pres:t

Step: Poirier Govern:r
John Trullis Dep:ty Govern:r
Thomas Goodwin Ensign
Edward Edmund 4:th in Coun:ll

Philip Lengell Complain:t made Complaint to y:e
Govern:r & Councill that Arthur Bradley Sold:r had Reported that he
know certainly Eliz: Morris, and had like to have been y:e death of
another woman,

The said Bradley Saith he knowes nothing of what the said Philip
Lengel hath alledged against him./

The said Suit saith that next morning after the Report was
made the said Bradley came to his house, and being made acquainted
with y:e unfortunate Report before asked the said Lengel and his wife
Pardone being heartily Sorry for what he said upon which drank to
better freindship together, and so made up y:e Difference that happen y:e
night before Therefore

It is ordered

That y:e said Lengel makeing no timely Complaint against y:e
said Bradley, and as before being already accused besides declining or a-
bove y:e Church to make up y:e business, that he rise, and pay the fees
of Councill./

Whereas a Proclamation was fixed out on y:e 17th Instant to
give notice that widow Sanford to leave the upper Garden and Concord
House belonging to the Rt Hon:ble Comp:a for some years and accord-
ingly the Parsons that were minded to hire the said Garden & house
to appeare this day before Govern:r and Councill but no person bidding
more then margaret Cosgrave wid:o who offered Ten Pounds p[er] annum

Margin Notes:
Philip Lengell Complain:t
ag:t Arth:r Bradley for
Reporting of her mor[...]
severall ill[...] manners

Lengell Cast by Bradly
for y:e said Lengells Accost
for y:e said Lengell to
make up y:e Busines[s].

Marg:t Cosgrave Widow
offers Ten pounds p Ann:
for y:e upper Garden
and House &c:

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 28 October 1701.

Stephen Poirier, governor, John Trullis, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmund, fourth in council, were present.

Philip Lengell complained to the governor and council that Arthur Bradley, soldier, had reported that he knew something certain about Elizabeth Morris. The manuscript was unclear, but the report also said that she had almost caused the death of another woman.

Bradley said that he knew nothing about what Lengell had alleged against him.

Lengell said that Bradley came to his house the morning after the report was made. Bradley was told about the unfortunate report before him. He then asked Lengell and his wife for pardon and said that he was truly sorry for what he had said. They drank together in better friendship. The quarrel from the night before was therefore settled.

Because Lengell had made no timely complaint against Bradley, and because the matter had already been settled outside the court, Lengell lost the case. He was ordered to pay the council fees.

A proclamation had been posted on 17 October 1701. It gave notice that Widow Sanford was to leave the upper garden and Concord House, which belonged to the Honourable Company. The garden and house were to be leased for some years. Anyone who wished to hire them had been told to appear before the governor and council on this day.

No one offered more than Margaret Cosgrave, widow. She offered £10 0s 0d a year for the upper garden and house.

Interpretations

The court treated delay and private settlement as important. Lengell’s case failed because he had not complained in time and because the quarrel had already been settled by apology, pardon and shared drink.

The payment of council fees punished a failed complaint and protected the court from being used after a dispute had already been resolved. It also made litigation costly where the council judged that formal action was unnecessary.

The upper garden and Concord House were Company property. The proclamation and bidding process showed that Company land and housing were leased through public notice and council control, not by private arrangement alone.

Margaret Cosgrave’s bid showed that widows could take part in Company property markets. Her offer of £10 0s 0d a year placed her as a direct tenant of Company property.

229

229

It is ordered & agreed

That the said Marg:t Cosgrave have the said Garden and
Concord house at y:e rate of Ten Pounds p Ann[um] Commencing
from the 25:th day of March ensuing, for y:e Terme of three years
and at y:e Expiration of said three years to Leave the same in as good
a Condition as sh[e] rec[e]d all damages by floods and hurricanoes
w[inds] Excepted./

Whereas we being in great Expectation of war,
we have thought fitt to have Provisions here following placed at the
Severall Places hereafter mentioned viz:t

Att the great fort 24 Ceices great and small to manage y:e Gunns
Att the Hole batterie 10 d:o to throw down Rockes into y:e Vall[e]y
Att the two Spr[ings] 12 d:o to Throw downe [...]
Att Thompson Vall[e]y 6 d:o for y:e same Purpose
Att Bankses 7 d:o for y:e same Purpose
Att Goats Pen 11 d:o to fetch Sheep to y:e fort for y:e Gunns
Att Lemon Vall[e]y 8 d:o to fetch for Same purpose
76

Arthur Bradley made Complaint that John Justice Come
to his house the thing amount according to y:e Rats made him y:e said Bradley
to Say him of y:e most sols. haveing him of Prison time to time

The said Justice being Called and ask y:e Reason why he did not
make y:e said Bradley Satisfaction, made Answer that he had not money
at present, but as soon as he got any he would make him Satisfaction,

It is ordered

That y:e said Justice pay y:e said Bradley y:e Summe of 8 dollars
within one months time & fees to be paied

Whereas the old Lemon house was pulled down some time ago
to prevent the walles falling, and being very need-
sary to have another builded againe for y:e Benefitt of y:e Publick

Margin Notes:
Marg:t Cosgrave to have
the Garden & house at
£10 p Ann for three
years.

Severall Places troops
Placed in case of
breach thereon down
rockes &c.

Arth:r Bradley Complain:t
ag:t John Justice for y:e
money to pay him
a doll:r according to my
order.

Officers to pay y:e
only in a months time
or be prosecuted

New Lemon house to be
built.

Margaret Cosgrave was granted the upper garden and Concord House at £10 0s 0d a year. The lease was to begin on 25 March 1702 and run for three years. At the end of the term, she was to leave the property in as good a condition as she had received it. Damage caused by floods and hurricanes was excepted.

Because war was expected, stores and men were ordered to be placed at several locations.

At the great fort, 24 men, great and small, were to manage the guns.

At the Hole Battery, 10 men were to throw rocks down into the valley.

At the Two Springs, 12 men were to throw down [...].

At Thompson Valley, six men were to serve the same purpose.

At Bankses, seven men were to serve the same purpose.

At Goat’s Pen, 11 men were to fetch sheep to the fort for the guns.

At Lemon Valley, eight men were to fetch sheep for the same purpose.

The total was 76 men.

Arthur Bradley complained that John Justice had come to his house about money which was due under an earlier order. The manuscript was unclear in parts, but the matter concerned payment owed by Justice to Bradley.

Justice was called and asked why he had not made satisfaction to Bradley. He answered that he had no money at present, but would pay as soon as he got any.

Justice was ordered to pay Bradley eight dollars within one month. The fees were also to be paid.

The old Lemon House had been pulled down some time before to prevent its walls from falling. A new one was needed for the benefit of the public.

Interpretations

Cosgrave’s lease showed how Company property was managed through fixed rent, term and repair duties. The flood and hurricane exception protected the tenant from being charged for damage caused by disasters beyond ordinary care.

The war preparations placed men at defensive and supply points across the island. The order did not only concern guns. It also used cliffs, valleys, rocks, sheep and movement between posts as part of defence.

The men described as “great and small” were counted as available labour and defence manpower. The island’s emergency plan drew on a broad pool of bodies rather than only trained soldiers.

The order about Justice turned an earlier money award into a deadline. The court allowed a month because he said he lacked cash, but the margin note showed that failure to pay could lead to prosecution.

The new Lemon House was treated as a public necessity. Its rebuilding was not described as a private repair. It was tied to public use and island management.

Speculations

The placement of men to throw rocks into valleys was probably a planned defence against landing parties. The valleys gave access inland, so rocks were used as a cheap local weapon where artillery was not the main defence.

The sheep-fetching parties at Goat’s Pen and Lemon Valley suggest that the fort’s gunners needed food or support during an alarm. The defence plan therefore included supply work as well as fighting positions.

230

230

It is agreed & ordered

That an new Sessions house be builded as soone as Conveniently can
be of thirty six foot in Length, and Sixteen foot in breadth./

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 13th day of novem:
1701. Att Fort James./

Pres:t

Step:n Poirier Govern:r
John Trullis Dep:ty Govern:r
Thomas Goodwin Ensign
Edward Edmunds 4:th in Counc:ll

Grace Coullson widdow made Complaint to y:e Govern:r & Councill
that she had missed y:e loss of Eight Dollars which she Left in y:e
Possession of Mary Hawkes Black, and upon some spying into y:e matter
and Thomas Ashleys Black to have the Dollars, therefore
that he might be Examined how he come by y:e said Eight
Dollars./

Roger the said Thomas Ashleys Black being Examined
Saith that y:e said mary hawkes Black gave him three
Dollars y:e had found in his Pockett./

Tom mary hawkes Black saith that he found nothing of y:e
said money, and if y:e said Rogue proffered to lend him 10 Dollars about
a week since, but he never went for it, and when the said Ashleys
Black and he went a fishing Last week being at y:e Landing place
said he would Pay a bagges of Ten dollars, but he would take the
said Tom about in Coming against him, and if y:e Drake
Runn a shoar he would Pay for it, and when they were in y:e
boate they teyd and the said Rogue Lost his wages, and

Margin Notes:
Grace Coullson Comp:lt
if she hath Lost Eight
Doll:rs & Desire that
Thom:s Ashley Plaice may
be Examined.

A new sessions house was ordered to be built as soon as convenient. It was to be 36 feet long and 16 feet wide.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 13 November 1701.

Stephen Poirier, governor, John Trullis, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

Grace Coullson, widow, complained to the governor and council that she had lost eight dollars. She had left them in the possession of Mary Hawkes’s black slave. After some inquiry into the matter, Thomas Ashley’s black slave was thought to have the dollars. Grace Coullson therefore asked that he be examined about how he came by the eight dollars.

Roger, Thomas Ashley’s black slave, was examined. He said that Mary Hawkes’s black slave had given him three dollars, which had been found in his pocket.

Tom, Mary Hawkes’s black slave, said that he had found none of the money. He said that Roger had offered to lend him ten dollars about a week earlier, but that he had never gone for it.

Tom also said that he and Roger went fishing the previous week. At the landing place, Roger said that he would pay a bag of ten dollars. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but Roger seemed to warn Tom about coming against him. He also said that, if the drake ran ashore, he would pay for it. When they were in the boat, they [...] and Roger lost his wages. The passage then broke off.

Interpretations

The new sessions house showed that court business needed a dedicated public building. The specified size turned legal administration into a planned physical space.

Grace Coullson’s complaint showed that slaves could be entrusted with money and then questioned when it disappeared. The court treated slave possession and speech as relevant evidence, even though the money belonged to a free widow.

The examination of Roger and Tom showed how the council investigated theft through slave testimony. Their statements were used to trace coins, offers to lend money and conduct at the landing place.

The eight dollars mattered because coin was scarce and traceable through possession. The inquiry focused on who had handled the dollars, who had found money and who had suddenly offered to lend a larger sum.

Speculations

Roger’s offer to lend ten dollars probably made him suspect because the missing sum was eight dollars. The larger offer suggested that he had access to money beyond his ordinary means.

The fishing trip may have mattered because it placed Roger and Tom together away from household oversight. The landing place and boat gave the court a setting where money, wages or a hidden exchange could have changed hands.

231

231

when he came home from fishing told his mistris that he had won
Ten dollars of Thomas Ashleys Rogue, and said he would go demand
his Wages to see if the said Rogue had any mony or no, and According
-ly did, but told him he had none, and misses a blackman of James
Rodes standing by made answere he dont Carry his mony about
him, but keeps it all under ground./

Moses James Beers Black being Examined Saith that
he heard ye said Ashleys Rogue say a wager of ten dollars wch to his
Masters Tom that he would Sute him about in ye booke, and being
by when Tom asked him for his Wages made answere privately It
may be he dont Carry mony in this place, but hath it under
ground./

It is ordered

That the said Tom and Rogue be presently whipt on their naked
backs at ye halberds, which was accordingly done, but could Confess
nothing more, and by the Master be Continued asking him in saying
nothing more, and as for Mare he be [...] at the said Tom the [...] of
knowing of [...] the [...] paid [...] but denying yt his
knowing any account thereof

Whereas on Sunday last in ye morning the Governr being
going up into the Chappell to preach meets 16 Blackmen of Mr
Luffkins wth a blackboy on his Back therefore

It is ordered

That the said Mr Luffkins be fined ye sume of ten shillings
to the use of the Church for said Crime for them [...] Sunday
directly to James Fort Church on Sunday

John Dearing Com[mis] being sent for the 7th time for
in that having denied that the Sunday might be Beguned
him as he agreed to the said Com[pa]n[y] Joyne [...] at he was
[...] bargen of ou[ly] [...] metts and pitch at the hole, but we be
all [...] for every [k]ing generall not that Contract, and being more then ordinary
[...] and courteous used to have here he produced some [...] pa[...] guid [...]
wife to Evidence this said Contract wth the said Wm [...] Comp[a]
who being both Examined Saith that they heard ye Company

Margin Notes:

Thom: Ashley & Mary
Jerysfor Black Severely
Whipt, & Marys Negro for
Black to Remaine on [...]
having as ye Selfe Tom he [...]
[...] ye Grace Cog from
mony

mr Cuffkin fined See
Culling’s for maseing
his Black being a custhim
his Back aforn Sunday

John Dearing Commis[...]
w[dece]rs[...]
who had made a bargain
wth ye Comp[an]y for [f]ourty

When Tom came home from fishing, he told his mistress that he had won ten dollars from Thomas Ashley’s Roger. He said he would go and demand his wages, to see whether Roger had any money. He did so, but Roger told him that he had none. A black man belonging to James Rodes stood nearby and answered that Roger did not carry his money about with him, but kept it buried underground.

Moses, a black slave belonging to James Beers, was examined. He said that he had heard Ashley’s Roger make a wager of ten dollars with Tom, who belonged to his master. The manuscript was unclear about the terms of the wager. Moses was also present when Tom asked Roger for his wages. Roger answered privately that perhaps he did not carry money in that place, but kept it underground.

Tom and Roger were ordered to be whipped at once on their naked backs at the halberds. This was done. They confessed nothing more. The manuscript was unclear in the next passage, but further questioning was continued by the master. Tom and Mary Hawkes’s black slave were still connected with the missing money belonging to Grace Coullson, though knowledge of it was denied.

On the previous Sunday morning, the governor was going up into the chapel to preach when he met 16 black slaves belonging to Mr Luffkins. One of them had a black boy on his back. Mr Luffkins was fined 10s 0d for the use of the church, because his black slaves had been sent or allowed to go in that way on Sunday, instead of going directly to James Fort Church.

John Dearing, commissary, was sent for the seventh time. The manuscript was unclear in much of this matter. It concerned a bargain which he said had been made with the Company for metts and pitch at the Hole. The council did not accept the contract as he stated it. He produced witnesses to prove the bargain. The manuscript was unclear in the final words, but those witnesses were examined and said that they had heard the Company [...]

Interpretations

The whipping at the halberds showed how the council used military punishment in a theft inquiry involving slaves. The aim was not only punishment. It was also used to force confession and recover information about hidden money.

The evidence about buried money mattered because it linked sudden access to coin with concealment. The court treated rumours about where Roger kept money as part of the proof around Grace Coullson’s missing eight dollars.

The Sunday fine against Mr Luffkins showed that slave movement was tied to religious discipline. The offence lay not only with the black slaves’ conduct, but with the master who was held responsible for directing them to church properly.

The Dearing matter showed a dispute over Company supply contracts. The council required more than Dearing’s own claim that a bargain had been made. Witnesses were called because a contract with the Company needed proof before it could bind the island administration.

Speculations

Tom’s claim that he had won ten dollars from Roger probably increased suspicion because the amount was larger than the eight dollars Grace Coullson had lost. The wager gave a possible explanation for Roger holding or moving money without admitting theft.

The immediate whipping suggests that the council thought Roger and Tom were withholding information. Their refusal or inability to confess more left the missing money unresolved, but the punishment still marked them as suspect.

232

232

Promise the said Dearing fourty shilling p menth and shall
have the Same Priviledge as others in his Place used to have, but
C[...] say any thing to his diet, wherefore

It is ordered

That the said Dearing have fourty shill: p menth: and
his diet at ye said Mr Howard as others, while theire
further pleasure be knowne therein And yt to be that they
advance him no diet at their Charge, that then the same
Place be deducted out of his morning Sallary for said diet./

James Harris Seaman who absented himselfe from
the Ship Antrobus being very ill [...] desired that we would
be pleased to Consider the poore Condition, and to entertaine
him in ye Mr Harris Compy Service as a Sailor, offering to
serve them ye terme of five years, which request was granted
him, and as being in want of a fitt man to assist of him

It is ordered

That the said James Harris do asist ye Govnr with what he
has occasion of him, and at other times to do Carpenters
duty, his pay Commencing from Thursday next./

Tom a Black man Slave of mary Jeaffers wth being supposed
on suspicion of haveing stoln Eighty dollars of Grace Coulsons money
was this day Examined to see if he would Confess any thing, though the
fact freely Acknowledged that he tooke a false Key and opened
Mrs Coulsons Store wch was at his masters house, whereon the mony was
and tooke out at one time three dollars about three or five years ago
wch he spent in Punch at Rym Wills house, and severall other times
Since tooke out some times four, five, six, seven & Eight Dollars
and gave to Black Betty about three years ago five dollars, and Abel
gave her fifteen dollars more wch was part of Eighty dollars that he
tooke out of ye said Mrs Coulsons box, and about a fortnight ago he
gave ye said Black Betty four dollars more to buy him some Beans
and Tobacco out of the Store, and that she was ye Cause of his stealing
the mony for she bid him trye all ye Keys in ye house to get at

Margin Notes:

John Deoring to have
40.s a Month untill ye
Compas pleasure be
known & if no Diet
be allowed him to pay
for it out of his Salary

James Harris Entred the Ship Antrobus
again in ye Compaes service for
five yeares.

Mary Jeaffers Black on
Examination.

[...]

Dearing’s witnesses said that the Company had promised him £2 0s 0d a month, with the same privileges as others in his place had usually received. They could not say anything about his diet.

Dearing was ordered to receive £2 0s 0d a month and his diet at Mr Howard’s, as others had received it, until the Company’s further wishes were known. If the Company had not allowed him diet at its charge, the cost of that diet was to be deducted from his monthly salary.

James Harris, seaman, had absented himself from the ship Antrobus. He was very ill [...]. He asked the council to consider his poor condition and take him into the Company’s service as a sailor. He offered to serve for five years.

Harris’s request was granted. Because the governor needed a suitable man to assist him, Harris was ordered to help the governor whenever required. At other times he was to do carpenter’s work. His pay was to begin on the following Thursday.

Tom, a black slave belonging to Mary Jeaffers, was suspected of stealing £80 0s 0d from Grace Coulson. He was examined again on this day to see whether he would confess anything.

Tom admitted the offence freely. He said that he had taken a false key and opened Mrs Coulson’s store, which was at his master’s house. The money was there. He first took £3 0s 0d about three or five years earlier and spent it on punch at Rym Will’s house.

Several times after that, Tom took further sums from the store. At different times he took £4 0s 0d, £5 0s 0d, £6 0s 0d, £7 0s 0d and £8 0s 0d.

About three years earlier, he gave Black Betty £5 0s 0d. Abel then gave her £15 0s 0d more. This was part of the £80 0s 0d which Tom had taken from Mrs Coulson’s box.

About a fortnight earlier, Tom gave Black Betty £4 0s 0d more. It was to buy him beans and tobacco from the store. He said that she caused him to steal the money, because she told him to try all the keys in the house to get at [...]

Interpretations

Dearing’s pay dispute turned on the difference between salary, privilege and diet. The council accepted the wage proved by witnesses, but left the cost of food conditional until the Company’s will was known. This protected the local account from an uncertain charge.

Harris’s case showed how a seaman who left a ship could be absorbed into Company service instead of simply punished. Illness, poverty and useful skill shaped the decision. His five-year term turned relief into labour obligation.

Tom’s confession changed the inquiry from suspicion over eight dollars to a much larger and older theft of £80 0s 0d. The theft was not a single act. It was described as repeated access to a store by means of a false key over several years.

The store at Mary Jeaffers’s house showed how private households could hold other people’s money and Company-style stores. That arrangement created trust, access and risk inside domestic space.

Black Betty’s role mattered because Tom presented her as instigator and receiver. The confession linked slave networks, stolen cash, punch, food, tobacco and household keys into one chain of theft and spending.

Speculations

The order about Dearing’s diet was probably designed to avoid a dispute with the Company’s accounts. He was fed for the moment, but the charge could later be recovered from his salary if London had not authorised it.

Harris was probably accepted because his labour could be redirected to immediate island needs. The governor needed assistance, and Harris could also do carpentry. His request for help therefore gave the council a way to secure five years of useful service.

Tom’s claim that Black Betty told him to try the keys may have been meant to reduce his own responsibility. Yet the detailed sums, repeated thefts and spending on punch, beans and tobacco showed that he knew how to use the store’s access for his own purposes over a long period.

233

233

the same, and aboute Six weeks ago gave Six dollars to Roger Sto:
Ashury Clark, and Ten dollars to Mr Wranghams & deere aboute three
weeks ago, and spent very nigh Fourty Dollars at Thomas Ashbeys
house in Punch and Black [B]erry, and aboute five months ago
Spent Twelve dollars at John Walls house in Punch, and Lent 01 dollar
to Robt Jennings, and about a month ago being on a Sunday, he spent
Nine Shillings at y:e above Thomas Ashbeys in Punch, these being
then Mr Seales and Deanes Part of y:e Paid Punch /

Mary Seale being sworne saith that she doth remember
aboute three or four weekes agoe on a Sunday in y:e afternoone she was at
Thomas Ashbeys house, where the said Tom came, and doth believe
he had some breach of the said Ashbey, and she him drink Pinte
of a bote of Punch, but who it was she cant tell /

Riping Wells denyeth that the said Tom had any Punch or
drunk of him at all /

Thomas Ashbey being called and Examined denyes
all what the said Tom hath deposed of his selling him any strong
Drink but doth acknowledge that he gave him a Jiggering Canack
that Sunday as the said mary Seale was at his house /

Robert Jennings upon denying that he had drinking of the said
Henry in his house, the said Tom and Jennings y:e former of that which
the said Strong Line at the window there one Cleggard and what
of the minister, ask him he told the one cup of rom and Lackey

Mary Jacobe widd being Examined saith that she told Magga:
Tom had bee in her house, and Beggar’d filled the back Bayrand
when he asked him whether he desired him to say any thing of it
and could remember no more

The said Jennings saith y:t Mr Gent declared here about y:e
Crime a year ago she being particularly of Committing that Beasley declare
and did advise him not to say anything of it, Beasley it would be a shame
to his reputation notwithstanding y:e Innocency of y:e Crime which
he is at present of y:e s:d Mr Bone / P Wills
Tho Goodwin
Edm Edwards

Margin Notes:
Mary Sees for Black
receives Robt Jennings
Staggering a Black
of his M[aj]ties [serv]ts.

Tom said that, about six weeks earlier, he gave £6 0s 0d to Roger, Thomas Ashley’s black slave. About three weeks earlier, he gave £10 0s 0d to Mr Waringham’s [...] dear. The manuscript was unclear at that point.

Tom said that he had spent almost £40 0s 0d at Thomas Ashbey’s house on punch and black berry. About five months earlier, he spent £12 0s 0d at John Wall’s house on punch. He lent £1 0s 0d to Robert Jennings. About a month earlier, on a Sunday, he spent 9s 0d at Thomas Ashbey’s house on punch. Mr Seale and Deane had part of that punch.

Mary Seale was sworn. She said that she remembered being at Thomas Ashbey’s house on a Sunday afternoon about three or four weeks earlier. Tom came there. She believed he had some [...] from Ashbey. She saw him drink a pint from a bottle of punch, but she could not say whose punch it was.

Riping Wells denied that Tom had any punch from him or drank with him at all.

Thomas Ashbey was called and examined. He denied everything Tom had said about selling him strong drink. He did admit that he gave Tom a jiggering canack on the Sunday when Mary Seale was at his house.

Robert Jennings denied that [...] had drunk in his house. The manuscript was unclear in the next passage. It referred to Tom and Jennings, a former matter, strong liquor at a window, one Cleggard and the minister. Someone asked him about it, and he said there had been one cup of rum and lackey.

Mary Jacobe, widow, was examined. She said that she told Magga that Tom had been in her house. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but it referred to Beggar filling the back [...] and to a question about whether anything should be said of it. She could remember no more.

Jennings said that Mr Gent had declared something about the crime about a year earlier. The manuscript was unclear, but it referred to a particular accusation, Beasley’s declaration and advice that nothing should be said because it would shame his reputation, despite the innocence of the crime. The record then became unclear, with references to Mr Bone and P Wills.

The record was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edmund Edwards.

Mary Seale’s black slave received [...]. Robert Jennings was connected with making one of His Majesty’s servants’ black slaves stagger, but the manuscript was unclear.

Interpretations

Tom’s account traced stolen money through drink, lending and payments to other slaves or dependants. The theft therefore became a wider inquiry into an informal island economy in which slaves could spend, lend and pass on cash.

The repeated references to punch and strong drink mattered because drink houses created places where stolen money could be broken up and hidden through spending. The court tested Tom’s confession against the evidence of Mary Seale, Thomas Ashbey, Riping Wells and Robert Jennings.

Sunday drinking carried an added weight. The offence was not only spending stolen money. It also touched Sabbath discipline, disorder and the control of slaves and servants away from work.

Thomas Ashbey’s denial drew a line between selling strong drink and giving a drink. That distinction mattered because sale implied profit from stolen money, while a gift could reduce his responsibility.

Speculations

Tom’s detailed list of payments and drinking places probably aimed to spread responsibility beyond himself. By naming Roger, Robert Jennings, Thomas Ashbey, John Wall, Mr Seale, Deane and others, he turned the stolen money into a chain of receivers, drink sellers and witnesses.

The witnesses’ denials and partial admissions suggest that the council was trying to find where the £80 0s 0d had gone. The strongest trail led through punch, because Tom described large sums being spent there and because several witnesses could be questioned about those meetings.

234

234

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation held on Saturday the 15th day of November 1701 Att Fort
James.

Pres.t

Step:n Power Govern:r
John ffrancis Dp:ty Govern:r
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne
Edward Edmunds 4th in Councl

William Chubb who is appointed to look after the
out forts Informed the Governor that he found Richard Alexander
[...] darke absent from his duty at Bankes, who being Examined con-
fesses he neglected his duty, Saith he brought a piece of y:e [...] to
duty to him, went Just beyond y:e said Bankes to get a little
Salt to season his meat, and that the whole time he was absent
upon the rocks in Sight of y:e fort, and has not been absent
not one day in y:e week at that his time to be there, however /

It was ordered

That y:e Said Rich:d Alexander for being found absent
from his Duty, do ride the wooden horse two houres with two mus-
quets at Each legg /

Whereas in the Consultation held y:e 11th instant severall
Persons were Reched of brewing and strong yarn from a slave
of Mary Jacobs, Therefore: /

It is ordered

That the said Persons be Summoned to appeare
before us at y:e next quarterly Sessions, that y:e Truth of y:e matters
may be further Examined into; And likewise That Thomas
Ashbey be forbidden to sell any more strong Drink untill
he be cleared from the Crime laid to his Charge of Brewing
with [...]

Margin Notes:
Richard Alexander out
to ride the Western darke absent
therefore being absent
from his Duty.

Sev:ll Persons Reched to
have reced Money from
Mary Jacobs Black

That y:e Persons be Sum-
moned to appear at y:e next
Quart:r Sessions, & Thomas
Ashbey forbidden to Sell
any more strong liq:r
for some fine of 30[...]

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Saturday 15 November 1701.

Stephen Power, governor, John Francis, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

William Chubb had been appointed to look after the outforts. He informed the governor that he had found Richard Alexander, [...] dark, absent from his duty at Bankses.

Alexander was examined. He confessed that he had neglected his duty. He said that he had brought a piece of [...] to his post, then had gone just beyond Bankses to get a little salt to season his meat. He said that he had been on the rocks and in sight of the fort for the whole time he was absent. He also said that he had not been absent for one whole day in the week during his time there.

Richard Alexander was ordered to ride the wooden horse for two hours, with two muskets at each leg, because he had been found absent from duty.

At the consultation held on 11 November 1701, several persons had been reached or accused of receiving money from a slave belonging to Mary Jacobs.

Those persons were ordered to be summoned to appear before the next quarterly sessions, so that the truth of the matter could be examined further. Thomas Ashbey was also forbidden to sell any more strong drink until he had been cleared of the offence laid against him. The charge concerned brewing with [...]. A fine of 30[...] was connected with the order, but the manuscript was unclear.

Interpretations

The outforts were watched as part of St Helena’s defence system. Alexander’s absence was punished even though he said he remained in sight of the fort, because guard duty depended on presence at the assigned post.

The wooden horse was a military punishment. The added muskets increased the pain and shame. The order showed how discipline at the outforts was enforced through bodily punishment rather than only fines or reprimands.

The inquiry into money received from Mary Jacobs’s slave connected theft, slave movement and informal trade. The council treated the matter as unresolved and moved it to the quarterly sessions, where a fuller legal hearing could be held.

Thomas Ashbey’s ban on selling strong drink worked as a preventive order. He was not yet cleared, so the council removed his ability to continue the suspected trade while the case remained open.

Speculations

Alexander’s explanation about fetching salt probably tried to make his absence seem brief and practical. The council still punished him because even a short absence from Bankses weakened a defensive post.

Ashbey was probably barred from selling strong drink because the missing money was thought to have passed through drink sales. Stopping his trade prevented more suspected spending before the witnesses could be heard at the quarterly sessions.

235

235

with the said Tom (Mr Fosters black) upon the forfeiture of
y:e [P]unishmt /

And also that a Grand Jury be Supposed
some time next week to finde whether the said Robert Jennings
is Guilty of the Crime laid to his Charge or not. guilty /
Power
Tho: Goodwin
Edw: Edmunds

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday the
18th day of November 1701 Att Fort James /

Pres:t

Step:n Power Govern:r
John ffrancis Dp:ty Govern:r
Thom:s Goodwin Ensign
Edward Edmunds 4th in Councl

James Grandy [per] a Pinke made Complaint to the Board
and Complained That the said persons who are indebted to him
for severall sortes of Provisions of Wine of the following James
Haberdine y:e sum of Eight Rialls six Pence, Will Hixon with the
negro Jerrenty the sum and The Board then made no answer of
Six Island Six Pence, and Jonas Hickman nine Shillings which
said persons put him of from time to time in the very manner of
Payment and being Obliged to go off y:e said Island in y:e Ship [...]
in y:e road Humbly desired y:e Worship: Board might be Empowered
to make him Satisfaction Accordingly

It is ordered

That all y:e aforesaid Persons do wth and satisfy y:e said Grandy their
Respective Debts this day that he may be inabled straight to go off the
said Island.

Margin Notes:
Grand Jury to be Sa-
tisfied by whether
Jennings be Guilty
Crime laid to his
Charge

James Grandy Com:pnt
severall persons
Indebted to him to
ease to pay him he
going off y:e Island.

y:e persons to pay y:e
money y:e he may be
[Reddiness] to go of
Island.

A grand jury was to be summoned during the next week to decide whether Robert Jennings was guilty of the crime charged against him. The earlier order also referred to Tom, Mr Foster’s black slave, and to a forfeited punishment, but the manuscript was unclear.

The order was signed by Power, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 18 November 1701.

Stephen Power, governor, John Francis, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

James Grandy, from a pink, complained to the board. Several people owed him money for different sorts of provisions and wine. James Haberdine owed eight rials and 6d. William Hixon, with the negro Jerrenty, owed a sum which was unclear in the manuscript. Jonas Hickman owed 9s 0d.

Grandy said that these people had delayed payment from time to time. He had to leave the island in a ship then in the road. He therefore asked the board to make them satisfy him.

All the named debtors were ordered to pay Grandy their several debts that day, so that he could leave St Helena at once.

Interpretations

The grand jury was used to test whether Jennings should face a criminal finding. The council did not settle that charge only by examination. It moved the matter towards a formal decision by sworn island men.

Grandy’s case showed how the council enforced small debts when a creditor was about to leave. Shipping time mattered. If Grandy left without payment, ordinary collection would become difficult or impossible.

The debt list mixed sterling and rials, which showed that several currencies circulated in island trade. The council treated them as enforceable obligations rather than informal promises.

Speculations

Grandy’s need to depart made the order urgent. The council probably required same-day payment because a ship in the road gave only a short window before he lost his chance to collect.

236

236

James Rider y:e free Banker made Complaint to y:e
Govern:r That Cap:t Aspe Rice Comand:r of y:e ship Madera tooke a
Tree from Mr Vernon which was sent to him by the Brother
John Vernon from Bencoolen, who denyes doing any
such thing, whereupon the said Rider desired that the said Commander
might be Examined, and also that the said Gunner might be
sent for on shoare, as also the fifty-male Boatswaine, and one
George Yeomans amidships man, who accordingly was, and Exami-
ne according to y:e said Riders request /

Cap:t Asp Rice being Called Saith he had not any Letter
for y:e Said Rider, only [tree] [...] on the Said Board in his
Custody, and that he Looke over all his Letters on board this morning
a purpose to Satisfie the said Rider, and if he had any Letter for the
said Gunn Conceald to y:e said Rider he Cannot finde it nor doth not
remember that he did.

John Wise Cheife mate of said ship being sworne saith y:t
he knows nothing of any Letters or goods on board of y:e ship
Madera for y:e said Rider but heard y:e Gumer say that he brought
one in that he had a tree for y:e said Rider, w:ch y:e Cap:t took from
him as he was told by Irish /

Nicholas Hatuisk being sworne Saith that he had a letter
from Cap:t Vernon at Bencoolen Directed to the said Rider and
there was one more for y:e Govern:r and another for Mr Will Oliver,
w:ch Letters the Cap:t took from him about a week before they came into
the road. /

George Yeomans being sworne Saith that he reced a Letter
from Cap:t Vernon at Bencoolen Directed to the said Andrew [...]
to be for y:e signe of Ten dollars by y:e said Rider to Gummer
the said [...] [...] [...] to [...]
to y:e said Cap:t Asp Rice, but knowes nothing of any goods on board
of said Ship for y:e said Rider as he present there is /

Christopher Kell Boatswaine of y:e said ship Madera being
sworne Saith the said y:e Gunner have a Letter sealed up directed
to y:e said Rider, w:ch y:e Gunner told him came from Cap:t James
Vernon at Bencoolen /

Margin Notes:
James Rider Complains
of Cap:t Asp Rice for
keeping a tree which
was sent to him by Mr
Vernon &c.

James Rider, the free banker, complained to the governor that Captain Asp Rice, commander of the ship Madera, had taken a tree from Mr Vernon. The tree had been sent to Rider by John Vernon’s brother from Bencoolen. Rice denied taking any such thing.

Rider asked that Captain Rice be examined. He also asked that the gunner be sent ashore, together with the fiftieth-male boatswain and George Yeomans, an amidships man. They were sent for and examined as Rider requested.

Captain Asp Rice was called. He said that he had no letter for Rider. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but something was said to be on board in his custody. Rice said that he had looked over all his letters on board that morning on purpose to satisfy Rider. If any letter for the gunner had been concealed from Rider, Rice could not find it and did not remember it.

John Wise, chief mate of the Madera, was sworn. He said that he knew nothing of any letters or goods on board the ship for Rider. He had heard the gunner say that he had brought one in, and that he had a tree for Rider. He also heard that the captain had taken it from him, as he was told by Irish.

Nicholas Hatuisk was sworn. He said that he had a letter from Captain Vernon at Bencoolen directed to Rider. There was also one letter for the governor and another for Mr Will Oliver. The captain took those letters from him about a week before the ship came into the road.

George Yeomans was sworn. He said that he had received a letter from Captain Vernon at Bencoolen. It was directed to Andrew [...]. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but it mentioned a sign or sum of ten dollars, Rider and the gunner. Yeomans said that [...] had been delivered to Captain Asp Rice. He knew nothing of any goods then on board the ship for Rider.

Christopher Kell, boatswain of the Madera, was sworn. He said that the gunner had a sealed letter directed to Rider. The gunner told him that it came from Captain James Vernon at Bencoolen.

Interpretations

Rider’s complaint concerned control of shipboard goods and letters once a vessel reached St Helena. The council treated a private claim to an item sent from Bencoolen as a matter fit for examination before island authority.

The evidence focused on custody. Witnesses were asked who had carried letters, who had taken them, who had heard of the tree and whether any goods remained on board. The case depended on tracing possession through the ship’s officers and crew.

Bencoolen mattered because it linked St Helena to another Company settlement. Goods and letters moved through the Company’s maritime network, and disputes followed them into the council’s court when delivery was contested.

The captain’s control over letters raised a question of trust. Rice said that he searched his papers and denied concealment. Other witnesses said letters had been taken from crewmen before the ship reached the road. That made the handling of private correspondence part of the dispute.

Speculations

Rider probably asked for the gunner, boatswain and George Yeomans because the alleged tree and letters had passed through crew hands rather than through formal ship papers. Their testimony could test the captain’s denial by following the item before it reached St Helena.

The examination of several shipmen suggests that the council did not accept Rice’s denial by itself. The disputed tree may have been small enough to be withheld or overlooked, so the court looked for a chain of witnesses who had seen or heard of it.

237

237

It was ordered

That the said Cap:t Asp Rice do take care to give his letters againe
and do his utmost endeavour to finde the said Riders Lett:r w:ch
he promisd on his word to do. /

Power
Tho: Goodwin
Edw: Edmunds

Island S:t Helena.

Att a Consultation Held on Tues-
day y:e 25th of November 1701 Att Fort
James /

Pres:t

Step:n Power Govern:r
John Foulis Dp:ty Govern:r
Thomas Goodwin Ensign
Edward Edmunds 4th in Councl

Whereas it haveing pleased God to take unto himselfe
John Greenish free Planter by a Sudden Death, his wife desired that
she might have Leave by y:e Rummingation Granted here on he deceas
hath Enterd thereto

It is ordered

That Letter of Administration be granted according to y:e widows
request, and wee that John Goodwin and Edward Bagley be
the persons appointed to Appraise the said Deced John Greenish
Estate, who accordingly was sworne to being a true and faithfull
acct thereof this day forthwith. /

Margin Notes:
Cap:t Asp Rice promises
to look all about
for againe to see if he
can find y:e s:d Riders
Lett:r

John Greenish and
Lett:r Bagley appointed
to appraise John Greenish
Estate

Captain Asp Rice was ordered to take care to return the letters. He was also ordered to make every effort to find James Rider’s letter. Rice promised on his word that he would do so.

The order was signed by Power, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 25 November 1701.

Stephen Power, governor, John Foulis, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

John Greenish, free planter, had died suddenly. His widow asked for leave to administer his estate.

Letters of administration were granted at the widow’s request. John Goodwin and Edward Bagley were appointed to appraise John Greenish’s estate. They were sworn that day to make a true and faithful account of it at once.

Interpretations

The order to Captain Rice turned the dispute over letters into a duty of search and return. The council did not find the missing letter in this passage, but it placed responsibility on the captain to recover it.

Letters of administration gave John Greenish’s widow legal authority to manage the estate after his sudden death. The council treated probate as part of local government, not as a purely private family matter.

The appointment of appraisers protected the estate before distribution or debt payment. John Goodwin and Edward Bagley were sworn to value the property faithfully, so the widow’s authority rested on an official account.

238

238

Eliz Bestwick made Complaint to y:e Governr
That her mother detained from her all her wearing App-
parell and other Necessarys, wherefore desired that she might be
Summoned to know y:e reason why she did so who accordingly
and asked y:e Question saith she will not deliver y:e said Apparr
ell &c:a Except she Pay her for her passage, but not-
withstanding such an Excuse /

It is ordered

That the said Grace Coulson Deliver unto her daughter Bestwick
all her apparrell and what ever Else she can Claime any Right
to as her owne giveing however liberty to the said Grace Coulson
to Enter any Action forever against the said Eliz Bestwick if
she hath any right to do it /

Power
Tho: Goodwin
Edw: Edmunds

Margin Notes:
Eliz Bestwick Compl:ts
ag: her Mother Grace
Coulson for detaining
her Cloaths & other
Necessarys &c:a

Grace Coulson to deliver
her Daughter Bestwick
her Apparell & all
things belonging unto
her.

Elizabeth Bestwick complained to the governor that her mother, Grace Coulson, kept all her clothing and other necessities from her. She asked that her mother be summoned and made to explain why she had done so.

Grace Coulson was summoned and questioned. She said that she would not deliver the clothing and other goods unless Elizabeth paid her for her passage. The council did not accept that excuse.

Grace Coulson was ordered to deliver to her daughter Elizabeth Bestwick all her clothing and everything else which Elizabeth could claim as her own.

Grace Coulson was still allowed to bring any action against Elizabeth Bestwick if she had a right to do so.

The order was signed by Power, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

Interpretations

The order separated personal property from a disputed debt for passage. Grace Coulson could sue if she believed money was owed, but she could not keep Elizabeth Bestwick’s clothing and necessities as pressure for payment.

The case showed the council’s role in household disputes between women. A mother’s control over her daughter’s goods was limited when the daughter claimed them as her own.

239

239

Island St Helena

The Examination of Robert ffinch
Told: by a Grand Jury, being Indicted for Buggaring
A negro boy of Mary Jewsters Wid: on Saturday the
29th day of November 1701

10 John Munday
11 Wills M[oddy]
12 James Browne
13 Mathew Garrett
14 Mr Bayley
15 Will: Benke
16 Samll Maxwell
17 Rich:d Clare

1 John Field
2 James Rider
3 Edw: Stirling
4 Thomas Dixon
5 Will: Melting
6 John Richards
7 Tho: Taulor
8 Philip Pembrook
9 Joseph Parsons

Then

Mary Jewster wid was called and sworne who saith that
her Black man named Tom, and his the other young woman had one
a very occasion w:ch said the Black boy, but whither this was owne
she doth know whether Black that stood [...] of the said Robert Finess
doing of that, but denyed it that because he had say nothing about it /

Robert ffinch being Examined Saith that he is Innocent
of the Crime laid to his Charge, but acknowledge he desired the said
Mary Jewster not to [...] anything about it because it would be a
great shame to his Reputation & ffamily /

Lewes y:e Said Mary Jewsters Black boy being Examined saith
that one night a man he mistrist was gone to Bed, Robert ffinch
made him ly downe on his belly and untyd and held him fast
by the neck in one hand, and Pulld downe his breeches wth y:e other
hand, and then got upon his bare breeckside,

Then y:e Jury ordered them all to withdraw, and after mature and
Severall Considerations & Debate, acquited y:e Said Rob:t ffinch from
the Crime laid to his Charge, haveing no Evidence against
him.
Power
Tho: Goodwin
Edw: Edmunds

Margin Notes:
The Examination of
Robert Finess y:e for
buggering Mary Iaws
ters Black boy

A grand jury examined Robert Finch on Saturday 29 November 1701. He had been indicted for buggery with a negro boy belonging to Mary Jewster, widow.

The grand jurors were John Field, James Rider, Edward Stirling, Thomas Dixon, William Melting, John Richards, Thomas Taulor, Philip Pembrook, Joseph Parsons, John Munday, William M[oddy], James Browne, Mathew Garrett, Mr Bayley, William Benke, Samuel Maxwell and Richard Clare.

Mary Jewster, widow, was called and sworn. She said that her black man Tom and another young woman had reported the matter involving the black boy. The manuscript was unclear in the next words. She did not know whether the black boy had stood [...] Robert Finch doing it. Finch denied it because nothing had been said about it.

Robert Finch was examined. He said that he was innocent of the crime charged against him. He admitted that he had asked Mary Jewster not to say anything about it, because it would bring great shame on his reputation and family.

Lewis, Mary Jewster’s black boy, was examined. He said that one night, after his mistress had gone to bed, Robert Finch made him lie down on his belly. Finch untied him and held him fast by the neck with one hand. With the other hand, he pulled down Lewis’s breeches. Finch then got upon his bare backside.

The jury ordered everyone to withdraw. After consideration and debate, Robert Finch was acquitted of the crime charged against him, because the jury found no evidence against him.

The record was signed by Power, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

Interpretations

The grand jury treated the charge as a formal criminal accusation. The list of jurors showed that the matter was handled through a sworn body rather than only by council examination.

Lewis’s testimony was recorded, but the jury still found “no evidence” against Finch. This showed the low legal weight given to the evidence of a black boy in a case against a free man, even where the boy gave a direct account.

Finch’s admission that he asked Mary Jewster to keep silent mattered because it showed concern over reputation and family standing. The court recorded that admission, but it did not treat it as enough to convict him.

The case showed a sharp hierarchy of credibility. Mary Jewster, a widow, could bring the matter forward. Lewis could be examined. Yet the outcome still turned on what the jury accepted as legally usable proof.

240

240

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Tuesday
the 9th day of December 1701 Att Fort James /

Pres:t

Step:n Power Govern:r
John Foulis Dp:ty Gov:r absent
Thomas Goodwin Ensigne
Edward Edmunds 4th in Coun:c

Whereas Eliz Bestock Presented to Govern:r and
Councill her Petition Setting forth therein That her Mother did
Contrary to an order of Councill detaine Severall goods & apparrell
belonging to her, and had made demand of a Sloop of Yor:k for her
Passage her mother paid for her, and also denied passing for her
at her house, thereupon the Govern:r which was also of oppinion
she desires we would Consider y:e said also to order her mother again
to deliver her apparrell &c:a And Likewise humbly desires that we
would Compell her mother to make her Satissfaction for work she
had done in the ffamily and for Learning her Sister to work at her
needles from she hath made demand of her mother who refuses
Payment /

So after Consideration the Govern:r asked y:e said Grace
Coulson whether or no she was willing to have their difference
decided by him & Councill; or by Jury next Sessions, who
desired she might have till next Saturday to consider of it
& y:t to returne an answer which was granted her. /

Alexander ffracey Serj:t haveing been Severall times
forbidden to go to y:e Hambleton by Battalion to [...] from
Company w:ch at Halfe an hours warning there must be out
One Said Hambleton house where he should have been on Duty
at Ruperts ffort.

It is therefore Ordered

That y:e s:d Alexander ffracey do ride y:e wooden Horse at
the dismount of y:e Guard two hours wth two musquets tyed to
Each Legg. /

Rich:d

Margin Notes:
Eliz Bestock Com:pts
ag:t her Mother Grace
Coulson for Charges to
an order of Councill
her mother keeps her
Apparrell & Severall
other things.

The Govern:r asks Grace
Coulson whether she was
willing to have y:e Business
desided by him & Councill
or by a Jury whereupon
she beggs Leave untill Satur-
day to Consider of it.

Alexander ffracey to be
Ride y:e wooden horse for
neglecting his duty.

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Tuesday 9 December 1701.

Stephen Power, governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present. John Foulis, deputy governor, was absent.

Elizabeth Bestock presented a petition to the governor and council. She stated that her mother, Grace Coulson, still kept several goods and items of clothing which belonged to her, despite an earlier order of council. Grace had also demanded payment for Elizabeth’s passage in a sloop from York, because Grace had paid for it. She had also refused to allow Elizabeth to lodge at her house.

Elizabeth asked that her case be considered, and that her mother be ordered again to deliver her clothing and other goods. She also asked that Grace be compelled to pay her for work she had done in the family, and for teaching her sister needlework. Elizabeth had demanded payment from her mother, but Grace had refused.

After consideration, the governor asked Grace Coulson whether she wished the dispute to be decided by him and the council, or by a jury at the next sessions. Grace asked for leave until the following Saturday to consider her answer. This was granted.

Alexander Fracey, serjeant, had several times been forbidden to go to the Hambleton house. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but the matter concerned a company which had to be ready to march on half an hour’s warning. Fracey had been at Hambleton house when he should have been on duty at Rupert’s Fort.

Alexander Fracey was ordered to ride the wooden horse for two hours at the dismounting of the guard, with two muskets tied to each leg.

Interpretations

Elizabeth Bestock’s petition showed that council orders needed further enforcement when household resistance continued. The earlier order had not ended Grace Coulson’s control over Elizabeth’s clothing and goods.

The dispute joined property, lodging, passage money and women’s work. Elizabeth treated her labour in the household and her teaching of needlework as work for which payment could be claimed, not simply as family duty.

Grace Coulson was offered a choice between decision by governor and council or by jury. That choice showed that household disputes could move between administrative judgment and formal trial.

The punishment of Alexander Fracey showed the strict discipline placed on men assigned to defensive posts. His presence at Hambleton house was treated as neglect because Rupert’s Fort needed readiness at short notice.

Speculations

Grace Coulson probably asked for time because the choice of forum mattered. A jury might judge family labour, clothing and passage debt differently from the governor and council.

Fracey’s punishment was probably severe because his absence affected rapid mobilisation. A company expected to move on half an hour’s warning could not function if a serjeant left his assigned post.

241

241

Rich:d Swallow who came from England as a Sould:r in the
Ship Mathew Cap:t Charles Pike Comander Humbly Petitions
that he would be Suffred to grant him Liberty to Shift his Imploy
out of y:e Rt Hon:ble Comp:s Service & Enter any an other man to Serve the
Remainder Part of his time but that man being not approved of
we told him that if he could Law for his Refuse neither, Still desire
should be granted which he Promised to do as Soone as Conveniently
he Could /

Orlando Bagley brought and delivered y:e Last Will
& Testamt of his deced Father to be proved, which was Accordingly
done by y:e oath of Tho: Orchard and Certificate of Thomas Davis be-
ing not able to come downe to y:e ffort whereupon Certifyed he saw y:e
said deced signe seale and deliver y:e said Will now produced, to which
did y:e said Tho: Orchard /

It is ordered

That y:e said Will be approved of and Copies given when demanded
and also that y:e said orlandoe Bagley being a true & lawfull heir have
Intire Inventory of his deced fathers Right after the accompts [...]
he Can /

John Oswald Surgeon desired he might have some satis-
faction, making the cure he had done to Widd Oliver, and be allowd
by mode demanded foure pounds, but we Considering the said above
[...] to be under y:e Companys Charity.

It is therefore ordered

That y:e said oswald be allowed be allowed one pound for his charge
and y:e s:d Oliver not to be allowed any more from y:e Hon:ble [...] [...]
for y:e said Oliver being maintained at y:e Comp:s Charge.

Power
Tho: Goodwin
Edw: Edmunds

Margin Notes:
Rich:d Swallow hath
Liberty to terme out
of the Comp:s Service

Orlando Bagley seen y:e
his Last Will & Testamt
Reced & approved of

John Oswald allowed
20:s for Curving W:m Oliver
but y:e s:d y:e Oliver to be
allowed Nothing for any
thing he doth for the said
Oliver he being maintained
at y:e Comp:s Charge.

Richard Swallow had come from England as a soldier in the ship Matthew, commanded by Captain Charles Pike. He petitioned for liberty to leave the Honourable Company’s service and to put another man in his place for the rest of his term.

The man offered by Swallow was not approved. Swallow was told that his request would still be granted if he could find a suitable replacement. He promised to do so as soon as convenient.

Orlando Bagley brought and delivered the last will and testament of his deceased father for proof. The will was proved by the oath of Thomas Orchard. Thomas Davis could not come down to the fort, so a certificate from him was accepted. Davis certified that he had seen the deceased sign, seal and deliver the will then produced. Thomas Orchard also witnessed this.

The will was approved. Copies were to be given when demanded. Orlando Bagley was recognised as the true and lawful heir. He was to have the full inventory of his deceased father’s right after the accounts were [...]. The manuscript was unclear at the final words of this order.

John Oswald, surgeon, asked for satisfaction for the cure he had given to Widow Oliver. He demanded £4 0s 0d. The council considered that Oliver was under the Company’s charity and maintained at the Company’s charge.

Oswald was allowed £1 0s 0d for his charge. Oliver was not to be allowed anything further from the Honourable Company for anything done for him.

Interpretations

Swallow’s request showed that Company service could be transferred only with official approval. A soldier could not simply leave by finding any substitute. The replacement had to be acceptable to the governor and council.

The proof of Bagley’s father’s will showed the council’s role in local probate. A witness who could not attend the fort was accepted by certificate, which allowed the legal process to continue without his physical presence.

The order for copies of the will gave the approved document practical legal force. Copies could support later claims to property, debts or inheritance.

Oswald’s reduced payment showed that medical care for people maintained by the Company was controlled by the council. The surgeon’s demand did not decide the charge. The council set what it considered a fair allowance from Company funds.

Speculations

Swallow was probably allowed to seek a replacement because the council cared less about keeping him personally than about preserving the number and quality of soldiers in Company service.

Oswald’s claim was probably reduced because the council wanted to limit charges created by people already maintained through Company charity. Paying the full £4 0s 0d could have encouraged larger claims for future cures.

242

242

Island S:t Helena

Atta Consultation Held on Monday y:e
5th day of January 1701/2 Att Fort James /

Pres:t

Step:n Power Govern:r
John Foulis Deputy Govern:r
Thomas Goodwin Ensign
Edward Edmunds 4th in Councl

Whereas on the 30:th of Decembr last Past George [Dweigh]
made Complaint That Thomas Easton Sold and had broken
open his Chest, and Stole out of it Severall things, viz hooks Lines
Brandy Tobacco &c:a which he had disposed of.

The said Thomas Easton being Called and Examined acknowl-
edged the Crime, alleaging he was Reduced and was not Sensible of
what he did, humbly Begging Pardon for his offence promising never
to Committ y:e Like fault againe or other

It was ordered

That y:e said Thomas Easton for his misdemeanor, & being not y:e
first time in that nature be dismist from the Rt Hon:ble Comp:s Service
and to Run y:e gantlet this day, and to worke for the said
George Dweigh, to Compensate the said male Goods Sold In which howe-
ver the said George Dweigh he shall be able out of your Said, and also to worke for all others he has
Defrauded Indebted to to satisfy and when to be [obliged]
out of the said Island by y:e first opportunity. /

Christopher Kell Boatswaine of the Ship Madera being
much dissatisfied by haveing a very Sore foot, humbly Desired that we
would be pleased to grant him Liberty to stay on the said Island for
the preservation of his foot and leg which he was afraid him m[...]
thereupon he gott the Liberty on his Lord in y:e Comp:s Service who
this day turned out desired likewise that he would be pleased to Intertaine
him in the said Comp:s Service as Sold:r haveing little or nothing
to maintaine himselfe.

Margin Notes:
Serj:t Dweigh Compl:nt
ag:t Thomas Easton for
breaking open her Chest
and Selling things
out of it.

That Easton to Run y:e
gantlet & be Dismissed
y:e Comp:s Service, and to
worke for y:e s:d Dweigh
till he pays him for Goods
Sold, and also to Satisfie
all he owes others and
out to Banishment of y:e
first opportunity.

Christopher Kell
Entertaind in the
Comp:s Service for a
Sold:r

A consultation was held at Fort James, St Helena, on Monday 5 January 1702.

Stephen Power, governor, John Foulis, deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, ensign, and Edward Edmunds, fourth in council, were present.

On 30 December 1701, George Dweigh had complained that Thomas Easton, soldier, had broken open his chest and stolen several things from it. These included hooks, lines, brandy, tobacco and other goods. Easton had disposed of them.

Easton was called and examined. He admitted the offence. He said that he had been reduced and had not understood what he was doing. He asked pardon for the offence and promised never to commit the same fault again, or any other.

Because this was not Easton’s first offence of that kind, he was dismissed from the Honourable Company’s service. He was ordered to run the gantlet that day. He was also ordered to work for George Dweigh until he had compensated him for the goods he had sold. Easton was also to work for any others whom he had defrauded or owed money to until they had been satisfied. He was then to be sent from the island at the first opportunity.

Christopher Kell, boatswain of the ship Madera, was greatly troubled by a very sore foot. He asked for permission to remain on St Helena to preserve his foot and leg, which he feared might be [...]. The manuscript was unclear in the next words, but he also asked to be taken into the Honourable Company’s service as a soldier. He had little or nothing to maintain himself.

Christopher Kell was taken into the Company’s service as a soldier.

Interpretations

Easton’s punishment joined dismissal, corporal punishment, forced labour, restitution and removal from the island. The council treated theft as a breach of service discipline and as a private loss that had to be repaid by work.

Running the gantlet was a military punishment. It marked Easton publicly before he was set to labour for those he had defrauded.

The order that Easton work for Dweigh and then for other creditors turned his labour into repayment. The council used his body and time as the means to restore stolen value where money or goods were gone.

Kell’s request showed how sick or injured seamen could be absorbed into island service. The council allowed him to stay because of his injured foot, but his maintenance was answered by enlistment as a Company soldier.

Speculations

Easton was probably ordered to leave at the first opportunity because earlier punishments had not restrained him. The theft from Dweigh’s chest was treated as part of a repeated pattern, so removal became the final means of protecting the island community.

Kell was probably accepted as a soldier because the council did not want to maintain an injured boatswain without useful service in return. His need for care and his lack of means were converted into a military obligation.

243

247

Island S:t Helena

Att a Consultation Held on Thurs
day y:e 8th day of Janry 1702 at York ffort

Pre[sen]t
Step:ne Poirier Govern:r
M:r Joules Dep:ty Govern:r
Thomas Goodwin ensigne
Enoch Raminds [...] Coun:r

Grace Coulson doth demande a favour of y:e Govern:r & Councill here
Session setting forth therein that she hath had severall Consul-
tation about theire patrimonies they soe desired that you
be pleased to grant her Letters of Administration on the deceased
husbands Estate they might have the dividend of y:e same and deliver
to your Wor:ps that Portion there accordingly

It is orderd

That y:e said grace Coulson request Copy and an Issue of
Administration recorded as demanded

Island S:t Helena

Att a Court Held By y:e Govern:r and Councill of Island and in Habitan[ts] of
this S:t Helena Ingleses Bay Grand Jury being impanelled
Said Island S:t Grace Coulson presented petition in following

Administration of all and singular y:e goods Rights
and credits which were and by death appeareth in
y:e Island late of the said Island deceased [...] at
[...] aforesaid at y:e time of his death and medling of all and every the
said R:t Hon:ble Compy the goods Rights and of y:e said deceased
and you we do make [...] and by presents ann[...]
Administration in and by farre good and oath of ffrancis Piggrem
you [...] goods taken in this hand that aris Life and [...] unto
faithfull Inventorye in appraise of [...] goods & Chattles
of y:e said deceased John Coulson that is or may be found on the said
Island on or before y:e 28th day of Janry 1702 And the debts owing by said
Island m:r he was Effectually obliged at y:e time of his death and
Since you use and truely pay and receive as y:e Law willeth [...]

Margin Notes:
Grace Coulson desires
y:t she may a Lettr of
Administration on
her decd husbands Estate
held noe wayes oweing
one of her Children
there portion

Grace Coulson Request
granted

Grace Coulsons Lettr
of Administration

At a consultation held at York Fort on Thursday 8 January 1702, the governor and council of St Helena met. Those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Mr Joules, Ensign Thomas Goodwin, and Councillor Enoch Raminds [...].

Grace Coulson petitioned the governor and council, setting out that she had held several consultations concerning her children's inheritances. She asked that letters of administration be granted over the estate of her deceased husband, so that the children could receive their respective shares.

The council ordered that Grace Coulson's request be recorded and that letters of administration be issued as she had asked.

At a court subsequently held by the governor and council of St Helena, with a grand jury empanelled from the inhabitants of Ingleses Bay, Grace Coulson presented her petition in due form. Letters of administration were granted over all the goods, rights, and credits of John Coulson, late of the island, who had died there. The administration was carried out under the authority of the East India Company. Francis Piggrem was sworn in, and was bound to compile a full and faithful inventory and appraisal of all the goods and chattels of the deceased John Coulson found on the island on or before 28 January 1702. He was also required to settle all debts that John Coulson owed at the time of his death, and to collect all sums owed to the estate, as the law directed [...].

Interpretations

Letters of administration gave a named individual the legal authority to manage and distribute a deceased person's estate where no valid will existed. Here the grant was made by the governor and council acting as a probate authority, a function the Company exercised on the island in the absence of a separate ecclesiastical or civil probate court.

Francis Piggrem's appointment as administrator, rather than Grace Coulson herself, was the operative legal mechanism. He was placed under oath and bound to produce an inventory and appraisal by a fixed deadline, making him personally accountable for the estate's assets and liabilities. This protected both the creditors and the heirs.

The requirement to produce a sworn inventory and appraisal of goods and chattels by 28 January 1702 - within twenty days of the grant - was a standard procedural safeguard, but its tight deadline here reflects the practical need to establish what the estate contained before debts were paid or distributions made.

The reference to the children's "patrimonies" indicates that the estate was understood to carry obligations to specific heirs, not solely to creditors. Grace Coulson's petition was structured around securing those shares for her children, suggesting the administration was sought as much to protect their inheritance as to clear the estate's debts.

Speculations

The grant of administration to Francis Piggrem rather than to Grace Coulson herself may reflect a deliberate institutional choice. Widows on the island were not automatically excluded from administering estates, so the appointment of a male administrator suggests either that the council judged Piggrem more capable of managing the process, or that the estate's debts and obligations were considered too complex for an informal arrangement.

244

248

you, and if you deliver an Acco:t of yo:r Administration hereunto
us, when you shall be thereunto called, And us you Save harmless
for God against all Persons by reason of yo:r Administration
In Testimony whereof we have caused yo:r Said Rt Hono: [...] to
Seales of ye Said Island St Helena Which presents to be affixed this
9 Day of January 1: [2]1

Power
Tho: Goodwin
Edwd Edmonds

Likewise it was
further ordered.

That ye Said Grace Coulson shall take ye following oath for the
due and true performance & Executement of Trust Committed to her
by the Letter of Administration vizt

you do hereby Swear to be true and faithfull in the
discharge of that trust Committed to you as Administratrix unto
[...] of M:r John Colson your deced husband Intestate, and
a true Inventory and Acco:t of ye same you shall directly give
without Concealing any part or parcell of ye same in whatsoe-
whatsoever directly or Indirectly, according as it stands at this Instant
time, and you are to use yr utmost Endeavour that no fraud be
used herein and this without any Equivocation or mentall reserva-
tion, So help you god & the Contents of this Book

It is also ordered

That Henry Coales, Sam:as Rider and Mathew Bayett
be ye Persons appointed to appraise the Said John Coulsons Estate
and also to make a dividend thereof who were all sworne accordingly,

B W[...]
Geo: Goodwin
Edw: Edmonds

Margin Notes:
an Oath adminis
tred to Grace Coulson

Henry Coales, Sa Rider
& Math: Bayett appointed
and to appraise the said
John Coulsons Estate.

Francis Piggrem was required to render a full account of his administration when called upon to do so, and to hold the council harmless against all claims arising from it. In testimony of the grant, the seal of the island of St Helena was affixed on 9 January 1702. The document was witnessed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmonds.

The council further ordered that Grace Coulson take an oath for the due performance of the trust placed in her by the letters of administration. She swore to be faithful in her duties as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, John Coulson, who had died intestate. She was bound to deliver a true and complete inventory and account of the estate without concealing any part of it, directly or indirectly, as it stood at that time. She was also required to use her utmost endeavour to prevent any fraud, and to do so without equivocation or mental reservation, swearing on the Bible.

The council also ordered that Henry Coales, Samuel Rider, and Matthew Bayett be appointed to appraise John Coulson's estate and to carry out the division of it among the heirs. All three were sworn accordingly. The order was witnessed by George Goodwin and Edward Edmonds [...].

Interpretations

The oath administered to Grace Coulson as administratrix carried specific legal weight. The explicit prohibition on concealment "directly or indirectly" and the bar on "equivocation or mental reservation" were standard formulations drawn from English ecclesiastical and common law oath practice. They were designed to close off any loophole by which an administrator might later claim a technical compliance with the letter of the oath while evading its spirit.

The appointment of three appraisers - Henry Coales, Samuel Rider, and Matthew Bayett - to both value and divide the estate combined two functions that were sometimes kept separate. Their being sworn in reflects the formal legal character of their role: their valuations would be binding for the purposes of distributing shares to the heirs.

The shift in the administration from Francis Piggrem, named as administrator in the original grant, to Grace Coulson as administratrix taking the oath here reflects a structural revision of the appointment. The letters of administration were formally issued in Piggrem's name, but the operative trust and accountability were placed on Grace Coulson, suggesting the earlier grant was either procedural or that the council reconsidered the arrangement within a day of issuing it.

Speculations

The decision to vest the oath and the active trust in Grace Coulson rather than leaving full responsibility with Francis Piggrem may have been a practical response to the children's interests. As the mother of John Coulson's heirs, she had the most direct stake in ensuring the estate was properly accounted for and fairly divided. Placing the oath on her created a personal legal obligation that aligned her formal duty with her private interest, reducing the risk that assets might be diverted before the children received their portions.

245

249

Island S: Helena

A Consultation Held on Tuesday y[e] [ ] day of Junry 1702 Att Fort James.

Step:n Poiner Govern:r Jn: Foulis dp:ty Govern:r Pres:t Thom: Godron Ensigne Edward Edmunds 4th mem:r

Orlan: Bagley made complaint to y:e Govern:rs Orlan: Bagley Com:pt and Council that he haveing bought a geo of Arthur Bradley, and ag: Arthur Bradley for owing two Dollars in money of Said Arthur above days — for owning to Defrmy he Said y:e Said Bargly his Cob and have had two to answre more, and he him, and abuseing him Said Bradley haveing Some words about the Cob hauled him very grossely. of other Said Cob of fifty ordered by him of his gave to him Ten Stroud and abused him very basely Calling him a Rogue: Rascall and Sott, other names Wherefore desires that y:e Said Anthony may be made to Stand to his Bargane Stand and make him Satisfaction for the blows he gave him

The Said Bradley being also brought hither to answer made ansr and Swore that he delt not with the and [for] a g[...] Stood Orland Bagley, but his worde did the Consider his Cogent and both being more or lesse in a that bargane, and as for calling him names [he] Sayd that as he sayd he deni Somr and such thing of the[...]

Edward Bagley desired of Edward [ ] [Eleby?] w[i]t[h] ob — Edward Bagley denied it haveing accordingly cows and Horses that he had bred and Sowered who accordingly coms and Swores that he had the Said Arthur Bradley on that same of y:e Said Downe, Bagley about a Cob and was to be payd in horse, but y:e Price of y:e Cob was not agreed upon in his hearing, further Swore that on Often any thing he asked of Said Bradley how much Edward Bagley Was to give him for y:e Cob, who refusd answrs he could not Tell, which the Said Bradley replied from four Pounds five Shillings upon which the Said Bradley told him wise Dam you Cant you hold yo:r Tongue!

Robert

Margin Notes: Orlan: Bagley Com:pt ag: Arthur Bradley for owning to Defrmy him, and abuseing him very grossely.

At a consultation held at Fort James on a day in June 1702 that is unclear in the manuscript, those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor John Foulis, Ensign Thomas Goodwin, and Edward Edmunds as fourth member.

Orlando Bagley brought a complaint against Arthur Bradley. Bagley stated that he had bought a cob from Bradley, and that Bradley owed him two dollars above and beyond what had been agreed. He further alleged that Bradley had struck him and abused him, using very rough language. During a dispute over the cob, Bradley had hauled him around roughly and had called him a rogue, a rascal, a sot, and other names. Bradley had also given him ten stroud. Bagley asked that Bradley be held to their bargain and made to give him satisfaction for the blows and the abuse.

Bradley was brought before the council to answer the complaint. He swore that he had not dealt with Orlando Bagley in the way described, and denied the terms alleged. Both parties were acknowledged to have been more or less involved in the bargain, and as for the name-calling, Bradley partly denied it.

Edward Bagley then asked to call a witness, whose name is unclear in the manuscript [...]. The witness was sworn and testified that he had been present when Arthur Bradley and Edward Bagley discussed a cob, and that payment was to be made in horses, but that no price for the cob had been agreed upon in his hearing. He further swore that on one occasion he had asked Bradley how much Edward Bagley was to give him for the cob, and that Bradley had refused to answer, saying he could not tell. When pressed, Bradley replied that the price was £4 5s 0d, and then told the witness to hold his tongue.

The record breaks off at this point with the name Robert [...].

Interpretations

A cob was a sturdy, short-legged horse, commonly used for general riding and light work. In a small island economy such as St Helena's, livestock served both practical and financial functions, and a cob of agreed value would have been a significant asset in a barter or part-cash transaction.

Stroud was a coarse woollen cloth manufactured in Stroud, Gloucestershire, widely used in the Atlantic and colonial trades as a commodity currency. Its appearance here as part of a payment - ten stroud - reflects the extent to which goods substituted for coin in island transactions where hard currency was scarce.

The complaint combined two legally distinct grievances: a contractual dispute over the terms of a sale and a claim for personal injury and verbal abuse. Bringing both before the governor and council rather than a separate civil or criminal court reflects the council's dual role as both commercial arbiter and judicial authority on the island.

The witness's testimony that no price had been agreed in his hearing, followed by Bradley's later statement of £4 5s 0d, was legally significant. It undermined Bradley's position that the bargain had been properly concluded on his terms, and supported Bagley's claim that the terms remained disputed.

Bradley's instruction to the witness to hold his tongue suggests he was aware that the witness's account damaged his case. This moment of informal suppression during a commercial negotiation is revealing: it shows that the terms of the transaction were contested even at the time of dealing, not merely in retrospect.

Speculations

The presence of both Orlando Bagley and Edward Bagley in the same dispute, apparently on the same side, suggests this may have been a family transaction in which more than one member of the Bagley household had an interest in the cob or in the outcome of the sale. The shift from Orlando as complainant to Edward as the party negotiating the price may indicate that the purchase was made on behalf of the household rather than by Orlando alone.

246

250

Robert Leach Sworne Saith that on y:e 6th instant he Richard George Haskison aske the Said Orlo: Bagley by he now [...] that Arthure Bradley had that he bought of M:r [...], and replyed I know y:e Cob very well Said [...] mine now, hold [...] that he Said the Said Haskison and I have [...] hee and Said him three Dollars in Part of Paymt. Upon is by [...] Bagley went Immediately to y:e Said Bradley [...] (who was Standing at a [...] distance from them.) and told him [...] he had Sold it [...] such after that he had bought him Before, whereupon y:e Said Bradleys wifoe made answre, he M:r Bay you Shall have nothing to do with [...] and heard y:e Said Bradley [...] Called Said Bagley Rogue and Rascall So m:e times without any m[...] of Provocation. Whereupon

It is ordered.

Arth: Bradley to deli- That y:e Said Arthure Bradley deliuer y:e Said Orlo: Bagley ver y:e Cow to Orland: Bag the Cob he bought of him he houlding zeed five Dollars in part ly according to their Payment and that y:e Said Bagley Pay y:e Said Bradley in full Contract, & Bradley Accord[ing] to their Lirquent and y:e Said Bradley fined to Shilli fined 5:s for y:e Compt & ng to y:e poore further, and so also the Said Bagley givensp[...] ing Edw: Blalys pardon for y:e abuse he gaue him, and to Say Charges of [Coun]cil [fo]r abuseing him.

Orlando Bagley brought and deliuered an Inven The Inventory of Or- tory of his deced [fathers] Estate which he made oath was true lando Bagley [Sen: deced] to the best of his knowledge and Richard Guling and Jan [...] Estate Reced appruisers made oath also, that the Said Estate was appraised accoring to the best of their Knowledge and bileef.

Sam: Wrangham fened [...] Jury, four by Dol:ns Whereas at a Court of Judicature Held on Tuesday y:e [...] Instan [...] Sam:d Wrangham the Plantee was tried fourty dollers to Gra Colson w:th the Refused Coulson W:d and Accordingly the next day he told and ofered her to Receive &c. the Said forty doll:s which She refused to Receiue in a Presence of George Haskison and John Godoom, to w:t they have herewith Subscribed as y:e truth.

John Goodom Wittnesed George Haskison

Jno Alexander [...] [...]

Margin Notes: Arth: Bradley to deli- ver y:e Cow to Orland: Bag ly according to their Contract, & Bradley fined 5:s for y:e Compt & ing Edw: Blalys pardon [fo]r abuseing him.

The Inventory of Or- lando Bagley [Sen: deced] Estate Reced

Sam: Wrangham fened [...] Jury, four by Dol:ns [...] Sam:d Wrangham Colson w:th the Refused to Receive &c.

Robert Leach, having been sworn, testified that on the 6th of that month he heard Richard George Haskison ask Orlando Bagley about a cob that Arthur Bradley had bought from Mr [...]. Bagley replied that he knew the cob well and that it was his. Haskison and Bagley then stated that Bagley had paid Bradley three dollars in part payment. Bagley went immediately to Bradley, who was standing at some distance, and told him he had sold the cob, having previously bought it from him. Bradley's wife then intervened and told Mr Bagley he would have nothing to do with it [...]. Leach further testified that he heard Bradley call Bagley a rogue and a rascal several times without any provocation.

The council then ordered that Arthur Bradley deliver the cob to Orlando Bagley, on the basis that Bagley had already paid five dollars in part payment and was to pay the remainder in full according to their agreement. Bradley was fined 5s 0d for the complaint, to be paid to the poor. Bagley was required to ask Edward [...] pardon for abusing him, and to pay the costs of the council proceedings for the abuse he had given.

Orlando Bagley then brought and delivered an inventory of the estate of his deceased father, Orlando Bagley senior. He swore on oath that it was true to the best of his knowledge. Richard Guling and Jan [...] as appraisers also swore that the estate had been appraised to the best of their knowledge and belief.

At a court of judicature held on Tuesday the [...] of that month, Samuel Wrangham had been tried and ordered by the jury to pay forty dollars to the widow Grace Coulson. The following day he offered to pay her the forty dollars in the presence of George Haskison and John Goodom, but she refused to receive the money. Haskison and John Goodom subscribed to this as witnesses to the truth. The record also names Jno Alexander [...] [...].

Interpretations

The testimony of Robert Leach was decisive in the Bradley-Bagley dispute. His account established that part payment had already been made and that the cob had been treated by Bagley as his own property before the argument arose. This shifted the legal position: once partial payment was tendered and accepted, the sale was binding, and Bradley's subsequent refusal to complete it became a breach of contract.

The fine of 5s 0d imposed on Bradley payable to the poor was a standard punitive measure in island governance. Fines directed to the poor rather than to the crown or the Company functioned as a form of communal redistribution, using minor judicial penalties to support those without means on the island.

The requirement that Bagley publicly ask pardon of Edward [...] for abuse reflects the council's use of formal apology as a restorative sanction alongside financial penalties. Both parties were thus found partly at fault, and the council divided its remedies accordingly.

The inventory of Orlando Bagley senior's estate, sworn by his son and attested by two appraisers, followed the same procedural structure as the Coulson administration. The dual oath - one from the administrator and one from the appraisers - was the standard mechanism for establishing an authoritative valuation of a deceased person's goods on the island.

The jury verdict ordering Samuel Wrangham to pay forty dollars to Grace Coulson, and her subsequent refusal to accept the payment, had immediate legal consequences. By refusing the money tendered in the presence of two witnesses who then signed a formal attestation, Coulson placed herself in a legally exposed position: a creditor who refuses a valid tender may lose the right to pursue further enforcement. The witnesses' written attestation suggests Wrangham or his associates anticipated that her refusal might later be disputed and took steps to document it formally.

Speculations

Grace Coulson's refusal of the forty dollars, despite a jury verdict in her favour, suggests she may have considered the sum insufficient and was prepared to contest the amount further. The formal witnessing and signed attestation organised by Wrangham's side points to a calculated response: by creating a documented record of her refusal, he protected himself against any subsequent claim that he had failed to pay. The speed of the tender - the very next day after the verdict - and the care taken to have witnesses present and sign suggests this was a deliberate legal manoeuvre rather than a routine settlement.

247

251

Whereupon It is ordered

Sam: Wrangham to That the Said Sa[m] Wrangham keep in his Custody the Said keep y:e Fourty Doll:rs Fourty Dollars until [...] anded by the Said Grace Coulson or her and Colson fell deman Deced Husbands Kin, and [...] discherdged from all y:e future Charges ded by Grace Coulson. and trouble that may happen in that Respect.

Whereas y:e R[...] [Hono:] in their Gener[al] Cou[rt] brought hei[r]ee M:r Edmunds to have By y:e good Ship Hen[ry] [Squ:?] [Sa:r] [am Commander] ordres us to [stt?] the House and Ground M:r Edmunds haveing House and ground Late belonging un[to] belonging to Thomas Thomas Smoult, Standing and being in Chappell Valley Smoult at a Rate of fifty pounds.

It is ordered

That y:e Said M:r Edmunds have y:e House and ground aforesaid at a Rate of a Price of fifty Pounds, and that a Bill of Sale be made Accordingly.

Whereas Jn:o Foulis dep:ty Govern: M:r Thomas Godoon Ensigne Jn: Foulis Dep Govern: and M:r Edond Doumhaks [...] in Com: Desired the Govern: to allow and M:r Tho: Godron & M: them as Dinner use of M:r Hom [...] [Comp:?] Plantation on y:e Sattour Edw: Edmunds desired day when they went to Church. Gov:r to allow em a Dinner Every Sataday and to [b?] to Church when they went to Church.

Whereupon It is ordered

Dinners to be provided That notwithstanding the R:t Hono: [Comp:?] gen[r?] [...] [griv?] by y:e Councell According [...] [...] to [...] [...] thee that a dinner be provided [for ...] to the request untill the [John] Receiving to have Request untill such time as [...] [the] Comp:y ord: it otherwise Comp:y Comp:? shall order it otherwise.

Whereas the R:t Hono: [Prop?] [ove] masters in their form[er...] A Register book to be [...] [Instru]ctions ordred that Cust[o]m Entries of all Alienations and kept and M:r John Alexan- Assignm[ents] of Lands that are Sold and [...] on the [I?] Island, but y:e Gov: der of Councell to be [...] and M:r Edmunds [...] [...] & Charge of [...] [...] [...], but y:e Gov: appointed Registor. [...] [...]. It is therefore ordered

That M:r John Alexander Clerk of the Comp:y be appointed Register of all Lands that Shall be from [...] hence Keapt Alienated and Sold on the Said Island, and that he have if [u?]suall fees allowed by the Said Comp:y for his trouble.

Margin Notes: Sam: Wrangham to keep y:e Fourty Doll:rs and Colson fell deman ded by Grace Coulson.

M:r Edmunds to have the House and Ground belonging to Thomas Smoult at a Rate of fifty pounds.

Jn: Foulis Dep Govern: and M:r Tho: Godron & M: Edw: Edmunds desired Gov:r to allow em a Dinner Every Sataday and to [...] to Church when they went to Church.

Dinners to be provided by y:e Councell According to the request untill the Comp:y ord: it otherwise

A Register book to be kept and M:r John Alexan- der of Councell to be appointed Registor.

The council ordered that Samuel Wrangham keep the forty dollars in his custody until they were demanded by Grace Coulson or by the kin of her deceased husband, and that he be discharged from all future charges and trouble in that respect.

The East India Company, in its General Court, had brought orders to the island by the good ship Henry [...] directing that the house and ground in Chapel Valley, late belonging to Thomas Smoult, be made available to Mr Edmunds at a price of £50 0s 0d.

The council ordered that Mr Edmunds have the house and ground at that price and that a bill of sale be drawn up accordingly.

Deputy Governor John Foulis, Ensign Thomas Goodwin, and Edward Edmunds asked the governor to allow them a dinner each Saturday at the Company's plantation when they attended church.

The council ordered that, notwithstanding the Company's general instructions, a dinner be provided for them as requested until such time as the Company ordered otherwise.

The East India Company had previously instructed that a register be kept of all alienations and assignments of land sold on the island. The governor and Mr Edmunds were named in connection with this requirement, though that part of the manuscript is unclear. The council therefore ordered that Mr John Alexander, Clerk of the Company, be appointed registrar of all lands alienated and sold on the island from that point forward, and that he receive the usual fees allowed by the Company for his trouble.

Interpretations

The order that Wrangham retain the forty dollars until demanded by Coulson or her husband's kin, rather than paying it into any official account, effectively suspended the judgment debt in a form of escrow. The explicit discharge from future charges protected Wrangham from any claim that he had withheld the money improperly. This mechanism acknowledged that the dispute over entitlement had not been resolved by the jury verdict alone.

The conveyance of Thomas Smoult's house and ground in Chapel Valley to Mr Edmunds at £50 0s 0d by a bill of sale was a formal alienation of real property. The involvement of the Company's General Court in authorising the transaction, communicated by ship, illustrates the degree to which significant property transfers on the island required metropolitan approval rather than local discretion alone.

The appointment of John Alexander as registrar of land transactions gave institutional form to the Company's instruction on recording alienations and assignments. His existing role as Clerk of the Company made him the natural choice, consolidating administrative and record-keeping functions in a single officer. The provision of usual fees created a financial incentive for accurate and prompt registration, aligning his private interest with the Company's administrative requirement.

The request for Saturday dinners at the Company's plantation by the deputy governor and two council members, and the council's agreement to provide them, reveals how the boundary between official provision and personal benefit was managed in small colonial administrations. The council's conditional approval - pending Company confirmation - showed awareness that such an arrangement required sanction from London, even for a minor domestic convenience.

Speculations

The escrow arrangement for the forty dollars may have been designed to protect Wrangham against a more complex claim than the jury verdict had resolved. Grace Coulson's refusal to accept the money suggested she disputed either the amount or the basis of the payment. By holding the sum formally in his custody under council order, Wrangham insulated himself from any allegation of bad faith while the underlying dispute remained open, effectively turning the council order into a shield against further litigation.

248

252

Thomas Harper Gunners mate humbly desired that Thom:s Harper Gun:rs we would be pleased to give him Leave to dismiss himself from mate desires if he might the R:t Hon:ble Comp:s Service, his Ruines lying much to his be dismiss'd of he Comp:s Plantation, which we have grankted him. Service w:s was granted.

It is therefore ordered

Jop:n Child Qual:t Gun:r That Stephen Child qual:t Gun:r do Succeed y:e Said Thom:s Harper to Succeed Tho: Harper and that Richard Alexander do be appointed Quar:t Gun:r in the and Rich:t Alexander Said [Cha:] roome both their Sallary of that qualitty begin from ord:d to be Qual:t Gun:r this Day.

An Acco:t of M:r Thomas Goodwins Land where it Lyes An Acco: where M:r Tho: being Exchanged w:th the R:t Hono:r Company Goodwin Land Lyes being Exchanged w:th y:e Comp:y Acres Parts 8, 1625 Added to the Comp:y Taken from his owne part of Jeffrys Land 6, 4983 pleasure. Taken from d:o of John Coles Land 14, 6206 [...]

Taken in by y:e Comn:an Citteeen Acres parts 2, 0125 y:e Comp: old walk w: from Betoins Land [...] Taken in morcat y:e Bottom of [Spires?] 2, 7494 Land 1, 6015 Taken 6[...] out of Coles Land 5, 3615 Taken from Dixons Land 6[...] 11, 7249 Remains due [...] 23, 8957

Allowed by y:e Comp:ny for a Common diff erey, one [...] breadth throughout the Length 1, 0126 [...] of their owne ground being 368 Rods [Shuls?] Remanes to be Taken [...] to Land 3, 9083 Taken on Sandy bay Assigned to Land — formerly belonging to [...] the [Goodwin?]

Margin Notes: Thom:s Harper Gun:rs mate desires if he might be dismiss'd of he Comp:s Service w:s was granted.

Jop:n Child Qual:t Gun:r to Succeed Tho: Harper and Rich:t Alexander ord:d to be Qual:t Gun:r

An Acco: where M:r Tho: Goodwin Land Lyes being Exchanged w:th y:e Comp:y

Added to the Comp:y pleasure.

Thomas Harper, gunner's mate, asked to be discharged from the East India Company's service, his ruined property lying much on his mind. The request was granted.

The council ordered that Stephen Child, qualified gunner, succeed Thomas Harper, and that Richard Alexander be appointed qualified gunner in the same position. Both men's salaries at that grade were to begin from that day.

An account was drawn up of the land belonging to Mr Thomas Goodwin, showing how it had been exchanged with the Company. The figures were as follows. Added to the Company: 8 acres 1,625 parts. Taken from Goodwin's own portion of Jeffrys Land: 6 acres 4,983 parts. Taken from John Coles Land: 14 acres 6,206 parts. Taken in by the Company from Betoins Land: 2 acres 0,125 parts. Taken in at the bottom of Spires Land: 2 acres 7,494 parts. Taken from [...] Land: 1 acre 6,015 parts. Taken out of Coles Land: 5 acres 3,615 parts. Taken from Dixons Land: 11 acres 7,249 parts. Remainder due: 23 acres 8,957 parts. Allowed by the Company for a common way, one [...] in breadth throughout the length of their own ground, being 368 rods [...]: 1 acre 0,126 parts. Remainder to be taken [...] to land: 3 acres 9,083 parts. Taken at Sandy Bay, assigned to land formerly belonging to [...] Goodwin [...].

Interpretations

Thomas Harper's discharge from Company service on grounds that his own property had fallen into ruin illustrates a recurring tension in colonial garrison employment. Company servants were bound to their posts and could not simply leave, so a formal request to the council was required even for voluntary resignation. The grant of discharge acknowledged that private economic failure could constitute sufficient grounds for release from service.

The promotion of Stephen Child to qualified gunner and the appointment of Richard Alexander in the same grade on the same day reflects the council's practice of filling vacancies immediately to maintain the garrison's operational strength. The explicit dating of their salaries from that day ensured there was no gap in the wage record and no ambiguity about when their entitlements began.

The land exchange account between Thomas Goodwin and the Company records a redistribution of parcels drawn from multiple named landholdings: Jeffrys Land, John Coles Land, Betoins Land, Spires Land, Dixons Land, and Sandy Bay. The granular precision of the figures, carried to four decimal places in acres, reflects the use of a formal surveying and measurement system. The allowance of a strip one [...] broad across 368 rods for a common way shows that public access rights were built into the exchange, reserving a right of passage across what would otherwise become consolidated Company ground.

Speculations

The complexity of the Goodwin land exchange, drawing parcels from at least six different named holdings, suggests the redistribution was not a straightforward swap but the product of a negotiated rearrangement involving multiple boundaries and competing claims. The retention of a common way through the exchanged ground may have been a condition insisted upon by neighbouring landholders or by the council itself to prevent the Company's consolidated holding from blocking access to other properties in the area.

249

253

Islands S: Helena,

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday y:e 3 day of Febru:y 1702 At Port James.

Step:n Poirier Govern: Pres:t Jn:o Foulis Dp:ty Govern:r Thomas Goodwin Ensigne Edward Edmunds 4:m Coun:t

Whereas Information was given to y:e Govern:t and Severall Sorts of goods Coun:t that y:e R:t Hono:r [Comp:s] Stores was Broken open, and Severall taken out of the Store Peices of Silkts and [Rinds] Salamones elt was taken out, said hearing by p:t Sam: Coales that Sam: Coales Ju:r had Sold Such Sorts of goods was apprehended upon confesses he Stole and Suspicion and Imprisoned till this day who being Examined did con- Sold Some of y:e goods to fessed that on thursday night Last being then on Sentry att of Said Mary Colyrboue & others R:t Hono:r [Comp:s] Store Roome, Brouk open two boards and Stole his and Some he had in his hand through, and took out of y:e [Kohors?] three Remnants of English possession Stuffe Drawne Peices of Salamd Jones, and [two?] Peices [Sints?], of which he Sold to Margaret [Colgrave?] By [gave] three Salamones to have [to ...] two Peices [Sints?] to John Bagley half a Salamone, and the remaining in his [Fathers] house [four] Salamones than [Rinum?] English Stuff.

Margarett Colgrave Being Sworne Saith that on [friday] in y:e afternoon James Coales came to her and desired her to make him about of Punch, who told him She would make none without money, he answd she lent a Peice of Stuffs, yet replied the M: [Slikks?]. Then he went away and Came againe Immediately and Bought a [Pint?] [Peice?] untell, then bought of him, [he] one doue a [a half] told as he was drinking above of Punch, that the paid him in part of [Lynt?] he told her he would Sell her a peice of Sints to make her a gown, would Suite in y:e Stay [Stile?] She bought just before, and accordingly went and [Sele?] it which She bought also, for Two dollars & half. [Part in Silicks] and Part in money, and next day he came againe and Called for a bowle of mony, and next day he came againe and Called for a bowle of Punch, and thereable him, and as he was drinking it w:t Stephen Child he told her he would Sell her Ten or a dozen p:t of [Pints?] more

Margin Notes: Severall Sorts of goods taken out of the Store by p:t Sam: Coales confesses he Stole and Sold Some of y:e goods to Mary Colyrboue & others and Some he had in his possession

At a consultation held at Fort James on Tuesday 3 February 1703, those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor John Foulis, Ensign Thomas Goodwin, and Edward Edmunds as fourth councillor.

The governor and council were informed that the East India Company's stores had been broken open and several pieces of goods removed, among them pieces of silk, remnants of English cloth, and pieces of salamonee. On information received, Samuel Coales junior was taken up on suspicion, imprisoned, and held until that day. On examination he confessed that on the previous Thursday night, while on sentry duty at the Company's storeroom, he had broken open two boards and passed stolen goods through the gap. He took out of the store three remnants of English cloth, drawn pieces of salamonee, and two pieces of [...]. Of these, he sold to Margaret Colgrave three pieces of salamonee and two pieces of [...], gave John Bagley half a piece of salamonee, and kept the remainder, being four pieces of salamonee and some English cloth, in his father's house.

Margaret Colgrave was sworn and testified that on the Friday afternoon James Coales came to her and asked her to make him a bowl of punch. She told him she would make none without money, and he offered her a piece of stuff, which she described as silk. He went away and came back immediately and bought a pint [...]. As he was drinking, he told her he would sell her a piece of [...] to make her a gown, in a style to match one she had bought just before. She bought it from him for £2 10s 0d, part in silk goods and part in money. The next day he came again and called for a bowl of punch, and as he was drinking it with Stephen Child he told her he would sell her ten or a dozen more pieces.

Interpretations

Salamonee was a plain-woven silk or silk-blend fabric produced in Asia and traded extensively by the East India Company. Its presence in the Company's storeroom on St Helena, alongside English cloth, reflects the island's position as a staging post on the Company's eastern trade routes, where both outward and homeward cargoes passed through.

Samuel Coales junior exploited his position as a sentry to commit the theft. The sentry's role gave him legitimate overnight access to the storeroom and removed the normal obstacle of forced entry. His method - breaking open two boards rather than forcing a lock - was chosen to minimise visible damage and reduce the immediate risk of detection.

Margaret Colgrave's purchase of stolen goods was not presented as innocent. Her testimony shows she accepted cloth in lieu of cash as payment for punch, then bought a second piece for cash and goods, and was offered further quantities the following day. The progressive nature of the transactions, and Coales's open offer to supply ten or a dozen more pieces, suggests she was aware she was buying goods that were not legitimately his to sell.

The fact that stolen goods were stored in Samuel Coales junior's father's house points to family complicity, or at minimum family knowledge, in the disposal of the stolen property. This implicates the wider Coales household in the offence and would have been a matter of concern to the council beyond the individual culpability of Samuel junior.

Speculations

Coales's choice to approach Margaret Colgrave first, and to use cloth as a means of obtaining punch before moving to cash transactions, suggests he had a prior understanding of her willingness to trade in goods of uncertain origin. The shift from barter to cash purchase on the same visit, and his return the following day with an offer of bulk quantities, points to an opportunistic escalation: having tested her receptiveness with a small transaction, he moved quickly to convert the stolen stock into money and consumption before the theft was discovered.

250

254

more, which had bought out of Shipps, who told him of the like, them and y:e Price, may be She would buy them, whereupon he went and brought is [...] m openly traded his [Rime] heaven. Sau Coates & one of [Pints?] to the bought of him, and R:to:r [Court] [Contemp...] her house whilst there. Lay upon y:e Table told her he had maded [bu] -gaine w:th y:e Said [...] [Miller] for two peeces [Sints], and y:e ha[...] given him a Jua [...] yours [worse], and another for Jon: [...] mudge, wife, and two [...] [Remnants?] [top] English Stuff to make [ear] of their wife, and two [Remnants] [top?] English Stuff to make [ear] of their Children a [port?] to [...] [Staffs] Shewed her haveing it in his handkerch[ief] which being very much like y:e [Now?] Stuff [golden?] wished then that the Sp[...] Sam:s Coales Came distinctly both of that and of [Pints] to, and Sai[d] [run] voted said that I Bought those goods of him, and would have [her] up in the [Country] to acquaint the Governour about it had not Stephen Child persuaded her to [y:e] Contrary, and to denie till M:r Goodwin [Ens...] [wore] it would be on Munday next, and then of the Said Sam: Coales had Stolen them out of y:e Store for She Suspected it would be found out.

The Said Sam Coales Saith he told Said Mary [Colgrave] he bought the goods out of Severall ships because She would not mu[...] dest they were Stole goods.

Stephen Child Saith Sam: Coales [S]offered to Sell him [...] [bu?] [Drink?] about two months ago, but did not See any he had.

Upon mature Consideration

It is ordered.

The finall decision of That the finall decision of y:e Buisiness aforesaid be refer[red] this matter Referred to to the Jury at y:e next Quarter Sessions, and that a Grand Ju[ry] a Jury, and that Henry be Summonsed to appeare on Monday next to finde the bill of Coales & Mary [Colgrave] Indictmt against y:e Said Sam Coales, [that] till at least or [Inno?] keep the goods in their -mus, And that Henry Coales and Mary Colgrave kept their Custody till demanded Custody the goods they have till demanded, And that y:e Said and y:e Said Sam: Coales Sam: Coales be Kept [Close Prison:r] or give good Security to be kept Close Prisoner. for his Appearance at the Said Sessions.

Margin Notes: The finall decision of this matter Referred to a Jury, and that Henry Coales & Mary [Colgrave] keep the goods in their Custody till demanded and y:e Said Sam: Coales to be kept Close Prisoner.

Coales had told Margaret Colgrave that the goods came from ships, to make her believe they were legitimately obtained and not stolen. She testified that the goods were laid openly on the table in her house. Coales told her he had made a bargain with [...] Miller for two pieces of [...], and had given [...] for another piece intended for the wife of Jon [...], and two remnants of English cloth to make clothing for their children [...]. He showed her the goods in his handkerchief, which closely resembled cloth she recognised. When Samuel Coales came and identified both the cloth and the pieces, she said that she had bought the goods from him. She added that she would have gone to the country to inform the governor about it, had Stephen Child not persuaded her to the contrary and to deny everything until Mr Goodwin the ensign [...] it would be on the Monday following. By that point she suspected that Samuel Coales had stolen the goods from the store, as she believed it would be found out.

Samuel Coales stated that he had told Mary Colgrave he had bought the goods from several ships because she would not have dealt with him had she believed they were stolen.

Stephen Child testified that Coales had offered to sell him [...] some two months earlier, but that he had not seen any of the goods himself.

After mature consideration, the council ordered that the final resolution of the matter be referred to the jury at the next quarter sessions, and that a grand jury be summoned to appear on the Monday following to determine whether to return a bill of indictment against Samuel Coales. Henry Coales and Mary Colgrave were to keep in their custody the goods in their possession until demanded. Samuel Coales was to be held as a close prisoner or give good security for his appearance at the sessions.

Interpretations

Coales's deliberate lie to Colgrave - that the goods came from ships - was both a practical deception and a legally significant admission. His own statement that he told her this because she would not otherwise have dealt with him confirms that she had reservations about the source of the goods, and that he actively worked to overcome them. This undermined any defence she might raise of innocent purchase.

The referral to the quarter sessions and the summoning of a grand jury to find a bill of indictment reflects the formal English criminal procedure transplanted to the island. The grand jury's function was not to convict but to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to put Coales on trial. Only if the bill was found would the case proceed to a trial jury at the sessions.

The order that Henry Coales retain the goods found in his custody placed a formal legal hold on property that was in a family member's house. This was a precautionary measure to preserve the stolen goods as evidence and to prevent their dispersal before the trial, while stopping short of treating Henry Coales himself as a defendant at this stage.

Holding Samuel Coales as a close prisoner, or requiring him to provide good security for his appearance, reflects the standard mechanism for ensuring a defendant's attendance at trial on a small island where flight was constrained but not impossible. Close imprisonment meant confinement without the relative freedoms sometimes allowed to less dangerous prisoners.

Speculations

Stephen Child's role in this affair is ambiguous. He was present when Coales openly offered to sell more goods to Colgrave, and he actively persuaded her to deny her knowledge of the theft until the Monday. His testimony that Coales had offered to sell him goods two months earlier suggests he had prior knowledge of Coales's activities. His advice to Colgrave to stay silent may have been intended to protect himself as much as her, since his own earlier encounter with Coales could have drawn him into the investigation had she spoken sooner.

251

255

Whereas Bernant Audouart haveing come to a Sid [ely] Bernant Audouart death by [Comp:] money Who Had Indebted unto y:e R:t Hono: eld:r being drowned Comp:s at y:e time of his death a Considerable Sumd of money where- being Indebted a Con- [as y:e] Govern: [Has] out a Warrant in order of Seizing the Said sidrable Sum to the Audouarts Estate yong use of y:e Said R:t Hono [Comp:] and Acco:t [Comp:] his Estate Seized -ingly, Henry [Seld?] marshall Brought this day an Acco: of y:e &c. Said Estate, to which y:e [eld?r?] Bernant [his] [Wid]ow and Mother made oath was atrue and just Acco: of y:e Said Bert: Audouarts Estate.

It is ordered

All persons both Debt- That an Advertisement be Issued out Tomorrow to Require all ors Concerned in the Debtors and Creditors Concerned in the Said Estate to make their Estate are to Ap- Appearance Before Govern:t and Council this day fortnight peare before Gov: [Coun] to paye fortnight to that their Acco:ts may be Stated Accordingly. be their Acco:br.

Whereas in the Consultation Held on monday y:e [...] [Insta?] a green Parlabeam [...] Said [Faued] [Sandline?] was ordered not to vend [Pints of?] [W?]ine fined Ten Shillings for of Thomas [Ables?] upon Some of y:e [Invar] punishment, who [Cehay—] disposing of Govern: to the Said order, hath Ben Seub [within] the Said [Ables?] house Rum &c &c oors on which he Came deny. moving for y:e breach of [him at?] [a top?] upon any evidence of the Govern:t

It is therefore ordered

That y:e Said [Parley?] [Sandlaine?] for Contempt of y:e Said order be fined y:e Sum of Ten Shillings to y:e use of y:e [Sick?] and in [Ca]se of a Second [Contempt?] then to be [alligde?] [Impossible?] a Punishment as the Govern:t and Council Shall think fit.

Whereas Sam:s Coales haveing Broaken open y:e Store Roome [...] Todd, James Rider, we thought fitt to have Some person to verufy [...] who [tooke?] Sam: Wrangham upon the goods out, Being resolved to repaire y:e Said Shore Roome for [fear?] Sworn: ordred View y:e any further mischief might happen from thence, that they might Store Roome where [certifie?] the truth thereof to y:e Grand Jury. Sam: Coales Brooke order of Repairing Said Rore Roome before We whose names hereunto are Subscribed do any further mischief hereby Certifie that at y:e Worsp: Govern:t and [...] request we have happens &c. viewed y:e Place above mentioned, which we Saw two weather boards that had been eased up from their Proper Place, and Alwayes where the Fastning on y:e Inside was forced open and Splinted which wee

Margin Notes: Bernant Audouart eld:r being drowned being Indebted a Con- sidrable Sum to the [Comp:] his Estate Seized &c.

All persons both Debt- ors Concerned in the Estate are to Ap- peare before Gov: [Coun] to paye fortnight to be their Acco:br.

a green Parlabeam fined Ten Shillings for disposing of Govern: Rum &c &c oors on moving for y:e breach of [him at?] [a top?] upon any evidence of the Govern:t

[...] Todd, James Rider, Sam: Wrangham upon Sworn: ordred View y:e Store Roome where Sam: Coales Brooke order of Repairing Said Rore Roome before any further mischief happens &c.

Bernard Audouart the elder had drowned and at the time of his death owed the East India Company a considerable sum of money. The governor issued a warrant to seize Audouart's estate for the Company's account. Henry [...] the marshal brought before the council that day an account of the estate, to which Bernard Audouart's widow and mother swore was a true and just account.

The council ordered that an advertisement be issued the following day requiring all debtors and creditors with an interest in the estate to appear before the governor and council within a fortnight, so that their accounts could be properly stated.

At a previous consultation held on a Monday [...], a person referred to as [...] Sandlaine had been ordered not to sell wine at the house of Thomas [...] on pain of punishment. In defiance of that order, he had been found selling rum and other goods at the same premises. He came before the council and denied it, but evidence was produced against him.

The council ordered that Sandlaine be fined 10s 0d for contempt of the earlier order, the fine to be applied to the use of the sick. Should he offend a second time, he was to suffer such further punishment as the governor and council saw fit.

As Samuel Coales had broken open the storeroom, the council considered it necessary to have the damage certified before repairs were carried out, so that the evidence could be placed before the grand jury. [...] Todd, James Rider, and Samuel Wrangham were sworn and ordered to inspect the storeroom. Those whose names were subscribed to the certificate stated that at the governor's request they had viewed the place and found two weatherboards that had been eased up from their proper position, and that the fastening on the inside had been forced open and splintered [...].

Interpretations

The seizure of Bernard Audouart's estate by warrant immediately on his death, before any probate process, reflects the Company's priority as a creditor. The governor acted on the Company's behalf to secure the assets before they could be dispersed, with the marshal executing the seizure and producing a formal inventory. The widow and mother's oath that the account was true and just placed the burden of accuracy on the family while giving the Company a legally attested basis for its claim.

The advertisement requiring debtors and creditors to appear within a fortnight was the standard mechanism for assembling all financial claims on an insolvent estate in one proceeding. By fixing a deadline and requiring personal appearance before the council, the order prevented creditors from pursuing individual actions and ensured the Company's claim was adjudicated alongside all others in an orderly process.

The fine directed to the use of the sick rather than to the poor or the Company represents a specific institutional destination. A fund for the sick on the island functioned as a form of collective welfare provision for the garrison and inhabitants, and minor judicial fines were one of its revenue sources.

The requirement that Todd, Rider, and Wrangham inspect and certify the condition of the storeroom before repairs were carried out was a deliberate preservation of evidence. Repairing the damage without a prior sworn inspection would have destroyed the physical proof of how the break-in was accomplished, which the council needed to put before the grand jury at the quarter sessions.

Speculations

The order to repair the storeroom only after sworn certification suggests the council was aware that physical evidence of the method of entry was essential to a successful prosecution. The splintered inside fastening and the eased weatherboards were the material proof that the break-in was deliberate and from within, consistent with Coales's confession that he had exploited his position as sentry. Securing this evidence before it was lost to repair reflected a practical understanding of what the grand jury would need to return a bill of indictment.

252

256

we are ready to make oath of when thereunto required. Witness our hands this third day of Feb:y 1702 [/3]

[T]ru[e?] Jno field James Rider Sam: Wrangham

Tho: Goodwin Edw:d Emucho[s?]

Islands S: Helena

At a Consultation Held on Monday the 6th day of February 1702 At Fort James.

P Step:n Poirier Govern:r Pres:t Jn:o Foulis Dp:ty Govern:r Tho:s Godwin Ensigne Edward Edmunds 4:m Coun:te

A lre reced from y:e Whereas y:e Govern:t Haveing recd a Letter from y:e two [Comp:s?] New Comp: wherein Dated at London y:e [15?] of August Last past by y:e Said Cap: Williams they desired that M:r Morris Commander [and] the Said Govern:t Haveing Communicated John Chappell might the Said Letts unto us of rest in Councell that we might Advise Stay on this Island to Altogether what to do in this Case, as two pretends is to be [Delin—] Deliver the Letters to distilled in two parts viz: the Bearer the one who is M:r [...] Chap their Severall Comma- [pell] and y:e Passport of y:e Said [Letr?]. The Bearer is desired to Stay up nders when and if on y:e Island till their Ships [Can] have to deliver y:e Severall Letts they Arrived here but [to] [...] told till their ships [Can] have to deliver y:e Severall Letts M:r Chappell being not him [a?ge?], the maine Scope of y:e Said orders is [Private] orders to permitted to Stay here the Severall Commanders of their Shipps. the Govern: & Councell Read all y:e Lres to De- As for y:e First Part, wee have Not thought fitt to give liver em to Each Coman- liberty to y:e Said M:r Jn:o Chappelle to Stay here, the Consequen[ce] as they Arrive here &c. [obliged?] him to repaire on board y:e Said Shipp [which is the Eas—]

But as for y:e Second Part after a Long debate and mat[ure] Consideration [that] we have in Positive orders from our R:t Hono:r Masters to forbid us Receiving any Letters,

Secon[d]

Margin Notes: A lre reced from y:e New Comp: wherein they desired that M:r John Chappell might Stay on this Island to Deliver the Letters to their Severall Comma- nders when and if they Arrived here but M:r Chappell being not permitted to Stay here the Govern: & Councell Read all y:e Lres to De- liver em to Each Coman- as they Arrive here &c.

The certificate was signed by John Field, James Rider, and Samuel Wrangham, who stated they were ready to swear to its contents when required. It was witnessed on 3 February 1703 by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds [...].

At a consultation held at Fort James on Monday 6 February 1703, those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor John Foulis, Ensign Thomas Goodwin, and Edward Edmunds as fourth councillor.

The governor had received a letter from the New Company, dated at London 15 August last, sent by Captain Williams. The letter asked that Mr Morris, commander, and Mr John Chappell be permitted to remain on the island to deliver letters to the commanders of the New Company's ships as they arrived. The governor communicated the letter to the council so that they might advise on how to proceed. The letter was understood to have two parts: the first concerned Mr Chappell's stay on the island, and the second concerned the delivery of private orders to the commanders of the New Company's ships.

On the first part, the council decided it was not appropriate to allow Mr John Chappell to remain on the island, and he was required to return on board his ship [...].

On the second part, after long debate and careful consideration, the council noted that they had positive orders from the East India Company forbidding them from receiving any letters [...].

Interpretations

The letter from the New Company requesting that a representative be stationed on St Helena to distribute orders to arriving ship commanders reveals the practical difficulty facing the New Company in managing its fleet across long ocean passages. Ships on the eastern trade routes could not be recalled or redirected once at sea, so placing a courier on a known waypoint was a rational solution to the problem of communicating updated instructions.

The council's refusal to allow Chappell to remain on the island reflected the political reality of the rivalry between the old East India Company and the New Company, which had been chartered in 1698. St Helena was an old Company possession, and its governor was bound by old Company instructions. Permitting a New Company representative to reside on the island, even temporarily, would have been a material concession to a commercial and political rival.

The council's decision to read and forward the New Company's letters to each commander on arrival was a practical compromise. It respected their prohibition on receiving New Company correspondence as an institution while ensuring the letters reached their intended recipients, avoiding a direct confrontation with the New Company's interests without breaching their own masters' orders.

Speculations

The distinction the council drew between the two parts of the request - refusing the first while working towards a resolution on the second - suggests a deliberate effort to find a workable middle position. Refusing both outright would have obstructed New Company shipping at a time when the two companies were operating in parallel under parliamentary oversight. The council's willingness to deliver the letters themselves, rather than simply returning them, may have reflected an awareness that causing disruption to New Company operations could attract unwanted scrutiny from London.

253

257

Secondly that a Jury y:e Said M:r Chappell by our Request, had opened one of them, we observed nothing against our Said Masters Interest, only y:e whole End of it is [how to] duce their Ships homeward bound, that in this dangerous time they may Escape Speedily [going?] Thirdly Supposeing y:t [a] want of haveing taken those Lts to [d] deliver to whom they are directed of their was any number of [Pris—] Ships taken doubtless y:e whole nation with Reasons of Intelligence with the Enemy Rather then to Promote her Wealth and Prosperity w:th we are bound by Infinite motives to do, and Consequently to make us Bearers ffelks of y:e Said Nations Just Anger.

In fine if unhappily there is found any fault in this our Innocent Proceedings by our Said masters, we Humbly Beg their Pardon and do Submit our Selves to their Censures.

Therefore on y:e Considerations abovesaid we have Unanimously agreed to receive the Said Lears to deliver them to Each Commander which Shall touch here, whether they will agree with us for the Port Dutys or not.

[...]

Tho: Goodwin Edw:d Emunds

At Mr Chappell's request, the council had opened one of the letters and found nothing in it contrary to their masters' interests. Its sole purpose was to guide the New Company's homeward-bound ships on how to make a safe and speedy passage during that dangerous time.

The council further reasoned that if the letters had not been taken in for delivery to their intended recipients and any number of New Company ships were subsequently taken, the whole nation would have grounds to accuse the council of intelligence with the enemy rather than of promoting the nation's wealth and prosperity, to which they were bound by every consideration. This would justly expose them to the nation's anger.

Should their masters find fault with these proceedings, the council humbly asked their pardon and submitted themselves to whatever censure might follow.

On all these considerations, the council unanimously agreed to receive the letters and deliver them to each commander touching at the island, whether or not those commanders agreed to pay the port duties.

The record was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds [...].

Interpretations

The council's decision to open one of the New Company's letters before agreeing to forward them was a cautious act of institutional self-protection. By satisfying themselves that the contents posed no threat to the old Company's interests, they gave themselves a defence against any later accusation of having assisted a rival. The act of opening was done at Chappell's own request, which further insulated the council from blame.

The argument that failing to deliver the letters could expose the nation to enemy action was a calculated appeal to a higher loyalty than Company obedience. By framing their decision as one of national security rather than commercial preference, the council constructed a justification that their masters in London would find difficult to censure without appearing to have prioritised Company interest over the safety of English shipping during wartime.

The decision to deliver the letters regardless of whether commanders paid port duties was a significant concession. Port duties were a source of revenue for the island and a formal requirement for ships calling there. Waiving enforcement of this obligation in respect of New Company vessels shows the council judged the broader strategic and legal risks of withholding the letters to outweigh the immediate financial loss.

Speculations

The council's explicit pre-emptive apology to their masters, combined with their unanimous vote to proceed anyway, suggests they knew their decision was likely to be questioned in London but judged the risks of the alternative to be greater. The careful construction of their reasoning - opening the letter, finding nothing harmful, invoking national interest, and waiving port duties - reads as a deliberate attempt to build a defensible record. Each step was framed not as a choice made in the New Company's favour but as the responsible action of loyal officers in difficult circumstances.

254

258

Islands S: Helena,

Examination of Sam: Coales Ju:r before a Grand Jury being Indicted of Fellony & Burglary. Also Examination of Severall Evidences against him on Monday y:e 6th day of February 1702. At Fort James.

The grand Jury are

1 John Field 2 John Mudge 3 W:m Marks 4 James Rider 5 Ric:d Ruling 6 John Goodgom 7 Sam: Wrangham 8 Korn: [Alls?] 9 John Hennison 10 Philip Carlslake 11 John [Treeth?] 12 [John?] Bagley 13 [James?] [Lindpea?] 14 Joh: [Maxloall?] 15 Will: [Bing?] 16 Joseph [Parsons?] 17 Arthure Bradley who were all Sworn

The Jury desired M:r Thomas Goodwin Store Keep:r to give The Examination his declaration to Informe them whether he had lost any goods of Sam:s Coales by a out of y:e Stores, and in what Condition he found y:e Said [Stor—] Grand Jury for Brea- -room when he came down to y:e Store after he had heard of king open y:e Store And y:e Said Stores had been Broken upon. Who being Sworne Saith also the Examination that on Sunday morning was Sennight, [Mathaldo?] [Razza?] [who—] of Severall Witnesses ag- assisted him y:e [Stores] came over to his house in y:e [Sluttery?] and hem &c. told him y:e [Sto—] had Cleared up from y:e Store of night before, and told him that Sam: Coales had Sold of y:e [S?]tore Sev[era]ll [Kinds?] of [Sints?], and had given him a Som: [Sints?] [Colts?] and Some v[...] of English Stuff for his wife, and another [Said?] Coale for Jno: [Mudge's?] wife, but not Knowing his Good dishonesty of [that?], and Considering there was Such goods in y:e Store, would not take Storm. Upon [which?]— ness he asked y:e Said Harper came down to y:e fort, but before they went into y:e Store Roome M:ry Coales desired him to [g]oe [his?] house, and there was Some goods in his [Sona?] [Sam:ts?] [fleet?] who accordingly [f?]ied, and found those goods very like y:e [Comp:s] therefore desired him to Secure them till further order. then they went into y:e Store Roome and upon Examining into y:e [Wonds?] found Ten or Heaven Staves wanting, whereupon Caused y:e Serj:t of y:e Guard to Secure y:e Said Sam: Coales in Prison, and upon Searching where y:e Said

More

Margin Notes: The Examination of Sam:s Coales by a Grand Jury for Brea- king open y:e Store And also the Examination of Severall Witnesses ag- hem &c.

At Fort James on Monday 6 February 1703, Samuel Coales junior was examined before a grand jury on an indictment of felony and burglary, together with several witnesses called against him.

The seventeen members of the grand jury were: John Field, John Mudge, William Marks, James Rider, Richard Ruling, John Goodgom, Samuel Wrangham, Cornelius [...], John Hennison, Philip Carlslake, John [...], John Bagley, James [...], John [...], William [...], Joseph Parsons, and Arthur Bradley, all of whom were sworn.

The jury asked Mr Thomas Goodwin, storekeeper, to declare whether he had lost any goods from the stores and in what condition he found the storeroom when he went down to inspect it after learning of the break-in. Goodwin was sworn and testified that on the Sunday morning a week before, [...] had come to his house and told him that Samuel Coales had sold several kinds of goods from the store the night before, and had given him some cloth and some English cloth for his wife, and some for John Mudge's wife. Not knowing the full extent of the dishonesty but aware that such goods were held in the store, Goodwin went down to the fort. Before they entered the storeroom, Mary Coales asked him to go to her house, where goods were found that closely resembled Company stock. He ordered these to be secured until further notice. They then entered the storeroom and on examining the interior found ten or eleven staves missing. Goodwin directed the sergeant of the guard to secure Samuel Coales in prison, and on searching the place where [...].

Interpretations

The indictment of Samuel Coales for both felony and burglary reflects a deliberate legal distinction. Felony covered the theft itself, while burglary required proof of breaking and entering a structure by night with intent to commit a crime. The council's careful documentation of the method of entry - the eased weatherboards and splintered inside fastening - was directly relevant to sustaining the burglary charge, which carried a heavier penalty than simple theft.

Thomas Goodwin's dual role as storekeeper and as Ensign of the garrison placed him at the intersection of the Company's commercial and military functions on the island. His testimony as the officer responsible for the stores gave the grand jury an authoritative account of what had been lost and how the crime came to light.

The fact that Mary Coales directed Goodwin to her house before he entered the storeroom, and that stolen goods were found there, suggests she had knowledge of the theft and may have been attempting to manage its discovery. Whether this was an attempt to pre-empt a search or to cooperate with the investigation to limit consequences for her family is unclear, but her intervention made her a material witness.

The missing staves - ten or eleven in number - provided a physical measure of the scale of the theft beyond the goods already recovered. Staves in this context most probably refers to casks or barrel components used to store goods, their absence indicating that containers as well as their contents had been taken.

Speculations

The information first reaching Goodwin through an intermediary who had received goods from Coales, rather than through any official report, suggests the theft might have remained undetected longer had Coales been more discreet in distributing the stolen property. His decision to give goods to the wives of identifiable men - including John Mudge, who sat on the grand jury - created a trail of witnesses whose own receipt of stolen goods gave them both knowledge of the crime and a personal interest in how it was resolved.

255

259

Store Roome was Brouk open found on y:e Backside where two weather boards had been Riped open, and y:e bolt where y:e [Sints?] lay forced open a wide of a man could Slide his hand in, the [Spricer?] [Staple?] was roped over the English Stuff Shining on y:e Place forced open and as he was going up y:e valley Stephen Child told him that there was in his house two Remnants of English Stuff and two [Sints?] [Pely—] Coales, goes up in [Handkerchief?] [Sents?] [Kids?] I have left three on Saturday night was a Sennight [...] [uth?] y:e Said Step: Child told him that y:e Said Sam: Coales has represented him with goods about Six months ago.

Richard [Clen?] Being Sworne Saith that on Saturday Last was Sennight in y:e afternoon Sam: Coales called him into his y:e others house and Shewed him a about three pieces of [Sints?], and a Remnant of English Stuffe, and asked him if he would [buy?] these rong [Shope?] two peices of [Sints?] and bargained for them [...] [Sold?] [...] Sold out of the Shopp [a]forne he the Said Sam: Coales gave him a Peice [Coble?] for his wife, and another for Jno: [Mudges?] wife, and Said he had Sold y:e [Selen?] dollars accordingly [...] to M:r [Colgrave?], and a boul has on hand after went to the Said M:r [Colgrave?] and asked her if y:e Said Sam: Coales him Sold her any [Sints?] told told him yes when y:e Said & the bar Sold me two, Peices, [then?] Boabe English Stuff, and had given him a Peice [Coble?] for him two [...] and another for one [Mudges?] wife, which he headed of Said M:r [Colgrave?] who affirms as the Said & of English Stuff Said been a friend Sam: Coales did not come honestly by those goods that [l]like of Shoe [Shope?] and this Deponent haveing a mistaken of y:e Said and Coales [Came?] by these goods dishonestly, [...] of Said goods he had crept up as a hundred they hate Stephen [Silks?] therefore told about againe y:e Said Sam: Coales and [w]ent of Said M:r [Colgraves?] house who he told that in mother her Coales not [some?] honestly be those goods, no Said he you are mistaken, and if you Done have them you may lye them before, and when he would com in to [Colgrave?] which was that evening, he went to M:r Goodwin Storekeeper and told him, him y:e Sam: Coales had Sold a Sold of no [Sints?] to M:r [Colgrave?] and had procured from [Colts?] he thought must needs be Almighty [...] from good, consequently [and?] y:e Said [Stringer?] to go down to y:e fort and [Seize?] the Said them [Gave?] to his [ownes?].

Stephen Child Being Sworne Saith that on Last [Munday?] was a Sennight Sam: Coales Invited him to drink Part of a bowler [Laugh?] at M:r [Colgraves?], and when that was out he called for another [boule?], and before that [was] drank out the Said Sam: Coales took out of y:e house kind came againe Immediately and [Bough—] Something under his arme but what it was he cant Tell, and a little while after he and y:e Said Sam: Coale went from y:e Said M:r [Colgraves?]

to

On inspecting the back of the storeroom, Goodwin found two weatherboards ripped open and the bolt where the cloth lay forced apart wide enough for a man to slide his hand through. The staple had been pried over and the English cloth lay exposed at the forced opening. As he was going up the valley, Stephen Child told him there were in his house two remnants of English cloth and two pieces of [...] belonging to Coales, carried there in a handkerchief. Child also told him that Samuel Coales had supplied him with goods some six months earlier.

Richard [...] was sworn and testified that on the Saturday a week before, in the afternoon, Samuel Coales had called him into his house and shown him about three pieces of [...] and a remnant of English cloth, asking if he would buy two pieces of [...]. Coales also gave him a piece of [...] for his wife and another for John Mudge's wife, saying he had sold the remainder to Mrs Colgrave for several dollars. The witness then went to Mrs Colgrave and asked her whether Coales had sold her any cloth, and she confirmed he had sold her two pieces, along with some English cloth, and had given her a piece of [...] for herself and another for John Mudge's wife. She told the witness she did not believe Coales had come by those goods honestly. The witness, likewise suspicious, went back to Coales and told him at Mrs Colgrave's house that he did not think he had come by the goods honestly. Coales replied that he was mistaken and told him that if he did not want the goods he could put them aside. That same evening the witness went to Mr Goodwin the storekeeper and told him that Coales had sold cloth to Mrs Colgrave and had obtained other goods that he believed could only have come from the store, and urged him to go down to the fort and seize them.

Stephen Child was sworn and testified that on the Monday a week before, Samuel Coales had invited him to drink a bowl of punch at Mrs Colgrave's. When that was finished Coales called for another bowl, and before it was drunk Coales went out of the house and came back immediately with something under his arm, though the witness could not say what it was. Shortly afterwards he and Coales left Mrs Colgrave's house and went to [...].

Interpretations

The physical description of the forced entry - the bolt prised apart to the width of a hand, the staple pried over, and the weatherboards ripped from the back of the building - corroborated Coales's confession about the method of the break-in and provided the grand jury with concrete evidence of the burglary. The detail that the opening was only wide enough to slide a hand through, rather than a full forced entry, suggests the damage was kept to a minimum to avoid obvious detection.

Richard [...] provided the most damaging testimony beyond Coales's own confession. He traced the distribution of stolen goods across several recipients, confirmed the price Coales had obtained from Mrs Colgrave, and documented his own attempt to confront Coales directly before reporting to Goodwin. His account established a chain of transactions that connected the storeroom break-in to named individuals on the island.

The distribution of pieces of cloth as gifts to the wives of John Mudge and others, alongside cash sales to Mrs Colgrave, shows Coales using stolen goods both as currency and as social currency. Giving cloth to women of households he knew was a way of spreading goodwill and creating complicity without direct cash transactions that might attract suspicion.

Stephen Child's testimony placed him at Mrs Colgrave's house during the transactions and established that he saw Coales leave and return with something concealed. His account stopped short of identifying what Coales carried, but its effect before the grand jury was to corroborate the pattern of behaviour described by other witnesses.

Speculations

The witness Richard [...] going first to confront Coales directly at Mrs Colgrave's house before reporting to Goodwin suggests he was initially reluctant to bring a formal accusation and preferred to give Coales an opportunity to account for himself. Coales's dismissive response - telling him he was mistaken and could put the goods aside if he did not want them - removed any remaining doubt and left the witness no credible alternative but to report to the storekeeper. This sequence may also reflect the social difficulty of accusing a neighbour on a small island where relationships were close and consequences severe.

256

260

his Father Midges, to See they had Been there a little time y:e Said Sam: Coales asked his Father Mudge how much he owed him, who told him he could not [justly?] Tell him, then haveing not his [Pen?] book at y:e fort, then y:e Said Sam: Coales replyed if you could I would Pay you [other?] in money or goods, and proffered to Tell him a Peice of English Stuffe, but the [Sil?emy?] of [which] did not buy it. And about halfe an houre after they Both [Sort—] over againe to y:e Said M:r [Colgraves?] and y:e Said Sam: Coales [Carred?] y:e Stuff two [four?] Peices of [Sints—] with him took up in a handkerchief. if he had given Some [Sone?] that day to Rich: [Cline?] to Carry up to y:e Country, but he mistrusting the Said Sam: Coales Came on Improbably of whom [cost?] them to him, to he Second in his house. Further Saith of the [People?] Brought ones of [Sints?] out of y:e Said Sam: Coales, he was to [pay?] him and y:e [Downe?] [make?] of Said Sam: Coales proffered to let him Some Sort of Stuffe to make his wife a Gownd. But did not See any he had.

After mature Consideration y:e Grand Jury The Jury brought in a Brought y:e Bill Indicted: against y:e Said Sam: Coales Bill a Billa Vera. a Billa Vera.

[...]

Tho: Goodwin Edw:d Edmunds

Fourteen pages are here missing. It appears by an Alphabeticall abstract of the Laws, that the following proclamation was entred in the 2½ pages of book N:o 6. We do hereby forbid any Person or Persons to go for the future Shooting Partridge Gunna Hins &c, or to take or destroy their Young or Eggs upon Paine of being fined 10 s to the Hon:ble Comps for the 1st Offence therein, and in case of Residure to be fined as Punished at Governors & Councils Pleasure be the Offender either Freeman or Soldier however the Gov:t & Council excepted to go a Shooting for their Diversion. Book N:o 6.

Margin Notes: The Jury brought in a Bill a Billa Vera.

From Mrs Colgrave's house, Coales and Child went to the house of his father Mudge. After a short time there, Coales asked old Mudge how much he owed him. Mudge said he could not tell him exactly, as he did not have his account book at the fort. Coales replied that if he could state the amount he would pay him either in money or goods, and offered to sell him a piece of English cloth, which Mudge did not buy. About half an hour later both men went back to Mrs Colgrave's, and Coales carried with him two or four pieces of cloth wrapped in a handkerchief. He had earlier that day given some cloth to Richard [...] to carry up to the country, but Child, mistrusting how Coales had come by it, kept it at his own house. Child further testified that Coales had brought out a piece of cloth from his possession and offered to sell him some sort of cloth to make his wife a gown, but Child said he had not seen any of it himself.

After mature consideration, the grand jury returned the bill against Samuel Coales as a true bill.

The record was signed by Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds [...].

Fourteen pages are here missing from the record. From an alphabetical abstract of the laws, the following proclamation was recorded in book no. 6. No person was to go shooting partridges, guinea hens, or similar birds, or to take or destroy their young or eggs, on pain of a fine of 10s 0d to the Company for a first offence, and on a second offence to be fined or punished at the governor's and council's pleasure, whether the offender was a freeman or a soldier. The governor and council were however exempted and permitted to go shooting for their recreation.

Interpretations

The return of a true bill by the grand jury - recorded in Latin as a billa vera - was the formal finding that the evidence against Samuel Coales was sufficient to put him on trial. It did not constitute a conviction but confirmed that the case would proceed to a trial jury at the quarter sessions. The careful assembly of witness testimony over several days, the physical inspection of the storeroom, and the sworn inventory of recovered goods all formed part of the evidential foundation the grand jury was asked to assess.

Stephen Child's account of Coales attempting to settle a debt with old Mudge in goods rather than cash, and carrying cloth wrapped in a handkerchief between houses on the same day as the theft was discovered, added to the pattern of behaviour the grand jury considered. The detail that Child kept the cloth given to Richard [...] at his own house rather than passing it on suggests Child was already distancing himself from the transactions by the time he was called to testify.

The proclamation protecting partridges, guinea hens, and their eggs reflects the Company's concern for the island's wildlife as a practical resource. The specific exemption of the governor and council from the prohibition illustrates the hierarchical structure of island law: conservation obligations applied to the general population but not to those who made and enforced the rules.

Speculations

Coales's visit to old Mudge's house to offer payment in goods, on the same evening the theft was being reported to the storekeeper, suggests he may have been attempting to convert stolen cloth into settled debts before the investigation caught up with him. Paying a known creditor in cloth was a way of reducing the quantity of identifiable goods in circulation while simultaneously discharging a liability. The fact that Mudge declined the offer may have been fortunate for Mudge, given that several others who accepted goods from Coales found themselves drawn into the proceedings.

257

275

Island S: Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 22 day of Aprill 1702 At Fort James

Steph:n Poirier Gover: Pres:t Jn:o Foulis Dp:ty Gover: Tho: Goodwin Ensigne Enbard Edmunds 4th m Coun:

Orlando Bagley free planter made [French?] to pay Complaint to Govern and Council that William [French?] Sol:r Orlando Bagley Owed & Indebted to his deceased Father the Sum of three pounds three pounds as far and Since he being his Said decd Fathers [e]xecutor made demand as possible he Can & of y:e Said Sum, which the Said [French?] denied to pay him. M:r Bagley is to give y:e French a The Said Will: [French?] being called and asked the reason why discharge accordingly he denied to pay y:e Said Said Bagley the Sums aforesaid, made answke he had [charge?] y:e Debt kind of the Said Bagley would give him a discharge to Bear him harmless in case of Said debt was Ever demanded againe, the moveing of Said Sums property to [Meet?] [Plum?] told when he was [out of this Island?] he would pay him y:e Said Sums which y:e Said Orlo: Bagley promised to do w:t [pause?] there upon.

It is ordered

That y:e Said Will: [French?] pay y:e Said Orlo: Bagley the Said Sum of three pounds as Soon as possibly he could, and that he Give him a discharge Accordingly for y:e Same.

Margaret Colgrave who made Complaint to us Mar:t Colgrave Comp:t that John [Jeffry?] [her?] for She a [bunch?] of Plantains out of the of John Jeffry for Stea- Garden, the R:t Hono:r [Comp:?] [hand?] doth Suspect him ing a bunch of Plantains to have Stolen Severall more. out of y:e Garden, She [recv?] of y:e Company. The Said John Jeffry being asked how many Bunches of Plantains he Stole out of y:e Garden, made Answer that a litle Plantains he Stole out of y:e Back way of Garden he Saws a bunch of Plantai- was going on y:e Back way of Garden he Saws a bunch of Plantains hang [ready?] [ripe?] which he att and hid in a [Juniper?] bush and was y:e first that ever he [Pace?] promising not to do the like

Margin Notes: [French?] to pay Orlando Bagley three pounds as far as possible he Can & M:r Bagley is to give y:e French a discharge accordingly

Mar:t Colgrave Comp:t of John Jeffry for Stea- ing a bunch of Plantains out of y:e Garden, She [recv?] of y:e Company.

At a consultation held at Fort James on Tuesday 22 April 1703, those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor John Foulis, Ensign Thomas Goodwin, and Edward Edmunds as fourth councillor.

Orlando Bagley, free planter, complained to the governor and council that William French, soldier, owed a debt of £3 0s 0d to his deceased father's estate. As executor of his father's estate, Bagley had demanded payment, which French refused. French, when called and asked why he refused to pay, replied that he would pay the sum if Bagley gave him a discharge to protect him against any future demand for the same debt, particularly if it were sought after he left the island. Bagley agreed to do this.

The council ordered that French pay Bagley the sum of £3 0s 0d as soon as possible and that Bagley give him a discharge accordingly.

Margaret Colgrave complained to the council that John Jeffry had stolen a bunch of plantains from the East India Company's garden, and that she suspected him of having stolen several more. Jeffry was asked how many bunches he had taken. He admitted that while passing along the back way of the garden he had seen a bunch of ripe plantains hanging there, had taken it and hidden it in a juniper bush, and that this was the first time he had ever done such a thing. He promised not to repeat the offence [...].

Interpretations

French's insistence on a formal discharge before paying the debt was a standard legal precaution in estate settlements. Where a creditor paid a debt to an executor, there was a risk that another party - a co-executor, a creditor, or a future claimant on the estate - might later demand the same sum again. A written discharge, signed by the executor, protected the debtor against double payment and was a recognised instrument in English debt law.

Orlando Bagley's role as executor of his father's estate placed him in a position of legal responsibility for both collecting debts owed to the estate and settling debts owed by it. His pursuit of French's debt was an act of estate administration rather than personal recovery, and the council's order that French pay and receive a discharge formalised an arrangement both parties had already agreed in principle.

The Company's garden from which Jeffry stole the plantains was a cultivated provision ground maintained by the East India Company as part of the island's food supply infrastructure. Theft from it was an offence against Company property rather than a private individual, which gave the complaint institutional significance beyond its modest scale.

Speculations

French's condition that Bagley would be leaving the island before he paid suggests the debt had been outstanding for some time and that French had previously used Bagley's anticipated departure as a reason to delay settlement. The council's order to pay as soon as possible, without setting a fixed date, may reflect a practical recognition that enforcing a precise deadline against a soldier with limited means was unlikely to be productive, while still placing French under a formal obligation he could not simply ignore.

258

276

like for the future, Whereupon

It is ordered

John Jeffry to pay half That the Said Jeffry pay unto the Said Mar:t Colgrave the Sum a Crown for Stealing of half a Crown and of Bunch of plantains he Note also to be whipt Plantains he Stole & to on his [...] body and if [aggr?] [tes?]. be whipt at [...] [Lashes?]

Whereas Severall persons Inhabiting on this Island hath [Com—] Orders that no hog- plained to us that they have Suffered much damages and trouble es to keep any hoggs their hoggs here in past James which they occasions by Springing hoggs that in the Fort, &c &c be- themselves have persons haveing themselves y:e liberty to Rise up cause people shall in the Said valley, and we haveing on the other hand Considered with not plead Ignorance order, finds that hath not happened more mischief by Such Revenue this order is to be [blush?] when they have been [almost] Starved by dry weather, which published &c. [work] [stay?] at [Last] two third parts of y:e yeard, also shut [Some?] [way?] [trackers?] that in Speaking the man with damage they do to the [form?] [watts?] in condemning them and [upon] those [Considerations?] and in pr[e—] using the former [Conc?] beats She found an order Concerning the Regulity of hogs made, which we have thought yitt to be publish again, that people may not [lay] with reason [Most of our orders?] are [from?] [that?]

Therefore it is ordered

That the Said former order be made anew and Published againe, with this present Consultation, that no person may plead Ignorance [th]at they [vain?] and [e?]xt any person that hath hoggs in y:e fort Valley or may have are Commanded to observe the former therepon paine of [Im]pose in the Said former order Giveing them- selves at months time from this 22 day of Aprill to dispone themselves the better to the performance. Witness.

Whereas our marine [regulations?] [...] [in?] duty Bound is to find The Smith not to out a way how to secure the [East?] [who willingly?] [these?] [whom pres-] close and any body [come?] [that?] he calls to be In had [among?] to thinks the [Current?] prevent except the Comp:y is that they are morning there [Blanks?] without the help of the payed for it. [Comp:s?] Smith, and there is not a publick one, that theirs [forti?] [nightly?] [mended?] or new ones made, when none [Can?] be got out of the Mines, besides Considering that they Seeme to have the [stock?] [such?] not paying [Em?] for Iron Steel, [bils?], and the [Labour?] which is [Conven—] ient to [belong?] on them to profforme Such [Worke?]. But Considering also the Said [Change?] our [Casters?] masters hath [Been?] [over?] m [forty?] times by the Said [Smithy?] one Scarcely made any [Prov?]ider of [constant?] Such a [proppor] [ius?] quantity of those [materials?] as [besides?] [in?] Proved they gott a [draught?] in a [bottle?] of Punch.

Margin Notes: John Jeffry to pay half a Crown for Stealing Plantains he Stole & to be whipt at [...] [Lashes?]

Orders that no hog- es to keep any hoggs in the Fort, &c &c be- cause people shall not plead Ignorance this order is to be published &c.

The Smith not to close and any body except the Comp:y is payed for it.

The council ordered that John Jeffry pay Margaret Colgrave 2s 6d for the plantains he had stolen, and that he be whipped on his [...] body [...].

Several inhabitants of the island had complained that they suffered considerable damage and trouble from hogs roaming freely in Fort James valley, which the hogs' owners had allowed to range there at liberty. The council had also considered on the other hand that greater harm had occurred when the animals were almost starved during dry weather, which lasted for about two thirds of the year. Taking into account both the damage the hogs caused to the farmland and the suffering caused by restricting them, and finding that a previous order on the regulation of hogs had already been made, the council decided that order should be published again so that no one could plead ignorance.

The council therefore ordered that the previous order be renewed and published alongside the present consultation. No person was to keep hogs in the fort valley, and all those who already had hogs there were required to comply with the terms of the previous order. They were given one month from 22 April to make the necessary arrangements.

The council also considered how best to secure a reliable supply of ironwork for the island's defences and fortifications, noting that locks and other fittings needed regular repair or replacement, and that none could always be obtained from the mines. The Company's smith had been paid for iron, steel, bills, and his labour on such work. However, the council found that on many occasions the smith had barely provided a sufficient quantity of the necessary materials, and that on one occasion he had taken payment in the form of a bottle of punch [...].

Interpretations

The punishment of whipping combined with a cash fine of 2s 6d imposed on John Jeffry reflects the dual character of minor criminal sanctions on the island. The fine compensated the aggrieved party - here Margaret Colgrave, who had reported the theft - while the physical punishment served as a public deterrent. The two penalties together signal that the offence, though small in monetary terms, was treated as a matter requiring both restitution and correction.

The renewal of the previous hog order rather than the creation of a new one was an administrative device that preserved the continuity of island law while extending its reach. By republishing the earlier order and attaching it to the present consultation, the council ensured that all inhabitants, including those who had arrived since the original order, were formally on notice of its terms and could not plead ignorance as a defence.

The one-month grace period given to hog owners to comply reflected the council's awareness that the order imposed a practical burden on households that depended on their animals. The period was designed to allow owners to make arrangements - whether selling, slaughtering, or relocating their hogs - without immediate penalty, balancing enforcement with economic realism.

The complaint about the smith accepting payment in punch rather than providing adequate materials points to a recurring problem in the island's artisan economy. The Company's smith held a monopoly position, since there was no public smith available as an alternative. His failure to maintain sufficient stocks of iron, steel, and other materials left the garrison's infrastructure vulnerable, and his willingness to accept informal payment in kind rather than fulfilling his contracted obligations undermined the Company's ability to keep its fortifications in repair.

Speculations

The detail that the smith had on at least one occasion taken a bottle of punch as payment suggests his relationship with those commissioning work had become informal enough to allow barter arrangements that bypassed the Company's formal payment structure. This informality, combined with his monopoly position, gave him considerable practical leverage over those who needed his services, and the council's decision to record and address this behaviour suggests it had become a source of real frustration rather than an isolated incident.

259

277

Therefore on the which It is ordered

The Smith not to That to Satisfie both our Said R:t Hono: masters and the Said worke for any free Inhabitants, when you they Shall want the Said [Comp:s?] Smith man without the they may have him Provided that before they go to the Said Smith, Govern:s Leave or in they Shall Acquaint the Govern:t or in his absence the Dp:ty [Gover?] his absence of Dep:ty Govern:t and in the name of the Commission officers be at y:e That [Joseph?] Govern and in this ab- [eff?] and in the name of the Commission officers be at y:e that [Joseph?] sence [Joseph?] Parsons Parsons who Shall take an Acco: of this quality and [Disability?] [...] to Keep an Acco. the Said worke which when done [...] personally and [those?] [full?] of what Worke they be Set on it by Govern:t and Councell and his [Servant?] is proved for the do and for who, that [future?] that any works be [Definitely?] Done by y:e Said Smith, the Comp:y may be pa- as Smiths, then their Repenm[en]t According to the Said Govern:t and yed In Imploying their Councils pleasure, the costs [afforded?] to the Comp:y and the Employ— Smith &c. ment [accordingly?] [S?] and [afterwards?] others any to Called [other?] we See the Said Smith [give?] him his work [faithfully?] & what we think fitt to Encourage him in doing [this?] [to?] [the?] [I?].

Thom:s Bagly Orphan Thomas Bagley orphan came and desired that desired that Orland[o &c?] would be pleased to give him Leave to Close, Orlando [Staffin?] Bagley his Brother, his brother to be his Guardian, to [not?] [one?] that [Joseph?] his [Mother?] [g?]ift to his Genand [on?] him, which have granted him. And Accordingly gave their is was granted him. and Orlo: Bagley [Tenant?] of Said Brothan [g?]ack, and to give an Reed Utterp [els?] to his [Penny?] [Libipony?].

Whereas att a Court of Judicature Held on the 6 Instant Coales Came att Sam: Coales for the Breaking of Shopp &c and appears in the [b?] y:e Former & procure- [...] [Patches?] [promag?] that in [Cull?] [a?] [shed?] three [times?] the [follow?] ment accordingly [ong?] the [Conduct?] the out of the R:t Hono:r [Comp:?] Store [grom?] then [th?] [s]ence given all Should be from [Scou?]rging in [Church?] more [hardly?] appears, also of Judicature to take the Indulgence that first they that Arrived three [And—] held the 6 Instant [&c?] According to Said Said [Evidence?] [his?] Relations came a last day and profered to pay y:e Said fine, which was accepted and Raked as [Gatton?] &c.

By Henry [Gale?] Sum of 10. 10. 0 [Matchau?] [Abynte?] 3. 00. 0 Thomas [Coals?] 2. 15. 6 William [Darke?] 4[l]5. 6 William Coals 2. 19. 6 Total of y:e Fine According 21. 16. 6 [...] [Cultu?] [re?]

W[...]

Margin Notes: The Smith not to worke for any free man without the Govern:s Leave or in his absence of Dep:ty Govern and in this ab- sence [Joseph?] Parsons [...] to Keep an Acco. of what Worke they do and for who, that the Comp:y may be pa- yed In Imploying their Smith &c.

Thom:s Bagly Orphan desired that Orland[o &c?] Bagley his Brother, [g?]ift to his Genand [on?] is was granted him.

Coales Came att y:e Former & procure- ment accordingly [s]ence given all of Judicature to held the 6 Instant [&c?]

The council ordered that the Company's smith was not to work for any free inhabitant without first obtaining leave from the governor, or in his absence from the deputy governor. Before approaching the smith, inhabitants were required to inform the governor or his deputy. Joseph Parsons was appointed to keep a record of all work carried out by the smith, noting what was done and for whom. This ensured the Company was properly reimbursed for the use of its smith. The council reserved the right to encourage the smith in his work as they saw fit.

Thomas Bagley, an orphan, asked the council for permission to have his brother Orlando Bagley appointed as his guardian. This was granted. Orlando Bagley accepted the responsibility and undertook to account for his brother's affairs accordingly.

At a court of judicature held on 6 April, Samuel Coales was tried for breaking open the East India Company's storeroom. The evidence against him was as set out in the earlier proceedings. His relations subsequently came forward and offered to pay the fine on his behalf. This was accepted. The fine was settled as follows: Henry [...] paid £10 10s 0d, [...] paid £3 0s 0d, Thomas Coales paid £2 15s 6d, William [...] paid £4 [...] 5s 6d, and William Coales paid £2 19s 6d, making a total of £21 16s 6d [...].

Interpretations

The requirement that free inhabitants obtain the governor's leave before using the Company's smith, and that Joseph Parsons keep a written account of all work done and for whom, was a direct response to the smith's failure to maintain adequate materials and his acceptance of informal payments. The record-keeping obligation created a paper trail that made it harder for either the smith or his customers to bypass the Company's payment structure.

The appointment of Orlando Bagley as guardian of his orphan brother Thomas placed a formal legal responsibility on Orlando to manage Thomas's affairs and account for them. Guardianship on the island operated under the council's authority rather than through any separate court, and the council's grant of the arrangement gave it official standing.

The payment of Samuel Coales's fine by his relations rather than by Coales himself was a recognised practice in early modern law. A fine could be discharged by a third party, and the acceptance of payment from family members reflected both the practical reality that Coales had no means of his own and the council's interest in securing payment rather than leaving the penalty outstanding. The distribution of the sum across five named contributors suggests the fine was substantial enough to require a collective family effort.

Speculations

The spread of contributions towards Coales's fine across five family members, including two bearing the surname Coales, points to a family network that pooled resources to protect one of its members from the consequences of a criminal conviction. The council's readiness to accept this arrangement rather than insisting on personal payment from Coales suggests a pragmatic interest in closing the matter. Prolonged imprisonment of a man whose family was willing to pay would have imposed costs on the garrison without producing additional revenue.

260

278

Whereas the old and new Church wardens was Summonsed The Old Church War- to appeare before us this day that y:e old Church Wardens might be dens discharged and discharged and accordingly the new ones Invested in the Said officer Geo: Haskison & Orlan- and Sworne to [pray?] at the duty of Church Wardens, and to observe do Bagley Sworne & what orders they [Receive?] them by Govern:t and Councell appointed Church Wardens for this It is ordered present year.

That George Haskison and Orlando Bagley free planters be incorporated in the Said office of Church wardens and Sworne Accordingly, and that y:e [Off?] Old Wardens be Discharged.

It is also ordered

The Old Overseers of That Thomas Coales and Thomas Earle be appointed over- the high ways dis- seers of the high ways for y:e yeare Ensuing, and that [a?] [lien?] ned and Thom: Coales [drawn?] accordingly, and that [t]he past years of y:e Said high- Tho: Earle appointed way [Fra?] [du?] and that past be discharged. Overseers for y:e Ensuing Year.

Francis Leach Came Francis Leach aged about [fifteen?] years of his some free and desired that he will came to us and desired to be Bound Apprentice unto his might be bound as an brother Robert Leach Shoemaker for y:e terme of five years. apprentice to his Bro: Robert Leach for the Robert Leach Being present was asked whether he would term of five years to take his Brother and Learn him the trade of a Shoemaker, [who?] Learn to be a Shoe ma- declared his willingness thereto but desired we would allow ker. him Something yearly for So doing.

It is ordered

That y:e Said Francis Leach be bound apprentice to his brother Robert Leach for y:e [terme?] of five years, and that he find him Sufficient meat drink [washing?] Lodging and apparell [fitting?] Such an apprentice, and that he give him in two Suts of [Apparell?] att y:e End of the five years, for all which hees allowed five pou: p [Ann:o?] which [the?] [is?] Contented [it?] being his brother.

[...]

Tho: Good[win?]

Margin Notes: The Old Church War- dens discharged and Geo: Haskison & Orlan- do Bagley Sworne & appointed Church Wardens for this present year.

The Old Overseers of the high ways dis- ned and Thom: Coales Tho: Earle appointed Overseers for y:e Ensuing Year.

Francis Leach Came and desired that he might be bound as an apprentice to his Bro: Robert Leach for the term of five years to Learn to be a Shoe ma- ker.

The old and new churchwardens were summoned before the council. The old churchwardens were discharged and the new ones sworn in and invested in their office, with orders to observe such directions as the governor and council gave them.

The council ordered that George Haskison and Orlando Bagley, free planters, be appointed churchwardens for the present year and sworn accordingly, and that the outgoing wardens be discharged.

Thomas Coales and Thomas Earle were appointed overseers of the highways for the coming year. The previous year's overseers were discharged.

Francis Leach, aged about fifteen, came before the council and asked to be bound apprentice to his brother Robert Leach, shoemaker, for a term of five years. Robert Leach was present and confirmed his willingness to take his brother on and teach him the trade, but asked that some annual allowance be made to him for doing so.

The council ordered that Francis Leach be bound apprentice to Robert Leach for five years. Robert was required to provide his brother with sufficient food, drink, washing, lodging, and clothing fit for an apprentice, and to give him two suits of clothing at the end of the term. In return, Robert was allowed £5 0s 0d per year, which he accepted, it being his own brother.

The record was signed by Thomas Goodwin [...].

Interpretations

The annual rotation of churchwardens, summoned before the council for a formal handover, shows the church as an institution directly supervised by civil authority on the island. The churchwardens were sworn officers of the council as much as of the church, and their appointment followed the same procedural pattern as other civic offices.

The appointment of overseers of the highways was a standard English parochial function transplanted to the island. Their duty was to organise and supervise the maintenance of roads and paths, typically by directing labour from the local population. The annual renewal of the appointment kept the office under the council's direct control.

The apprenticeship indenture for Francis Leach followed the standard terms of English apprenticeship law. The master's obligations - food, drink, washing, lodging, clothing during the term, and two suits at its end - were the customary provisions. The annual allowance of £5 0s 0d paid to Robert Leach compensated him for the cost of maintaining his brother during the years before Francis became productive. The council's role in formally ordering and recording the arrangement gave it legal standing equivalent to a civil indenture.

Speculations

Robert Leach's request for an annual allowance before agreeing to take his brother reflects a practical calculation. An apprentice of fifteen would require several years of instruction before contributing meaningfully to the business. The allowance bridged that gap. The council's willingness to approve the payment, described as acceptable because Robert and Francis were brothers, suggests the sum was seen as modest relative to what a master would charge for a non-family apprentice, and that family obligation was understood to reduce but not eliminate the financial burden on the master.

261

279

Island S: Helena

At a Consulta[tion held on ...] [Tues?] -day the 23 day of May 1702 At Fort [James?]

Step:n Poirier Govern:r Pres:t Thomas Goodroot Dp:ty Gover:r Edward Edmunds 3:m Councell

Whereas on Tuesday the 9 Instant, John Scriven and John Scriven and Joseph Fox being both Joseph Fox [Sol:r] being then upon y:e Guard went over the unduly went over y:e fort [wall?] after the [App?] Too had beaten, who being going up [wall] after the into the valley was [Challenged?] by [Humphrey?] [Wards?] [&c?] [App] Too had beaten who was on Sentry at the Store Roome, which upon [this?] [Trouble?] -ing to force on them, made them return back againe, who were y:e next morning Imprisoned till this day, and Examined who could not deny their Crime, begging Pardon for So doing.

After Serious Consultation It was ordered

J: Scriven & Jos: Fox That the Said Jo: Scriven and Jos: Fox, [it?] being very penitent being very penitent for their Late Crime is [Summ?] given not to Submit of [this?] for their Late Crime for the future, [&] now discharged [w:th?] only a Severe [Caution?] [&] are dismiss'd with a Se- Admonition for y:e future. vere Check &c.

Whereas M:r Edward Edmunds pointed to the Govern:t and dep[uty] M:r Edw: Edmunds Govern:t [&] Ensign Setting forth the[n] that Since he hath [p?] Called desires of Since M:r Tho: to remove from [that?] John Foulis [&?] [&?] Govern:t M:r [Foot?] Goodwin is made Dep:ty Goodwin had [Succeeded?] his [place?] by [&?] [&?] [Commision?] [Ense?] [same?] Govern:t S:d M:r Edm: Desires that he may Succeed the Said M:r Goodroots place of [Ensig?] desires he may Suc- Said Store Keeper, but after Severall debates the Govern:t [Spirit?] [ion?] ceed of Said M:r Goodwin is that the Said M:r Edmunds ought not to Succeed, neither as [Ensign?] for Ensign and Store nor Store Keeper for these reasons following. Keeper &c.

It is true, Scarcely [for?] John Foulis Late Dp:ty Govern:t was dead But the Said M:r Edmunds came to me, and desired me to

Margin Notes: John Scriven and Joseph Fox being both unduly went over y:e [wall] after the [App] Too had beaten

J: Scriven & Jos: Fox being very penitent for their Late Crime [&] are dismiss'd with a Se- vere Check &c.

M:r Edw: Edmunds desires of Since M:r Tho: Goodwin is made Dep:ty Govern:t S:d M:r Edm: desires he may Suc- ceed of Said M:r Goodwin for Ensign and Store Keeper &c.

At a consultation held at Fort James on Tuesday 23 May 1703, those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Thomas Goodwin as deputy governor, and Edward Edmunds as third councillor.

On Tuesday 9 May, John Scriven and Joseph Fox, both soldiers then on guard duty, had gone over the fort wall after the tattoo had beaten. On going up into the valley they were challenged by Humphrey [...] who was on sentry at the storeroom. This caused them to turn back. They were imprisoned the following morning and held until that day. On examination they could not deny the offence and asked pardon for it.

After careful consideration, the council ordered that Scriven and Fox, being genuinely penitent, be discharged with a severe reprimand and a strict warning against any repetition.

Edward Edmunds petitioned the governor and deputy governor, setting out that since John Foulis had died and Thomas Goodwin had succeeded to the position of deputy governor, he wished to succeed Goodwin in the roles of ensign and storekeeper. After debate, the governor concluded that Edmunds ought not to succeed to either position. The governor noted that when Foulis, the late deputy governor, had died, Edmunds had come to him and asked [...].

Interpretations

The tattoo - beaten on a drum at a fixed hour each evening - was the signal requiring all soldiers to return to their quarters. Going over the fort wall after it had beaten was a serious breach of garrison discipline. It combined unauthorised absence with a physical act of evading the fort's security, which explained why Scriven and Fox were imprisoned rather than simply reprimanded on the spot.

The sentry's challenge at the storeroom, which turned the two men back, was significant. The storeroom was the site of the Coales theft earlier that year. Heightened vigilance at that location was a direct consequence of that break-in, and the sentry's prompt challenge showed the council's earlier security concerns had produced a practical response.

The dispute over succession to the roles of ensign and storekeeper reveals how the small size of the council created structural tensions when vacancies arose. With Foulis dead and Goodwin elevated to deputy governor, the chain of succession became contested. Edmunds's claim rested on seniority by position, but the governor's resistance suggests other considerations were at play, though the manuscript breaks off before his reasons are fully stated.

Speculations

The governor's decision to record his reasoning for refusing Edmunds's claim in detail, rather than simply issuing an order, suggests the dispute was sensitive enough to require a written justification. On a small island where the council had only three or four members, a disagreement over succession to two combined offices - ensign and storekeeper - carried real consequences for the balance of authority and access to Company property. The governor's care in setting out his position implies he anticipated the decision would be challenged.

262

280

[...] [...] on the 23 day of May 1702 At Fort [James?]

[...] [...] Poirier Thomas Goodroot Dp:[...] Edward Edmunds [...]

Whereas [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

Cap: Goodwin is of Opi- Cap: Thomas Goodwin dep: Govern: his opinion is That the nion of M:r Edm: does Said M:r Edmunds ought to Succeed as Ensigne by [rk?] of Commision, ought to Succeed him But not to have the Care of the Stores, Since it is [Contrary?] to his Ensign but not to Charge by the R:t Hono:r [Comp:s?] positive orders. have y:e Care of y:e Stores

Whereas we the Govern:t and Dp:ty Govern:t haveing a Convo- versw with M:r M:r Edmunds [all?] this Succeeding Cap: Tho:s Goodwins place as aforesaid.

It is ordered

M:r Edmunds appointed That the Said M:r Edmunds be appointed Collector of the R:t Collector of y:e R:t Hono: Hono: Comp:y [thorns?] which he hath accepted of. And as for Comp:s Customes. other matters Referring thereto to our Hon:r Masters decision.

[...]

Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes: Cap: Goodwin is of Opi- nion of M:r Edm: does ought to Succeed him Ensign but not to have y:e Care of y:e Stores

M:r Edmunds appointed Collector of y:e R:t Hono: Comp:s Customes.

The manuscript is largely illegible at the opening of this continuation, but the heading and attendance repeat those of the consultation of 23 May 1703.

Captain Thomas Goodwin, deputy governor, gave his opinion that Edmunds ought to succeed him as ensign by right of commission, but that he should not have charge of the stores, as that was contrary to the East India Company's positive orders.

After a further discussion between the governor and the deputy governor on the matter of Edmunds succeeding to Goodwin's former place, the council reached a resolution.

The council ordered that Edmunds be appointed Collector of the East India Company's customs, which he accepted. All other matters relating to his position were referred to the decision of the Company's masters in London.

The record was signed by Thomas Goodwin [...].

Interpretations

The distinction Captain Goodwin drew between the ensigncy and the storekeeping role was institutionally significant. Succession to a military commission followed a recognised chain based on rank and seniority. Custody of the Company's stores was a separate appointment governed by the Company's own orders, and could not pass automatically through military succession. By separating the two, Goodwin found a position that respected both the military hierarchy and the Company's administrative rules.

The appointment of Edmunds as Collector of Customs was a practical resolution to an awkward dispute. It gave him a substantial and remunerative office without placing him in either of the contested roles. The customs collectorship carried real authority, overseeing the levying of port duties on all ships calling at the island. Referring the remaining questions to London allowed the council to close the local dispute without prejudging the Company's own view of the succession.

Speculations

The referral of outstanding matters to London may have been as much a device for managing Edmunds's dissatisfaction as a genuine administrative necessity. By giving him a new and significant office while leaving the larger question open, the council avoided a direct confrontation over the ensigncy and the stores. Edmunds's acceptance of the customs collectorship suggests he judged it a sufficient outcome, at least for the present.

263

281

Island S: Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the 16 day of June 1702 At Fort James

Step:n Poirier Gover:r Pres:t Tho: Goodwin Dp:ty Gov:r Edw:d Edmunds 3:m Counc:ll

Walter Belward free planter made Complaint Walter Belward to us that when the Said [Alg?] was in the Road, he desired his [C]omplaints against Country man Alexander [Fraizer?], Sol:r to Keep his horse for him Alexander Frazer and he would give him [...] [...] the prom, but before he had for Stealing an Ivory done accordingly he Came Sunday or one [twice?], and Said he must one head out of his or [Dewy?] for the [Same?] time of his, it was got as fare as y:e water host. Course, he [made?] as [Ivory?] head for a week, mentioning the Said [poro?] [N]ate it Came to him to [...] and when he Came to him and told him if he had taken an Ivory head out of y:e [Best?] [pho?] told him No, whereupon y:e[t?] in his pocket and Shewed the very Same head as he had Shod before only, and asked him Now he could have the Imprudence to Steal the Said head and deny it too to his face, the Said [Fraizer?] replied therefore you put this head in my pocket unless you put guilt there [...].

William [Harris?] free planter being Sworne Saith that he heard the Said [A]lgd told Called to y:e Said [Fraizer?] and Said her Could Speak to him, but he was thought [he?] could to him himself, and when the Said Belward Came to him and Slid his hand into the Said [Frainers?] pockets and took out an Ivory head and heard him Say are not you a Rogue, for here had you this Cow head, the Said [Fraizer?] replied I had it out of his hip which he would prove to morrow and heard him [Swear?], and [Swore?] Severall Oaths.

After Serious Consideration It is ordered

[ex?] and [Fraizer?] to [rec?] 15 Lashes on That the Said Alexander [Fraizer?] for his misdemeanor Naked body receive [...]

Margin Notes: Walter Belward [C]omplaints against Alexander Frazer for Stealing an Ivory one head out of his host.

[ex?] and [Fraizer?] to [rec?] 15 Lashes on Naked body

At a consultation held at Fort James on Wednesday 16 June 1703, those present were Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin, and Edward Edmunds as third councillor.

Walter Belward, free planter, complained that when a ship was in the road he had asked his countryman Alexander Frazer, soldier, to keep his horse for him in return for payment. Before Belward had made the arrangement properly, Frazer came to him once or twice and said he needed something for the same. Frazer had kept an ivory head for about a week. When Belward came to him and asked whether he had taken an ivory head, Frazer said no. Belward then put his hand in Frazer's pocket and produced the very same head Frazer had shown him before. He asked Frazer how he had the impudence to steal it and then deny it to his face. Frazer replied that Belward must have put it in his pocket himself [...].

William Harris, free planter, was sworn and testified that he heard Belward call to Frazer and say he wanted to speak with him. When Belward came to Frazer he slid his hand into Frazer's pocket and took out an ivory head. Harris heard Belward say to Frazer that he was a rogue for having it. Frazer replied that he had taken it from Belward's hip, which he would prove the next day. Harris also heard Frazer swear several oaths.

After careful consideration, the council ordered that Alexander Frazer receive 15 lashes on his naked body for his misdemeanour [...].

Interpretations

The ivory head was a decorative or functional carved piece of some value, its precise nature unclear from the manuscript. Its small size - capable of being concealed in a coat pocket - made it easily stolen and easily denied. Belward's decision to search Frazer's pocket directly, rather than report the suspicion to the council first, suggests the confrontation was immediate and public, with Harris present as a witness.

Frazer's claim that he had taken the ivory head from Belward's hip, and that he would prove it the next day, was an attempt to reframe theft as retrieval of something owed to him. The council evidently rejected this defence. The sentence of 15 lashes on the naked body was the standard corporal punishment for a soldier found guilty of theft and dishonesty, and its public nature reinforced its deterrent function.

Speculations

Frazer's response - that Belward must have placed the ivory head in his own pocket - was a bold denial given that Harris had witnessed the entire exchange. The claim that he had taken it from Belward's hip, offered as a justification he said he could prove the following day, suggests he may have had a counter-claim of some kind relating to payment or debt. The council's decision to proceed directly to sentence without recording any such proof implies either that Frazer failed to produce it or that the council found it unconvincing.

264

282

receive on his naked body 15 Lashes 16: a Halbert in his hands at the dismount of the guard, and Admonished for y:e future.

[...] presented unto [...] a discharge from Mary Matthews Wid:w Mary [Matthews?] [W:d?] me of payment of a house Sold to Richard discharged for y:e pay- Leach dead a [rife?] [that?] the Said Richard hath married [the—] ment of a house Sold ment of a house Sold Said discharges as followeth. to Richard Leach decd.

Know all men by these presents That y:e Mary [Matthews?] [Wid?]ow and Executrix to the deceased John [Platthaws?] in the Island of S: Helena, free planter do acknowledg me to have received from Richard Leach planter in the Said Island [...] the Sum of seven pounds formerly Indebted by [Shurm?] [...] the Said [Aling?] house in [Rappet?] Valley [a]nd pertaining and belonging to be as mentioned John [Matthews?] and now pertaining to the Said Ricke [Leach?] which Said Seven pounds received by Mary [Matthews?] grants y:e receipt and for me, my heirs [Executors?] and [Successors?], and thereof quits Claims and Simplicities discharges the Said Rich: Leach his heirs [Exec?] Administrators or Executors for Ever, as Witness my hand at y:e Helena the twenty [S]ixth day of [Sept?] One thousand Six hundred and Eighty and nine years her Mary M Matthews mark

In presence of Anne [Colinpane?] Tho: [Nolane?] Jno: [Edman?]

Jn:o Alexander

It is ordered

Haveing purchased & [Sett?] That the Said Walter Belward be y:e [R?]ite owner of the Said in p:t of his wives [title?] house, as haveing married [Ruth?] Leaches Widow, and that he possess Walt: Belward [...] [R?]ite the Same quietly and Peaceably to be and dispose of [thereat?] at his Owner of Said house [it?] own will and pleasure. haveing Married Rich: Leaches Wid:w Whereas James [Easthorpe?] Sol:r for Disobeyeing the Govern:r Command when the Said Ship was in the road was Imprisoned Seventy four- James [Easthorpe?] Sold: ours and this day ordered to appeare before us who Acknowledged fined Ten Shillings and being asked why he did not obey y:e Govern:t Command, Could and dismiss of Comp:y answer the Govern:r Command to do what is was not Said during Service for dissobeing and haveing Served y:e R:t Hono:r Comp:y Severall years desired the Govern:rs Command

fo[r]

Margin Notes: Mary Matthews Wid:w discharged for y:e pay- ment of a house Sold to Richard Leach decd.

Haveing purchased & [Sett?] in p:t of his wives [title?] Walt: Belward [...] [R?]ite Owner of Said house [it?] haveing Married Rich: Leaches Wid:w

James [Easthorpe?] Sold: fined Ten Shillings and dismiss of Comp:y Service for dissobeing the Govern:rs Command

Frazer was to receive 15 lashes on his naked body, standing with a halbert in his hands at the dismount of the guard, and was admonished for the future.

Mary Matthews, widow, presented a discharge relating to payment for a house sold to Richard Leach, now deceased. The discharge read as follows. Mary Matthews, widow and executrix of the deceased John Matthews, free planter on the island of St Helena, acknowledged receipt from Richard Leach, planter on the same island, of £7 0s 0d, formerly owed in respect of a house in Rupert Valley belonging to John Matthews and now belonging to Richard Leach. Mary Matthews, in receiving that sum, granted a full receipt and on behalf of herself, her heirs, executors, and successors, quit-claimed and discharged Richard Leach, his heirs, executors, and administrators for ever. The document was signed at St Helena on 26 September 1689 with her mark, in the presence of Anne [...], Thomas [...], and John [...].

The discharge was recorded by John Alexander.

The council ordered that Walter Belward was the rightful owner of the house, having married Ruth Leach, the widow of Richard Leach, and that he was to hold, possess, and dispose of it quietly and peaceably at his own will and pleasure.

James Easthorpe, soldier, had disobeyed the governor's command when a ship was in the road and had been imprisoned for seventy-four hours. He appeared before the council that day. When asked why he had not obeyed the governor's command, he could give no answer. Having served the Company for several years, he asked the governor [...].

Interpretations

The public element of Frazer's punishment - standing with a halbert in his hands at the dismount of the guard - was a deliberate act of military humiliation. The halbert was the weapon carried by senior non-commissioned soldiers. Being made to hold it while receiving a flogging in front of the assembled guard stripped away any status the weapon represented and made the punishment visible to the entire garrison.

The discharge presented by Mary Matthews was dated 26 September 1689, over thirteen years before this consultation. Its late presentation to the council suggests the document had been held privately and was now brought forward to resolve a question of title arising from Richard Leach's death and Walter Belward's marriage to his widow. The discharge confirmed that the purchase price had been fully paid, clearing the way for Belward's title to be formally recognised.

Mary Matthews's role as executrix of her deceased husband John Matthews placed her in the same administrative position as other widowed executrices seen in these consultations. Her authority to grant the discharge and quit-claim derived from that office, and the three witnesses named in the document gave it the formal standing required for a property transaction.

The council's recognition of Belward's ownership on the basis of his marriage to Ruth Leach reflects the passage of property rights through the female line by marriage. Ruth Leach had inherited her late husband's title to the house, and on marrying Belward that title passed to him. The council's order gave this a formal legal confirmation.

Speculations

The seventy-four hour imprisonment of James Easthorpe before his appearance before the council suggests the governor used detention as a deliberate cooling-off measure rather than proceeding immediately to punishment. Easthorpe's inability to explain his disobedience when directly questioned removed any mitigating defence he might have offered, leaving the council with little choice but to proceed to sentence, the terms of which the manuscript breaks off before recording fully.

265

283

he might be dismissed from their Services Whereupon.

It is ordered

That the Said James [Easthorpe?] be fined Ten Shills: to the R:t Hono:r [Comp:y?] for his disobedience and be dismiss from the R:t Hono:r [Comp:y?] Service According to his desire.

Whereas Last night after the [App?] Too had Beaten Serg:t John Deering fined Dixon being upon the guard hearing a noise and Singing in fifteen Shillings for the [Came?] they went to the door and desired them to forbear, but Swearing & being Immediately after he was gone, they began to Sing and make a noise Drunke &c. againe, whereupon went back and told them upon the door, who made answer they would not, wherefore break open the Said door, and [Conf?]ined John Deering [Sold:r?] and Nicholas [Fisher?] Said, in y:e [Pris?]on, also were Examined before us and Accordingly

It was ordered

That the Said John Deering for being drunk and Swearing Severall oaths be fined fifteen Shillings, and forbidden to Committ any misdemeanor in future under pain of being Committed Corporally.

Cap:t [Goodwin?] [&?] M:r Edmunds presented Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Samuell Wrangham free planter lately Sam: Wrangham decd deceased, presented the Will being true Copie and Sworne of the [Wing?] his Last Will and the Same proved, which was Accordingly done by the oath of a [John?] Testament Reced and [Ruold?] [Atujion?] and George [Hatison?] [and?] [Colp?] [Britan?] who made oath that approved of. the Said Witness produced was the Last Will and Testament of the Said Sam: Wrangham, as haveing Seen him dale Signs and boliger the Same in their presence, and that they knew of no other by him made Either in word or writing.

It is ordered

That the Said deced Sam: Wranghams Last Will and Testament Sam: Wrangham decd now produced be reced and approved of and Copies given when his Last Will and demanded. Testament Reced and approved of.

Margin Notes: John Deering fined fifteen Shillings for Swearing & being Drunke &c.

Sam: Wrangham decd his Last Will and Testament Reced and approved of.

Easthorpe asked to be dismissed from the Company's service. The council ordered that he be fined 10s 0d to the Company for his disobedience and discharged from the Company's service as he had requested.

The previous night, after the tattoo had beaten, Sergeant Dixon was on guard duty and heard noise and singing coming from a room. He went to the door and asked those inside to stop, but as soon as he left they began again. He returned and knocked on the door. Those inside refused to comply. He broke the door open and confined John Deering, soldier, and Nicholas Fisher in prison. Both were examined before the council.

The council ordered that John Deering be fined 15s 0d for being drunk and swearing several oaths, and be warned against any future misdemeanour on pain of corporal punishment.

Captain Goodwin and Mr Edmunds, as executors of the last will and testament of Samuel Wrangham, free planter, lately deceased, presented a true copy of the will and had it proved before the council. John [...] and George Haskison swore that the document produced was the last will and testament of Samuel Wrangham, that they had seen him sign it in their presence, and that they knew of no other will made by him, either in word or writing.

The council ordered that the last will and testament of Samuel Wrangham be received and approved, and that copies be provided when demanded.

Interpretations

Easthorpe's fine and dismissal at his own request resolved the matter without corporal punishment. His years of service to the Company gave him standing to ask for discharge rather than further penalty. The council's acceptance of this reflects a pragmatic approach: a soldier who had already served his time and asked to leave posed less disciplinary risk than one retained against his will.

The breaking open of the door by Sergeant Dixon was a lawful act of military enforcement. After two warnings the occupants had openly refused to comply. Dixon's authority as sergeant on guard gave him the right to force entry and make arrests. The confinement of Deering and Fisher until the following day's consultation followed the same pattern seen in earlier cases in these records.

The direction of Deering's fine, unlike earlier fines to the poor or the sick, was not specified in the order. The fine for Easthorpe went to the Company directly. The threat of corporal punishment for any future offence by Deering replaced the security bond seen in some earlier cases as the mechanism for future compliance.

The probate of Samuel Wrangham's will by two witnesses who swore they had seen him sign it in their presence followed the standard English testamentary procedure. The appointment of Captain Goodwin and Mr Edmunds as executors placed the administration of the estate in the hands of the two most senior council members after the governor, giving the process institutional weight. The order that copies be provided on demand made the proved will a public record accessible to creditors and beneficiaries.

Speculations

The joint appointment of Goodwin and Edmunds as executors of Wrangham's estate is notable given that Wrangham had earlier been ordered by a jury to pay forty dollars to Grace Coulson, and had held that sum in escrow under council order pending her claim or that of her husband's kin. With Wrangham now dead, the question of what became of those forty dollars would fall to his executors to resolve, placing Goodwin and Edmunds in a position where they would need to decide whether the sum remained a liability of the estate.

266

284

Margarett Colgrave Wid:w made Complaint to us Mary Colgrave Comp:t that Elizabeth the wife of John Johnson Sol:r Called her Severall ag: Eliz:th Wife of Jn: names as Rascall [Strep?] &c. and Challenged her to fight, Johnson for abuseing her and Challenging her to fight. The Said Eliz: Johnson deny all what y:e Said Mary Colyna[ve] hath alledged against her.

Whereas the Said Mary Colgrave made Complaint Mary Colgrave Comp:t that Mary the wife of deced [...] Realth [Tatk?] used her very ill Language, ag: Mary y:e Wife of and had this [trade?] upon this Simon, and that her Impudence was [...] and [Insult?] for abu- up at the [East?] [head?] longer. sing her &c.

Mary Seale Being Sworne Saith that She heard the Said Mary [Realth?] Say to the Said Mary Colgrave that She lived upon the [Petition?], and that her Impudence was up at the [East?] [h]ydra trade, and was [acy m?] Ship, he came over in. To whom the Said Mary [Seale?] made answer Came over in the Same Ship as her, and Never knew or heard any Imprudent Tricks by her.

[Anne?] y:e wife of Step:n Child Gun:rs mate haveing been Summoned on behalf of the Said Mary Colgrave against y:e Mar:y [Reath?], but being [Impressed?] in [two?] [Said?] did not appeare in order of Giving her deposition wherefore.

It is ordered

The Determination of That y:e Determination of both Complaints be referred till both Complaints Refer- this day fortnight, and in that Serve very propably, the Said red till that day fortnight Sume Child may be recovered.

[...]

Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes: Mary Colgrave Comp:t ag: Eliz:th Wife of Jn: Johnson for abuseing her and Challenging her to fight.

Mary Colgrave Comp:t ag: Mary y:e Wife of [...] and [Insult?] for abu- sing her &c.

The Determination of both Complaints Refer- red till that day fortnight

Margaret Colgrave, widow, complained that Elizabeth, wife of soldier John Johnson, had called her several abusive names including rascal and similar terms, and had challenged her to fight. Elizabeth Johnson denied everything alleged against her.

Margaret Colgrave also complained that Mary [...], wife of the deceased [...], had used very ill language towards her and had behaved with great impudence.

Mary Seale was sworn and testified that she heard Mary [...] tell Margaret Colgrave that she lived on charity, and that her impudence was well known from the ship she had come over on. Mary Seale replied to this that she herself had come over on the same ship and had never known or heard of any improper behaviour by Colgrave.

Anne, wife of Stephen Child, gunner's mate, had been summoned on behalf of Margaret Colgrave against Mary [...], but was unwell and did not appear to give her deposition.

The council ordered that the determination of both complaints be deferred for a fortnight, by which time Anne Child would probably have recovered.

Interpretations

The two complaints brought by Margaret Colgrave on the same day, against two different women, suggest she was at the centre of a cluster of social hostilities on the island. Both cases involved verbal abuse and challenges to her reputation rather than physical harm or property disputes. The council's willingness to hear such complaints reflects its role as the sole forum for resolving disputes of all kinds among the island's small population.

The slur that Colgrave lived on charity, combined with the reference to her conduct on the ship she arrived on, was a calculated attack on her social standing. On a small island where reputation was a practical asset, such accusations carried real weight. Mary Seale's counter-testimony, that she had travelled on the same ship and knew nothing against Colgrave, was a direct rebuttal framed in the same terms.

The deferral of both complaints pending Anne Child's recovery shows the council adapting its procedure to practical constraints. With a key witness unable to appear, proceeding to a determination would have been unfair to Colgrave. The fortnight's adjournment was the minimum delay consistent with giving the witness time to recover.

Speculations

The concentration of complaints involving Margaret Colgrave across several consultations in these records - first as a receiver of stolen goods in the Coales affair, and now as the complainant in two separate disputes involving abusive language - suggests her position in the island community was contested. The references to her conduct on the ship she arrived on may point to a prior reputation that followed her to the island and gave her enemies a ready source of ammunition against her.

267

285

Island S:t Helena,

At a Consultation H[e]ld on Monday, the 15 day of June 1702 Att Fort James

Step: Poirier Gover: Edm: Goodring [...] [...] Srt: Edrd: Edmunds in Counl:

Whereas Since the decease of [the] John Ffoulis Late [d]e[c]d Grant of the said [?land] this [...] the 15 day of [May?] this past and died Intestate, and when all was cast Meaning of only person that [designed] to come to us, to desire a [Letter] of Administration to the End that so an Inventory might be Taken and [brought] to us that we may Adm[i]r that s[ai]d [E]state [...] and towards the discharging of Several De- man[ds]

It is therefore ordered

That Mr Edmund Edmunds [head of the] Counc: be appointed [Administrator] of the [Sd] [...] John Ffoulis his Estate Delivered and that he take [an] Inventory thereof and bring the Same to us on tuesday next being the 16 [instant] and als[o] that the Mrs A [Summons] to appear before us the Same [d]ay, to know whether she will Execute or renounce her said deed Husbands Estate And that the R- [l]ovene whether or no she has Delivered unto the Said Mr Edmunds a true and faithfull Inventory of Every thing whatsoever belonging [...] unto the Said [E]state

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Mr Edw[ar]d Edm[un]ds appointed Adminis[trator] of Cap[t]: John Ffoulis deed Estate &c his Weel: to Summons to know whether she will Except or Renounce her deed Husband Estate of the [...] Surene whether or no she hath Admins[trator] of the S[ai]d [...] Mr Edmonds a true [&] faithfull Inventory of Every thing belonging to the Said Estate

A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 June 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and councillors Edmund Goodring and Edward Edmunds.

Captain John Ffoulis had recently died intestate. The only person who came forward to request letters of administration was [...], so that an inventory of the estate could be drawn up and presented to the council, with a view to settling several outstanding debts.

Edward Edmunds, head of the council, was appointed administrator of Ffoulis's estate. He was ordered to compile a full inventory and bring it before the council on Tuesday 16 June 1702. Mrs Ffoulis was summoned to appear on the same day to state whether she would accept or renounce her late husband's estate. She was also required to confirm whether she had given Edmunds a true and complete inventory of everything belonging to the estate. The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

Letters of administration were the legal instrument by which a court or governing authority authorised a named individual to manage a deceased person's estate when no valid will existed. Without a will, no executor had standing to act, and property could not lawfully be collected, valued or distributed until an administrator was formally appointed. The council here acted as the competent authority in the absence of a dedicated probate court.

The requirement for Mrs Ffoulis to elect whether to accept or renounce the estate reflects a legal distinction between inheriting both assets and liabilities or withdrawing from both entirely. Renunciation protected a widow from responsibility for debts that exceeded the value of what her husband left. Given that several debts were already known, this choice carried real financial consequence.

The appointment of a sitting councillor, Edward Edmunds, as administrator placed the management of a private estate directly in the hands of an active member of the governing body. This collapsed the distinction between judicial authority and administrative control, which was characteristic of small colonial settlements where institutional roles overlapped.

The tight one-day deadline set for the inventory - from Monday 15 to Tuesday 16 June 1702 - suggests urgency, probably driven by the known debts and the risk that assets might be moved or concealed before the council could secure them.

Speculations

The fact that only one person came forward to seek letters of administration, and that the council then appointed its own head, Edward Edmunds, to the role, raises the possibility that Edmunds had a prior connection to Ffoulis or a personal interest in the estate, whether as a creditor or associate. His appointment may not have been straightforwardly impartial.

The simultaneous requirement that Mrs Ffoulis confirm she had already delivered a true inventory implies the council suspected she may have withheld or removed assets. Requiring her both to elect on the estate and to account for the inventory at the same hearing placed her under immediate dual pressure, perhaps to prevent her acting independently before the council had secured formal control.

268

286

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tues day the 23 day of June 1702 At Fort James

Step: [Poirier] Gover: Edm: Goodwin dep: [...] [...]

Cap: Ffoulis Wid: made oath of [...] Inventory [...] Mr Edm[un]ds is a true & Intire In ventory of all his [...] [E]state, which sd Ffoulis wife made oath [it] is a true & of that we have paid this Intire Inventory [...] that she had not [...] anie thing to the on her [...] of ething worth whereof further declaring that she wors -ced husband Estate three being [things?] to [...] both her said said Husbands Estate being afraid he is Indebted beyond what his Estate is worth

[...]

The Said Mr Edmunds Leave of Administration [granted] him over the abovesaid [D]eft: [Jo:] Ffoulis Estate [(which had not yet] [...] of foregoing Consultation) is as followeth:)

Island S:t Helena

The Gov: & Dep: Gov: Letter of Administra tion to Mr Edmunds

Wee the Governo: and dep: Governo: of the Said Island on behalf of the [...] [H]ono: English East India Comp: absolute [Lord?] Proprie[tor] of the Said Island To [Edw:?] Edmunds third in Councill Greeting.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 June 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Edmund Goodwin.

Mrs Ffoulis, widow of Captain John Ffoulis, swore on oath that the inventory she had given to Edward Edmunds was a true and complete account of all her husband's estate. She further declared that she had not concealed or withheld anything of value. She also stated that she renounced her late husband's estate, on the grounds that she feared his debts exceeded the value of what he had left.

The formal letter of administration granted to Edward Edmunds over the estate of the late Captain John Ffoulis - which had not yet been recorded at the time of the previous consultation - was then set out as follows. It was issued by the Governor and Deputy Governor of Saint Helena on behalf of the Honourable English East India Company, absolute [...] of the island, and was addressed to Edward Edmunds, third in council.

Interpretations

The widow's oath was a formal legal act. By swearing that the inventory was true and complete, Mrs Ffoulis accepted personal liability if it later proved otherwise. Her simultaneous renunciation of the estate was the mechanism by which she released any claim to its assets while also freeing herself from responsibility for its debts. Both acts together closed her legal relationship with the estate in a single proceeding.

The phrase "absolute [...] of the said island" applied to the English East India Company reflects the Company's status as the sovereign authority on Saint Helena. The island was not a Crown colony at this date but a Company possession, and the council derived its legal powers from the Company rather than directly from the Crown. This meant that letters of administration issued here had a different jurisdictional basis from those issued in England.

The letter of administration was the instrument that gave Edward Edmunds legal authority to collect, manage and distribute the assets of Ffoulis's estate. Without it, any action he took would have had no formal standing.

Speculations

Mrs Ffoulis's renunciation, made immediately after swearing to the completeness of the inventory, suggests she had already calculated that the debts outweighed the assets. Her decision was perhaps made before she entered the chamber, and the oath and renunciation together may have been a coordinated step to exit the situation cleanly rather than a spontaneous declaration.

The note that the letter of administration had not yet been recorded at the time of the previous consultation suggests the council moved ahead with appointing Edmunds before the formal instrument was ready. This points to a gap between the practical exercise of authority and its documentary completion, perhaps routine in a small settlement but worth noting as a sign of how informally legal process could operate under pressure.

269

287

Administration of all and Singular the goods and Chattles Rights and debts that were belonging and [appertaining] unto Cap:t John Ffaulis Late dep:t Governo: of the Said Island deceased who died Intestate as is affirmed at the time of his death, and Since within the Jurisdicti- ons of the Said R: Hono: Lords proprietors of the Said Island, to you to do Committ, and you wedo make ordain Constitute and Appoint Administrator in and of the Said goods Chattles and other the premisses (Chargeing you by the oath taken in this behalfe) That a true [...] and faithfull Inventory you make of all and Singular the goods and premisses of the Said deceased Cap: John Ffaulis that can or may be found on the Said Island on or before the 15 day of [July?] [instant], and all the debts on the Said Island in [...] [who] are Actually obliged att the time of his death you will well truly Pay and receive all such debts as was owing true [them] as aforesaid as the Law oblidge you, And that you deliver an [Tru- e] of your Administration here unto us when you shall be thereunto Called, and that [as] you save harmless for- ever against all persons by reason of yo: Administration In testimony whereof wee have Caused the R: Hono: Comp: Seale of the Said Island Helena to be here- unto these presents affixed this 15 day of June 1702

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Edward Edmunds was appointed administrator of all the goods, chattels, rights and debts that had belonged to Captain John Ffoulis, late Deputy Governor of Saint Helena, who had died intestate within the jurisdiction of the Right Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island.

Edmunds was charged, on oath, to compile a true and faithful inventory of all Ffoulis's goods and effects that could be found on the island, to be completed by 15 July 1702. He was required to pay all debts owed by the estate and to collect all debts owed to it, as the law obliged. He was further required to deliver a full account of his administration to the council whenever called upon to do so. The letter also indemnified him against all persons in respect of his conduct as administrator.

In witness of these terms, the seal of the Right Honourable Company of the island of Saint Helena was affixed. The letter was dated 15 June 1702 and signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The title "late Deputy Governor" given to Captain John Ffoulis is significant. It establishes that Ffoulis held the second-highest office on the island at the time of his death, which explains why his estate required formal council involvement rather than a more routine probate process. The death of a senior official intestate created an institutional problem as well as a private one.

The formula committing administration "to you" and simultaneously making, ordaining, constituting and appointing Edmunds reflects the standard legal structure of letters of administration in this period. Each verb carried a distinct legal weight, collectively ensuring that Edmunds's authority was unambiguous and could not be challenged on a technicality.

The deadline of 15 July 1702 for the inventory gave Edmunds a month from the date of the letter. This was a formal legal obligation, not a suggestion, and failure to comply would have exposed him to liability under the terms of the oath he had taken.

The indemnity clause - protecting Edmunds against all persons by reason of his administration - was a standard feature of such instruments. Without it, an administrator acting in good faith could be personally sued by creditors or heirs who disputed his decisions. The clause transferred legal risk from the individual back to the authority that had appointed him.

Speculations

The letter was dated 15 June 1702, the same day as the original consultation, yet the previous session recorded that the formal instrument had not been entered into the record at that time. This suggests the letter was drafted and sealed on 15 June but not formally registered until the consultation of 23 June 1702. The gap between drafting and registration may reflect the practical pressures of a small administration, or perhaps a deliberate decision to act first and complete the paperwork once the immediate situation - securing the estate - was under control.

270

288

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the first day of July 1702 At Fort James

B Step:h Poirier Gover: Pres: Tho:s Goodwin Dep:ty Gov: Edw: Edmunds 3 in Coun:

Edward Heath &c: made Complaint to the Govour and Councill That on monday night last between the hours of Eleven and twelve of the Clock Several Gentlemen belonging to the Ships now in the Road who were all unknow- n to him, dep: Mr [...] Paddock Massr of [the] Ship Dashwood) Came to his house in Fort James Valley, Broke brake open the dore, thereof, whereupon Hearing a noise he and one Nieres 15 [...] [...] run- in his hand and told them if they offered to com within if [one?] he could fire at them for he did not know what designe they came upon whearupon Called him Rogue and Rascall Severall times, and also [...] beaten that was in the house, but also as many abusive looks went away over the water.

Upon which the Said [Paddock] was Sent for, and Examined before the declares as followeth.

That he being on board the Ship Kings Fisher the day before, and hapening to be Civilly Entertained [with?] [...] Goodwin and [...] Poiriern? and meeting him on Shore [...] next day Inv- ited him to Sup with him in whose [Comp:?] was [...] [...] [...] Montegue, [...] Edck? of [...] [Condore?] [...] [...] [...] belonging to [...] said [...] [...] Justice, and Mr [...] passing on board the Relation frig: with [alss?] came to [...] Ship to me, about Eight of [...] Clock at [...] the Said Mr Browne went on board and left the rest of [...] Gent: on Shore [who after some discourse began?] to front [...] what of Frank where [...] [degd?], and not being willing and hurrlence [...] to [...] brave masell house, and them to walk out, where going by this Edw:rd Heaths house a Stone was thrown but whoever his house was by that brake open [...] I cannot say and as to what he said of my kicking at the doore. he declares Did not touch it in no manner.

Margin Notes:

Edw:d Heath Comp:t of Several Gent: in belonging to Several Ships for Breakeing open his house door,

A consultation was held at Fort James on 1 July 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

Edward Heath lodged a complaint with the governor and council. He stated that on the previous Monday night, between eleven and midnight, several gentlemen from ships then in the road, all unknown to him, together with a Mr [...] Paddock, master of the ship Dashwood, came to his house in Fort James Valley and broke open the door. On hearing the noise, Heath and a fifteen-year-old named Nieres [...] ran to confront them. Heath told them he would fire if they came any further, as he did not know their intentions. The intruders called him a rogue and a rascal several times, and also beat someone who was in the house. They then left and went back over the water.

Paddock was summoned and examined before the council. He stated that the day before the incident he had been on board the ship King's Fisher, where he was entertained by [...] Goodwin and [...] Poiriern [...]. Meeting them ashore the following day, he invited them to supper. Those present included [...] Montague, [...] [...] of [...] [...], and others belonging to [...] [...], and a Mr [...] who was passing on board the frigate Relation. At around eight o'clock, a Mr Browne went on board and left the remaining gentlemen ashore. After some discussion the group began [...] and, not wishing [...], went to [...] house and then walked out. Passing Edward Heath's house, a stone was thrown, but Paddock declared he could not say who broke open the door, and denied touching it in any manner.

Interpretations

The road referred to as the anchorage where the ships lay was the standard term for an open or sheltered stretch of water where vessels anchored off a harbour or settlement. Ships "in the road" were in official anchorage, and their officers and crews were subject to the jurisdiction of the island's governing authority while ashore.

The formal examination of Paddock before the council illustrates the council's role as a court of first instance for criminal complaints on the island. There was no separate magistracy, and the governor and council together exercised judicial as well as executive authority.

Heath's statement that he did not know the intruders, combined with his threat to fire, reflects the vulnerability of civilian households to disorder from visiting ships' crews and officers. The fact that the intruders were described as gentlemen, rather than common sailors, made the incident politically awkward and probably explains why a formal council examination was held rather than a summary punishment.

The presence of officers from multiple named vessels - the Dashwood, the King's Fisher and the frigate Relation - suggests the road held several ships simultaneously, which was not unusual for Saint Helena as a waystation on the East India route. The social occasion that preceded the incident, with supper and movement between ship and shore, was a normal feature of port life and placed the subsequent disorder in a context of sanctioned socialising that had gone wrong.

Speculations

Paddock's careful denial that he touched the door, while acknowledging he was present and that a stone was thrown, suggests he was aware of the legal exposure his group faced and constructed his account to minimise his personal liability. The admission that a stone was thrown, combined with the refusal to identify who broke the door, may have been a deliberate strategy to acknowledge the general disorder while avoiding individual responsibility for the most serious act.

The involvement of officers described as gentlemen from several ships, rather than ordinary crew members, probably constrained the council's response. Punishing officers of visiting East India Company vessels risked diplomatic and commercial friction. The formal examination on record may have served as much to document the complaint and satisfy Heath as to produce any meaningful sanction against those responsible.

271

289

John Pitts being Sworne Saith that on monday night last Several Gent: Came to Edwd Heaths door and Called him and the rest of the men that was in the house Severall Sawcious names and Said they would thrash them and take them out of the house and heard the Edw:rd Heath Tell of the Gent: that if they came within doors he would Shoot them, but how the door Came open he Cannot Tell, being Sleep.

John Mills being Sworne Saith that the night aforesaid he was lying in his bed at the Said Edw: Heaths house in the Kitchen worne, and hearing a Knocking came to him and a[s]k him if he would Goe and See them all Still whereupon got up and took his Cane in his hand, and went towards the door, where he Saw a Gent: [...] at wood decours in his hand, but how [...] door came open [he?] Can tell, and that he Saw one of [...] Gent: Say to him Sawcy dow [...] dont you see the Fellows on the Hill, who replied yes Sir, the Said Gent: made Answer I hope to See you hanged upon, no replied [...] Said Health, I hope to See you hang thom [before?] me]

John Hardcock being Sworne Saith that the night aforesd he was lying at Edw:rd Heaths house in the [fore?] Room and heard Severall [men?] kick at [...] doore, whereupon got up and look- ed out at [...] window and Saw Several Gents among them had a drawn Sword in his hand and heard them knock [at?] Door toll [...] Carried open, where he his [...] [...] Reasons for me, [...] coming downs Stairs with a [Gunn?] in his hand, and asked [...] asked they Desired, who made Answer to p[...][...] you Dogs, where they [...] before their persons [cors?] and other [...] as other words past, the Said Heath told them if they offered to come within Doores he woud Shoot them, where- he put Mr [...] Paddock perswaded them to be gone, who then went along.

Jo: John Hart being Sworne Saith that on the night aforesd he was lying asleep on a little at Edward Heaths house, and Heard [...] noise of Stones thrown against [...] [...] windo- [...] ters [...] which [...] think, whereupon [...] [...] and [...] what do you want, but no answer was made, and Still Stones being thrown at [...] window made him to get up and whilst He was looking for a Stick intending to goe out, the door [was?] brake open wherupon went to [...] door and Could not but Could not See any body, and a little while after he went out to make water, and then Saw three or four Gent: comeing over [...] water and being afraid they would do him Some [...] mischief went into

John Pitts, being sworn, stated that on the Monday night in question several gentlemen came to Edward Heath's door, called him and the other men in the house several insolent names and threatened to thrash them and drag them out. He heard Heath tell the gentlemen that if they came inside he would shoot them. He could not say how the door came open, as he had been asleep.

John Mills, being sworn, stated that on the same night he was lying in bed in the kitchen of Heath's house when he heard a knocking. Someone came to him and asked whether he would go and see that all was quiet. He got up, took his cane and went towards the door, where he saw a gentleman [...] with wood [...] in his hand. He could not say how the door came open. He saw one of the gentlemen say to him that he was insolent and asked whether he did not see the fellows on the hill. He replied that he did. The gentleman answered that he hoped to see him hanged, to which Heath replied that he hoped to see him hanged first.

John Hardcock, being sworn, stated that on the same night he was lying in the front room of Heath's house and heard several men kick at the door. He got up and looked out of the window and saw several gentlemen, one of whom had a drawn sword in his hand. He heard them knock at the door until it was forced open. He then heard [...] coming downstairs with a gun in his hand and asking what they wanted, to which the reply was an abusive term [...], and other words passed. Heath told them that if they offered to come inside he would shoot them, whereupon Mr [...] Paddock persuaded them to leave, and they went away.

John Hart, being sworn, stated that on the same night he was lying asleep at Heath's house and heard the noise of stones thrown against the window [...], whereupon he called out asking what they wanted but received no answer. Stones continued to be thrown at the window and he got up. While he was looking for a stick intending to go outside, the door was broken open. He went to the door but could not see anybody. A little while later he went outside and saw three or four gentlemen coming over the water. Fearing they would do him some mischief, he went back inside.

Interpretations

The sworn testimonies of Pitts, Mills, Hardcock and Hart were taken individually and in sequence, which reflects the council's judicial procedure for examining witnesses in a formal complaint. Each deponent swore an oath before giving evidence, giving their statements the same legal weight as testimony before a court in England.

The presence of a drawn sword among the gentlemen is significant. Carrying and drawing a sword in a threatening manner during a civilian disturbance was an aggravated act that went beyond mere disorder. It placed the incident closer to affray or assault under contemporary legal understanding, and strengthened Heath's legal position considerably.

Paddock's role in persuading the group to leave, noted again in Hardcock's testimony, is notable. It suggests Paddock exercised some authority over the others and chose to use it to de-escalate rather than participate further. This may have influenced how the council assessed his personal culpability relative to the others.

Speculations

The consistency of the four testimonies on the key facts - the kicking and breaking of the door, the abusive language, the drawn sword and Heath's threat to shoot - while each witness pleaded ignorance or sleep as to exactly how the door was opened, suggests the witnesses may have coordinated their accounts beforehand. Each man protected himself and Heath from the charge of having provoked the confrontation, while ensuring the blame for the forced entry remained with the visitors.

The exchange recorded by Mills, in which Heath and the gentleman traded threats of hanging, suggests the confrontation carried an edge of genuine menace beyond routine drunken disorder. The gentleman's threat to see Heath hanged may have been intended as a reminder of the social and legal gulf between a ship's officer and a local householder, and Heath's reply in kind suggests he was not prepared to be intimidated by it.

272

290

the house againe at the back door, and before he got into the fore Room this Landlord was talking w:th the Said Gent: at the fore Door, who he heard Say, we are come to Prop you, and [he?] truly believes thinks it clear they that brake open this Landlords Dore.

Whereupon it is ordered

The Sev: Gent:l: to make their Heath Satisfac- tion or they have [...] [...] the Sued to [...] fined according to their Demeretts

That if the Said persons before named do not make ye: Said Heath Satisfaction for their offence, and that within three days time, they Shall be prosecuted According to their Demerritts.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Hart re-entered through the back door and, before he reached the front room, heard his landlord talking with the gentlemen at the front door. He heard one of them say "we are come to prop you", and Hart stated that he firmly believed it was those same men who had broken open Heath's door.

The council then ordered that the gentlemen named in the complaint were to make satisfaction to Heath, or face prosecution according to their deserts. If they failed to make satisfaction within three days, they were to be prosecuted accordingly.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The phrase "we are come to prop you" is obscure. In this context it probably meant a threat to assault or knock down, "prop" being a colloquial term for a blow or shove. If so, Hart's testimony directly contradicted Paddock's claim that the group had no hostile intent towards Heath, and provided the clearest evidence of premeditation in the entire sequence of depositions.

The council's order that the gentlemen make "satisfaction" to Heath before prosecution was a standard early modern mechanism for resolving disputes involving social superiors. Rather than immediately imposing a fine or punishment, the council gave the offenders an opportunity to settle the matter privately, probably through a payment or formal apology to Heath. This preserved the dignity of the parties while still asserting the council's authority.

The three-day deadline attached to the order gave the mechanism real teeth. Failure to satisfy Heath within that period would trigger formal prosecution, removing any further discretion. The formula "according to their deserts" left the eventual penalty deliberately open, allowing the council to calibrate punishment to whatever the men had actually done once the full facts were established.

Speculations

The council's choice to offer satisfaction before prosecution, rather than proceeding directly to punishment, probably reflected the awkward social position of the offenders. As officers or gentlemen from visiting Company vessels, they could not simply be fined or flogged. A private settlement allowed the council to resolve the matter without creating a formal record of punishment against men whose commanders or patrons might later object. The three-day window was perhaps calculated to be long enough for the ships to still be in the road, so that the men remained within reach, but short enough to prevent them sailing before the matter was closed.

273

291

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Thursday the [...] day of July 1702 Att Fort James

Step:n Poirier Gov: Pres:t Tho: Goodwin dp:t Gov: Ed: Edmunds 3 in Coun:

Whereas last night about the hour of Twelve of the Clock Mr: Francis Bowes person of [...] Road Ship his said Cap: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] other Gent:t viz: Mr: ... Mountague, Mr: Lamprich, Mr: Lee, and Mr: Jones, was coming downe out of the Valley towards the Fort, whome the Centry chal- lenging on the west mount, Challenged and bid them Stand but by approaching slightly, the Centry bid them Stand two or three times again and as he would [...] [...] them. The Said Bowes made answer [...] and be darmd if you will, flourish- -ing his [...] on his Sword, and [...] part of [...] and went downe towards the water Side, the which noise the Govern:t hearing ordered the Ser: of the Guard to Some [...] to go and fetch them back, and when the Said Bowes [...] the rest of the Gent:m was brought to the Gover: he gave him very ill Language, and Severall affronts, Insomuch the Gover:t told him he would put him in prison, and so very Vile the Said Gent: with then request of the Govern:t had he would Be- pleased to grant [...] him them their Liberty that night, and they would Certainly bring the Said Mr: Bowes before him this morning, that waiting till Eleven of the Clock this day, and hearing nothing from them, a Warr:t was delivered to y:e marshalls in order of Summonsing the Said Mr: Bowes &c: to appear before us, but not finding him, The Evidence was Examined as followeth.

Margin Notes:

Mr: Bows, Mr: Moun tagee Mr: Lamprich Mr: Lee, and Mr: Jones were Coming down to [...] Fort and [...] [...] [...] challenged [...] [...] who not Stand so went down to [...] bridge but [...] Gates Locked Could not get out so the Gov:t Sent [...] Ser:t of the Guard with Some Soldiers to bring them back & went [...] Said Bows, & [...] rest of [...] Gent:n were bro: to [...] Gov: he gave him very ill Language & [...] Severall affronts &c:a

A consultation was held at Fort James on a Thursday, the [...] day of July 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

The previous night, at around midnight, Francis Bowes, a person of [...] from a road ship, together with Mr Mountague, Mr Lamprich, Mr Lee and Mr Jones, was coming down from the valley towards the fort. The sentry on the west mount challenged them and ordered them to stop. They continued to approach, and the sentry challenged them two or three more times. Bowes answered with an oath, flourished his [...] on his sword and went down towards the waterside.

On hearing the disturbance, the governor ordered the sergeant of the guard to send men to bring them back. When Bowes and the other gentlemen were brought before the governor, Bowes gave him very abusive language and several affronts. The governor told him he would be put in prison. The other gentlemen then asked the governor to grant them all their liberty for that night, promising to bring Bowes before him in the morning.

The governor agreed. However, by eleven o'clock the following morning nothing had been heard from them. A warrant was accordingly issued to the marshal to summon Bowes and the others to appear before the council. Bowes could not be found, and the evidence of witnesses was then examined.

Interpretations

The challenge by the sentry on the west mount was a formal military procedure. Failure to halt when challenged was treated as a potential hostile act, and the sentry was authorised to fire if the challenge was repeatedly ignored. Bowes's response - an oath and a flourish of his sword - was therefore not merely rude but constituted a direct defiance of military authority, which made the matter one of public order and security rather than simple personal misconduct.

The governor's decision to release the group on the other gentlemen's promise to produce Bowes in the morning was an exercise of personal discretion. It avoided the immediate imprisonment of ship's officers, which would have been politically sensitive, while preserving the council's formal authority. The subsequent failure to produce Bowes converted what had been an act of leniency into a contempt of the governor's authority, significantly aggravating the position of all five men.

The issue of a warrant to the marshal was the formal step that transformed a disciplinary matter into a legal proceeding. The marshal was the island's executive officer for the enforcement of council orders, and his involvement signalled that the council was now acting in its judicial capacity.

Speculations

The other gentlemen's request for liberty overnight, and their promise to produce Bowes, may have been a deliberate tactic to extract their companion from immediate imprisonment while giving the group time to reach their ship and place themselves beyond easy reach of the marshal. Whether or not this was the intention, the outcome - Bowes could not be found by eleven the next morning - was consistent with such a plan, and the council's decision to proceed to examination of witnesses suggests it drew the same conclusion.

The margin note names all five men explicitly, which confirms the council regarded the group collectively as responsible rather than treating Bowes alone as the offender. This collective accountability probably reflected the shared promise made to the governor the previous night.

274

292

Samuel Maxwell Ser: being Sworn Saith that last night about twelve of [...] Clock, he heard the Century chal- lenge [...] [...] on the mount where the Centry was and bid him there [...] would not Stand, and bid them Stand himself, the Said Mr Bowes being [...] [...] replied fire and be damn- we will go by, no replied [...] deponent you Cant go through the gate, for they are Solid, [...] if you Stay a little while I will go to [...] Bower and Acquaint him for he Keeps the Keys The Said Bowes made Answer the Gover: be d-mnd and you to, So went down [...] and upon the Gov: order he went with a Guard to fetch the Said Bowes and all those that were with him back again, who he found on the lower bridge, and as Some as he Came nigh them, the Said Bowes told him if he came one Step nearer to them that he would Run him through w:th his Sword, whereupon went within his Halberts Length of the Said Bowes and told him if he did not Let fall his Sword (which he had drawn in his hand) he would knock him downe, upon which words he let his Sword fall on the ground then took him, the aforesaid Persons and Severall of the Boats [...] into his Custody and told them he was Sent for them by the Govern: and as they were Coming up, the Said Bowes Struck him a blow on his head w:th a Cane, whereupon gave him another w:th his Halbert and when they were all before the Gov: the Said Bowes gave the Said Govern: very ill and Saucey Langueg and Saw him take hold of [...] Govern: by the Arme Insomuch thought he would have Stubd him had it not been for Mr: a Mountague and the other three Gent:m because the Governour Susht him and told him if he was not Civill and quiet he would kick him like a dog.

Jo: John Sowen Sol:r being Sworne Saith that he being lying downe upon his bed last night about twelve of [...] Clock, heard a noise of Singing, whereupon gott up, and lookt out the fore wall, and Saw Some men comeing downe towards the Fort out of [...] Valley, Immediately after the Centry Challenged them and told them Stand, who made a little Hable, but Mr: Bowes being a Small Distance behind, Stept up foremost, and made Awnswer, dam you we wont Stand, then the Century Called the [...] Sergeant of the Guard, who came upon the mount and bid them Stand, for they Could not go on board the lower Gates being Loct, but if they would Stay a little while he would go to the Governo: and acquaint him w:th it, The Said Bowes replyed the Governo:

Samuel Maxwell, sergeant, being sworn, stated that at around midnight the previous night he heard the sentry challenge those on the mount and order them to stop. They would not stand. Maxwell himself then ordered them to stop. Bowes replied that they should fire and be damned, as they intended to pass. Maxwell told him they could not go through the gate as it was locked, and offered to go to the bower to fetch the keeper of the keys. Bowes answered that the governor be damned, and Maxwell with him, and went on down.

On the governor's order, Maxwell went with a guard to bring Bowes and his companions back. He found them on the lower bridge. As he approached, Bowes told him that if he came one step nearer he would run him through with his sword. Maxwell came within halbert's length of Bowes and told him that if he did not drop his sword, which was drawn, he would knock him down. At that, Bowes let the sword fall to the ground. Maxwell then took Bowes and the others, together with several of the boat's crew, into custody and told them he had been sent by the governor. As they were being brought up, Bowes struck Maxwell a blow on the head with a cane, whereupon Maxwell struck him back with his halbert. When all were brought before the governor, Bowes gave the governor very abusive and insolent language, and Maxwell saw him take hold of the governor by the arm, at which point Maxwell thought he would have stabbed him had it not been for Mountague and the other three gentlemen. The governor told Bowes that if he was not civil and quiet he would kick him like a dog.

John Sowen, soldier, being sworn, stated that at around midnight the previous night he was lying on his bed when he heard singing. He got up and looked out over the fore wall and saw men coming down from the valley towards the fort. The sentry immediately challenged them and ordered them to stand. There was some disturbance, but Bowes, who had been a short distance behind, stepped forward and answered that they would not stand. The sentry then called the sergeant of the guard, who came up to the mount and told them they could not go on board as the lower gates were locked, but offered to go to the governor and inform him. Bowes replied that the governor -

Interpretations

Maxwell's use of his halbert as a threat and then as a retaliatory weapon is significant. A halbert was both the symbol of a sergeant's authority and a functional weapon. Maxwell's warning that he would knock Bowes down if he did not drop his sword, and his subsequent blow in response to being struck with a cane, were acts carried out within his lawful authority to enforce the governor's order. This framing was important to his legal position and was probably why his testimony was so precise about the sequence of threat, warning and action.

The detail that Bowes seized the governor by the arm, and that Maxwell believed he might have stabbed him, elevated the incident to something approaching an assault on the person of the island's chief executive. Under contemporary law and colonial governance, laying hands on a governor in anger was an extremely serious act, distinct from mere insolence or disorder.

The fact that Mountague and the three other gentlemen physically intervened to restrain Bowes suggests they understood the gravity of what was happening and moved to protect both Bowes and themselves from the consequences of an actual assault on the governor.

Speculations

Bowes's behaviour throughout - defying the sentry, threatening Maxwell with his sword, striking him with a cane, seizing the governor by the arm - follows a pattern of escalating aggression that suggests he was either heavily drunk or had a disposition to treat the island's authorities with open contempt. The fact that his companions repeatedly tried to moderate the situation, first by restraining him before the governor and later by promising to produce him in the morning, suggests they were attempting to manage a man who was beyond managing himself.

Maxwell's precise account of warning Bowes before striking him with the halbert reads as testimony carefully constructed to demonstrate that his use of force was proportionate and lawful. Whether or not this was a conscious strategy, it served to place Maxwell's conduct beyond reproach while leaving Bowes fully exposed.

275

293

be damnd So went away downewards Cursing & Swearing at y:e Ser:. And when he went with the Ser: to bring them back againe they found them att the lower bridge, to whome the Said Bowes Stood and Said if you offer to Come one Step nigh- er I [...] Run you through, [...] my Said The Ser: Stept up with His Halbert Length and told him if he did not Let fall his Sword (which he had drawne in his hand) he would Stick him w:th his Halbert and makeing a motion to do it the Said Bowes Let his Sword fall on [...] ground, then took them all in Custody and as they were Comeing up towards the Fort, the Said Bowes askt the Boats [...] that Served w:th them if they would Stand by him, who Said they would, whereupon a little after he Struck the Ser: over the head w:th a Cane, but the Ser: give- -ing him another w:th his Halbert made no further resistance, only the Boats Crew Said had of their Armes but was Some detained to [...] [...] Strooks on their heads.

Richard Ray, Christophie Hill, Ser:t Maxwell Jun:r and Severall other Sol:rs made oath According to the forogo- -ing Testimony.

Humphrey Edwards Sol:r made Complaint to us that yesterday about [...] one of the Clock he being then upon [...] Guard [...] Mr: [...] [...] Struck his head [...] done without any manner of provocation.

After mature Consideration

It is ordered

That these ill proceedings be Reported to Cap: Jasper Hecks Comadore in Chief of his maj: and the Ships now in the Road, that he Study do Justice, the Said Bowes haveing repaired on Board [Undistinctly?]

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

These ill proceedings to be presented to Cap: Jasper Hecks Comadore now in [...] that he may do Justice his Ser: Bour haveing Repaired on board [Undistinctly?]

Sowen continued, stating that as the sergeant went with the guard to bring the group back, they found them at the lower bridge. Bowes stood and threatened to run through anyone who came one step nearer. The sergeant stepped up within halbert's length and told Bowes that if he did not drop his sword, which was drawn, he would strike him with the halbert and made a motion to do so. Bowes let the sword fall to the ground. The group were then all taken into custody. As they were being brought up towards the fort, Bowes asked the boat's crew who had come with them whether they would stand by him, and they said they would. Shortly after, Bowes struck the sergeant over the head with a cane. The sergeant struck him back with his halbert, after which Bowes made no further resistance. The boat's crew made some move towards their arms but were restrained and received some blows to their heads.

Richard Ray, Christopher Hill, Sergeant Maxwell junior and several other soldiers confirmed on oath that the foregoing testimony was accurate.

Humphrey Edwards, soldier, made a separate complaint that the previous day at around one o'clock, while he was on guard duty, a Mr [...] [...] struck him on the head without any provocation.

After mature consideration, the council ordered that the whole matter be reported to Captain Jasper Heck, commodore in chief of His Majesty's ships then in the road, so that he might do justice in the matter. Bowes had by this point returned on board [...].

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The council's decision to refer the matter to Captain Jasper Heck rather than prosecute Bowes and the others directly reflects the limits of the island's jurisdiction over naval personnel. Officers and men of His Majesty's ships were subject to naval discipline and the authority of their commanding officer, not to colonial civil jurisdiction. Referring the matter to the commodore was therefore not an abdication of responsibility but a recognition of where lawful authority over these men actually lay.

The commodore's title - commodore in chief of His Majesty's ships in the road - indicates that Heck commanded a squadron rather than a single vessel, which made him the appropriate recipient of a formal complaint about the conduct of officers from multiple ships. His seniority meant he had both the authority and the obligation to act on the council's report.

The boat's crew's willingness to stand by Bowes when he asked them, and their subsequent move towards their arms, extended the incident beyond a dispute involving officers alone. It briefly raised the possibility of armed resistance to the island's military authority, which made the situation considerably more dangerous and explains why the council treated the matter with such seriousness.

The separate complaint by Humphrey Edwards, struck on the head without provocation while on guard duty the previous day, suggests the disorder involving ships' personnel extended beyond the single night's events and may have reflected a broader pattern of contempt for the island's soldiers among visiting crews.

Speculations

Bowes's appeal to the boat's crew to stand by him, made while already in custody and being escorted to the fort, suggests he either believed he could still extricate himself by force or was too drunk to assess his situation clearly. The crew's initial agreement and move towards their arms made this a genuinely dangerous moment, and the fact that it was suppressed with only blows to their heads rather than worse indicates the soldiers handled it with restraint.

The note that Bowes had returned on board before the warrant could be served earlier in the day, combined with the referral to the commodore, leaves open whether any punishment was ever carried out. The formal record ends with the complaint made and the referral ordered, but the outcome depended entirely on whether Captain Heck chose to act on it, which the council had no power to compel.

276

294

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Sattur- day the 4 day of July 1702 At Fort James

Sep:n Poirier Gover: Pres:t Tho: Goodwin Dp:t Gov: Edw:d Edmunds 3 in Con:

John Oswald Surgeon made Complaint to Govern: and Councill That Mr Field Ser: Some time while the last Ship was in the Road, being both at Supper at y:e Fort Table (in y:e Gov:t absence) Cap: Said Field gave y:e Said Oswald very abusive Language and told him he was a tale bearer.

The Said Mr Field Saith he dont remember that he gave the Said Oswald any affront as he Sayes he did, but if he did he is Sorry for it, [...] declares that he knows nothing of [...] Said Oswalds being a tale bearer.

It is ordered & required

That y:e Said Oswald and Field be friends, and no more Difference about this matter.

Whereas George Stadson and Orlando Bagley who are chosen Church wardens for this present year, was Sumoned to appear before us this day in order of being a Sworne to performe their Said office faithfully, w:th [Read- -ingly?] do & observe y:e Rules and method delivered them as usuall w:th it hereafter Specified.

Margin Notes:

John Oswald Comp:t ag:t John Field for abusing him & giving him very foul Language.

Oswald & Field to be friends & no more difference ab:t this matter.

The New Church Wardens Sworne & their Warr: delivered them.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 4 July 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

John Oswald, surgeon, complained to the governor and council that Mr Field, sergeant, had at some point during the previous ship's stay in the road given him very abusive language at the fort table during supper, in the governor's absence, calling him a tale-bearer. Field responded that he did not remember giving Oswald any affront, but that if he had done so he was sorry for it. He also declared that he knew nothing of Oswald being a tale-bearer. The council ordered that Oswald and Field be reconciled and that no further dispute arise from the matter.

George Stadson and Orlando Bagley, chosen as churchwardens for the current year, were summoned to appear before the council and were sworn to perform their office faithfully and to observe the rules and methods delivered to them as usual.

Interpretations

The fort table was the communal dining arrangement at the fort, where officers and officials ate together. A dispute at that table, in the governor's absence, carried particular significance because it represented a breach of the social order of the island's governing establishment. The complaint was brought formally before the council rather than settled informally, which suggests Oswald considered the insult serious enough to require official remedy.

The council's order that the two men be friends and that the matter go no further was a standard mechanism for resolving personal disputes between officials whose continued working relationship was necessary to the functioning of the settlement. Punishment of Field would have been disproportionate given his qualified apology, but leaving the matter unresolved would have allowed the tension to persist.

The swearing-in of churchwardens before the governor and council illustrates the degree to which ecclesiastical administration on the island was integrated into civil governance. The churchwardens received their warrant and instructions from the council, not from any church authority, reflecting the Company's control over all institutional life on Saint Helena.

Speculations

The accusation that Oswald was a tale-bearer - meaning someone who reported the private conduct of others to those in authority - suggests there may have been an underlying tension about Oswald's relationship with the governor or council. If Oswald was perceived as an informant within the fort's social circle, Field's outburst may have reflected a wider resentment among officers rather than a purely personal grievance. The formal complaint may itself have been an attempt by Oswald to use the council to silence that resentment.

277

295

Island S:t Helena

You George Hoskison and Orl:o Bagley [...] Planters are appointed Church Wardens for this [...] present year 1702. And whereas you desire and request to be Informed what is the proper duty requisite for the performance of that office And Considering [...] Circumstances of this place, We think fitt that the [...] follow [...] my few Rules and methods for y:e Church Wardens W:specially for the present to Governe themselves and a walk by.

You are to take Care of y:e Furniture and Utensils belonging to both Churches, Seeing that no Imbezelm- ent be made of any of them that Shall be delivered into yo:r Care Charge, and Custody.

You shall keep a good Acco: of all gifts dedicated to [...] for the use of y:e Church, and give an [...] [...] y:e [...] Permitt for y:e Same for [...] use of y:e [...] [...] Gover:

You shall take due Care that both Churches be kept in good Repaire and make [...] [...] [...] [...] Reimburse [...] Ser: Same.

You shall take [...] of all notorious and open prophane persons and wicked Sabbath Breakers, Swearers Drunk- ards, Whoremongers and give notice of them unto us, But as for Sabbath Breakers and Swearers you are to reprove According as you think fitt, and after Such reproof in no [...] [...] they [...] persist in their prophane Manner [...] You Shall make an Information of them [...] [...] Ensuing Quarter Sessions.

You Shall upon Easter monday Assemble y:e Inhabitants free holders of this place in the Church or Country or [...] [...] Some other Convenient place and there by majority of votes nominate for your own you Church Wardens, and if you present us, whereby we may make [...] [...] all of y:e four freeholders Wardens and two out of y:e four [...] overseers of high ways to Succeed you, and the present overseers, [...] [...] that you have past y:e Acco: to us in y:e [...] places) [...] [...] Church fee [...] [...] have [...] [...] to y:e goods and Imposition and [...] [...] found [...] [...] other Conducements than Some [...] might be taken for their Necessary [...].

You Shall take Care [...] two Churchboxes for the Church during the time of divine Service, for w:ch purpose you must [...] [...] September attend his duty and appoint him his Salary and make agreement for him accordingly, This is all at present we [...] Church need [...] [...] Secretary for [...] dutys of Church Wardens till Some other matter Shall Occur.

In Testimony whereof we y:e Gov: and Coun: of y:e Said Island for [...] [...] [...] have hereunto Sett our hands this 4:th Day of July 1702

Step:n Poirier Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Church wardens Warrant for the Suppressing vice.

George Hoskison and Orlando Bagley, planters, were appointed churchwardens for the year 1702. The governor and council set out the following rules and methods for the conduct of their office.

They were to take care of the furniture and utensils belonging to both churches, ensuring that nothing delivered into their charge was lost or misappropriated. They were to keep a full account of all gifts made to the church and report these to the governor. They were to ensure that both churches were kept in good repair and to arrange for the cost of any repairs to be met accordingly.

They were to take note of all notorious and openly profane persons, including sabbath-breakers, swearers, drunkards and whoremongers, and to report them to the council. Sabbath-breakers and swearers were first to be reproved at the churchwardens' discretion, but if they persisted in their behaviour after such reproof, a formal information was to be laid against them at the next quarter sessions.

On Easter Monday, the churchwardens were to assemble the free inhabitants and freeholders of the island in a church, in the country or in some other convenient place, and by majority vote nominate four freeholders as candidates for churchwarden and two as candidates for overseer of highways, to succeed themselves and the current overseers, subject to the council's approval. They were also required to pass their accounts to the council at that time. The remainder of the passage dealing with church fees, goods and other arrangements is too damaged to recover fully [...].

They were to provide two church boxes for collections during divine service. They were also to attend to [...] in September, appoint a salary for him and make the necessary agreement. The document noted that further duties might be added as occasion required.

In witness, the governor and council set their hands on 4 July 1702. The document was signed by Stephen Poirier and Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The churchwarden's warrant was a civil document issued by the governor and council, not an ecclesiastical one. This confirms that the church on Saint Helena operated as an arm of the colonial administration rather than as an independent institution. The churchwardens were planters appointed by civil authority, answerable to the council and required to report moral offenders to secular governance rather than to any bishop or church court.

The categories of offender the churchwardens were required to report - sabbath-breakers, swearers, drunkards and whoremongers - reflect the standard list of moral offences subject to presentment at quarter sessions in English law of this period. Their inclusion here shows that the island reproduced the framework of English parish governance, with the quarter sessions serving as the equivalent of a petty court for social discipline.

The two-stage procedure for dealing with sabbath-breakers and swearers - private reproof first, formal information only on persistence - gave the churchwardens a degree of discretionary authority before the machinery of the court was engaged. This graduated response was characteristic of parish discipline in England and served to filter out minor or one-off offences while reserving prosecution for habitual offenders.

The Easter Monday assembly of freeholders to nominate successors was a form of limited self-governance within the colonial framework. The council retained final approval over appointments, but the process of nomination by majority vote among freeholders gave the island's landowning inhabitants a formal role in the selection of parish officers. This was directly modelled on English vestry practice.

The requirement to maintain two church boxes for collections during divine service points to organised fund-raising within the congregation as a supplement to whatever the council provided. The proceeds presumably supported church maintenance and perhaps poor relief, though the damaged state of the text prevents a full reading of the relevant provisions.

Speculations

The warrant's instruction that the churchwardens report whoremongers alongside drunkards and sabbath-breakers, while giving discretion only over the milder offences of swearing and sabbath-breaking, suggests the council regarded sexual misconduct as serious enough to require automatic reporting without prior reproof. In a small settlement where labour, inheritance and social order were tightly connected, public sexual irregularity carried consequences beyond personal morality.

The appointment of planters rather than officials or soldiers as churchwardens reflects a deliberate choice to root parish administration in the civilian landowning community. This may have been intended to give the free inhabitants a stake in social discipline, making them responsible for policing the behaviour of their own community rather than leaving enforcement entirely to the military garrison.

278

296

Whereas on Sunday Evening last the Gover: being at George Hoskisons house in [...] Valley, he told [...] Said Hoskison: that his Black wench named Doll was Carried on board of y:e Jariah, and being on board Palisp two or three dayes after heard Some- body about her [...] [...] Ships Company Lay, that about 69 men had Laine w:th his Said wench in one night to the Govern:t desired him to repeate over againe before y:e Councill.

George Haskison free Plant:r [&] Church warden Saith that his Said Black wench told him that [...] Boatswains Second mate of y:e Ship Jariah Carried her on board by perswasion, and when on board made her drunk, And he being on board two or three days after heard Some of [...] Ships Comp [...] Boast that 69 men had Lain at his Black wench in one night.

The Said Black wench was Examined who Saith that y:e Boatswaine [...] mate Carried her on board the Ship Josiah and gave her Strack to drink, and that Mr: Norres pleasure, and Mr: Downes Surgeon would have Carnally her, fired gave her a piece of [...] but took it from her againe because she would not let them have their Desire.

It is ordered

That the Said wench be whipt on her naked Body at y:e Flag- staff, and Sent home againe to her masters.

Whereas Cap: Lashley Comand: of y:e Ship Neptune gave to his Godson John Hemon [...] the Sdrma at three Doelars and a halfe, to he desired us to lay out in Something that might be Beneficiall for his Said god Son, whereupon we desired the [...] George Hoskison to Space [...] Said [...] Hemon for [...] [...] [...], who Said he pad none of [...] [?] [...] Narique, if he could Spare But he would Spare one of his own [...] [...] [...], whereupon [...] Said God Hemons Father offered to give him twenty Shilling more, wherefore. It was ordered

That Jo: Hemon Son: Buy [...] Said house of [...] [...] Hoskison and be Accountable for [...] thecare of him, and for what Cattle he hath already in his Custody w:t was given his P: Son by [...] Country at their [...] Benevolence on Consideration of his Son Loosing one of his hands.

Whereas

Margin Notes:

The Gov: desiers Geo: Hoskison to Repeat at Coun: againe before of Councill what he told him last Sunday Night about her Black Wench &c:a

Geo: Hoskison Says that his Black Wench was perswaded to go aboard [...] Speak him 2 or 3 Days after [...] Said Hoskison went aboard he heard Some of [...] Ships Company [...] [...] [...] 69 Men had Lain at his Black Wench in One Night

That y:e Black Wench be whipt & Sent home again to her Masters.

Cap: Lashley gave to his God Son John Hemons 3 Dollars & a halfe in he desired as to lay out in Something that might be Beneficiall for his Godson

a Heifer calf bought for John Hemons Son

On the previous Sunday evening, the governor, while visiting George Hoskison's house in [...] valley, was told by Hoskison that his slave, a woman named Doll, had been taken on board the ship Jariah. Two or three days later, while on board the Palisp [...], Hoskison heard members of the ship's company boast that around 69 men had used Doll in a single night. The governor asked Hoskison to repeat this account before the council.

George Hoskison, free planter and churchwarden, told the council that Doll had told him the boatswain's second mate of the Jariah had persuaded her to go on board, and that once there she was made drunk. Two or three days later, while on board himself, Hoskison heard members of the ship's company boast that 69 men had used her in one night.

Doll was then examined. She stated that the boatswain's [...] mate had taken her on board the ship Josiah and given her spirits to drink. She said that Mr Norres and Mr Downes, surgeon, had attempted to assault her, and that they gave her a piece of [...] but took it back when she refused them.

The council ordered that Doll be whipped on her naked body at the flagstaff and sent back to her master.

Captain Lashley, commander of the ship Neptune, had given his godson John Hemon [...] the sum of $3.50, asking the council to lay it out in something beneficial for the boy. The council asked George Hoskison whether he could spare [...] for John Hemon [...], to which Hoskison replied that he could spare one of his own [...]. John Hemon's father then offered an additional 20s. The council ordered that John Hemon's son buy the [...] from Hoskison and be held accountable for its care, along with any cattle already in his custody that had been given to his [...] son by the community out of goodwill, in consideration of the son having lost one of his hands.

Interpretations

The punishment ordered against Doll - public whipping at the flagstaff and return to her master - was directed at the slave rather than at the men who had taken her on board, made her drunk and assaulted her. This reveals the legal position of slaves on Saint Helena with clarity. Doll had no standing as a victim in the eyes of the council. Her body was her master's property, and her removal from his household and the use made of her were treated as offences against his property rights rather than against her person. The men responsible faced no recorded sanction.

The involvement of named officers - Mr Norres and Mr Downes, surgeon - in the assault on Doll, and the detail that they offered her something and then withdrew it when she refused, points to a deliberate attempt at coercion. That this detail appeared in the council record without producing any order against the men concerned reflects the absolute impunity enjoyed by ships' officers in relation to the island's slave population.

The sum of $3.50 given by Captain Lashley for his godson John Hemon reflects the use of dollars rather than sterling, which was common in trade settlements where Spanish or other foreign coin circulated alongside English currency. The additional 20s offered by Hemon's father indicates that sterling was also in use, and that the two currencies operated alongside each other without difficulty.

The community gift of cattle to John Hemon's son, made in recognition of his loss of a hand, reveals the existence of an informal welfare mechanism within the free planter community. Collective benevolence of this kind served a social function in a small settlement where there was no formal poor relief for free inhabitants.

Speculations

The council's decision to punish Doll while taking no recorded action against the men from the Jariah or the Josiah was almost certainly shaped by the same constraint that had governed the Bowes affair: the men concerned were subject to naval or Company discipline rather than to the island's civil jurisdiction. Referring the matter to a commodore, as in the earlier case, may have been considered but left no record. Alternatively, the council may have judged that no referral was worth making given the outcome of the Bowes referral remained uncertain.

The detail that Hoskison heard the boast while on board the Palisp two or three days after the event, rather than learning of it from Doll directly, suggests the incident was openly discussed among the ships' company as a matter of pride rather than concealment. The boast reached the governor through a chain - Doll to Hoskison, Hoskison to the governor - which indicates the council only became aware of it by chance during a social visit rather than through any formal report.

279

297

Whereas William Mayhew an Inhabitant at making [...] who married one Mary [...] of [...] of this Island, Sent a Letter directing the [...] [...] [...] [...] to certain of Orlando Bagley his house [...] dom of to [...] little [...] [...] [...] to certify of [...] Bagley his house [...] Bagley her Br: 4 head of cattle and Something. Note thereof [...] [...] [...] Who the Said [...] [...] [...] [...] Bill

The Said Orlando Bagley Saith that his Sister in Law Mary Orchard Left Cattle a head of Cattle w:th [...] then taken She went off, one that mary the did [...] be married in, Since, then his [...] should have been, but in Case she Come to [...] Said Island againe then [...] Come to be delivered her for her use of [...] in [...] witness Saith that the Kindness hereaft: mentioned might be [...] Shewed.

Sam: Hosterbury Sworne Saith that a little before [...] Said Mary Orchard went off he heard her Say that she had given Orlando Bagley [...] on two heifers that [...] in Case she Ever came to [...] Island againe then if they came to be delivered to her againe.

Mr: Devrow being Sworne Saith that Some Small time before his Sister mary went off he askt her what she di- rected to do W: her two heifers that were got, She replyed I will Leave them to Orlando Bagley to be [...] Come on Shore here, whereupon and at times then they gave them to Orlando Bagley two heifers then and More, and of Since Cap: that [...] Sister of them Cattle was for [...] Said her Sister was then [...] [...] intheed, who name is Elizabeth.

Sam: Derfourienne Sworne Saith that he heard the Said Mary Orchard Say that she had given Orlando Bapleys Children that heifers that [...] the Come to [...] Island againe then they were to be kept.

Whereupon it is ordered

That the Said Orlando Bagley keep in his possession the Said two heifers that [...] Said Maybew Lloyd [...] him to for the use and Benefit of his Said Children before mention-

Margin Notes:

Mary Orchard Sent her desiring the [...] [...] dom of to [...] [...] Bagley her Br: 4 head Cattle & Send her [...] he is thereof

Orlando Bagly Says his Sister Mary Or- chard left two head of Cattle of there was married in [...] his [...] is Children should have in [...] heifers the following Garden [...] to Governe

Orlando Bagley to keep aforesaid two head of Cattle for [...] use of his Children

William Mayhew, an inhabitant of [...], who had married one Mary [...] of this island, sent a letter directed to [...] concerning Orlando Bagley's house [...], claiming that Bagley held four head of cattle and something [...] belonging to [...] and requesting a bill [...].

Orlando Bagley stated that his sister-in-law Mary Orchard had left cattle with him when she went away. One of these was the cow she had been married in [...]. He said that if she came back to the island the cattle were to be delivered to her, but in the meantime his children were to have the benefit of them.

Samuel Hosterbury, being sworn, stated that shortly before Mary Orchard left the island he heard her say that she had given Orlando Bagley two heifers on the condition that if she ever returned to the island they were to be given back to her.

Mr Devrow, being sworn, stated that a short time before his sister Mary left, he asked her what she intended to do with her two heifers. She replied that she would leave them with Orlando Bagley to be kept until she came ashore again. At that time two heifers and more were given to Bagley, and since then [...] her sister Elizabeth [...].

Samuel Derfourienne, being sworn, stated that he heard Mary Orchard say that she had given Orlando Bagley's children the heifers, on the condition that if she came back to the island they were to be kept for her.

The council ordered that Orlando Bagley keep the two heifers in his possession for the use and benefit of his children as stated.

Interpretations

The dispute over the heifers turns on a distinction between a conditional gift and a loan or deposit. Mary Orchard's various statements, as reported by different witnesses, are not fully consistent. Some suggest the cattle were left with Bagley for safekeeping and to be returned if she came back, while others suggest they were given to Bagley's children outright, subject only to a condition of return. The council resolved the matter in favour of Bagley's children without fully resolving that ambiguity, which suggests the weight of testimony pointed towards the gift interpretation even if the original intention was unclear.

The use of livestock as the primary form of transferable wealth in this dispute reflects the economic structure of the free planter community on Saint Helena. Heifers were productive assets that bred and grew in value over time, making them a meaningful form of property to leave behind or convey. The fact that four witnesses were called to give evidence about a transaction involving two heifers indicates how significant such assets were relative to the community's overall wealth.

The role of Orlando Bagley as both a party to the dispute and a recently sworn churchwarden illustrates how small the island's free planter community was and how frequently the same individuals appeared in multiple institutional roles simultaneously.

Speculations

The letter sent by William Mayhew claiming four head of cattle rather than two, when all the island witnesses consistently referred to two heifers, suggests Mayhew was either misinformed about what his wife had left or was deliberately overstating the claim. The council's order made no reference to the additional two head, which implies the claim for four was rejected without formal comment.

The condition attached to the transfer - that the cattle be returned if Mary Orchard came back to the island - may reflect uncertainty at the time of her departure about whether she intended to return permanently. Leaving productive assets with a family member under a conditional arrangement was a practical way of maintaining a claim to island property while absent, without gifting it outright.

280

298

Whereas Sam:o Desfondaime made Complaint to the Gov: and Coun: that the wife of Mr: Hemmon and a Black [...] theirs went into his [...] wood and Cattle hoggs that there was their goeing and his Servant William Sterling [...] having [...] [...] the Same time, desires that the Said Hemmand wife be Examined what hoggs the Cattle and also desires that the Hunnham might be Sercome about the matter.

The Said Jo: Hemons wife being Examined Saith that she and their Black went into [...] great wood and Cattle thegg which they had Lost Some times before.

Thomas Blenham Saith that he Saw a black Sow dead on the Said Hemmons house, which had one Ear Cutt off and the other he thinks was whole, and aft: he had Stayed about half an hour at [...] Said Hemons house about home, and about an hour after went there againe, and then he Said [...] other Ear [...] ful thought was whole, most Cutte of [...] being bloody, And Doth believe that [...] Said Sow to had [...] w:th Hogg.

William Sterling [...] Saith that three days before his [...] of Said Hemons wife went into [...] great wood he Saw his Said w:th his master Hogg, [...] was kept in Pigg, whereupon before any further proceeding, the Said Hemmon- ged to give the [...] Witcherling four dollars to buy him Another Sow if he Cannot find his own [...] within a fortnight time.

It is therefore ordered

That the Said Hemmons offers be Accepted off, and it being only upon Suspicion that [...] Said his wife killed it, or some of [...], he And his house be dis charged unless further Evidence appear, and pay Charge of Councill.

William Marsh Informed [...] Govern:t that Humphrey Edwards threw Severall Stones down a hill, Contrary to an order of [...] [...] while he could not deny, but alledges he knew not of [...] [...] [...] however.

Margin Notes:

Sam: des Fontaines Comp:t Jo: Hemons wife for Fetching of hoggs were None of her Own and his Apprentice having Lost a Sow at Some time desores [...] Said Hemons wife may be Examined.

Hemons Offers Accepted & him and her Wife freed till further Evidence appears

Wm Marsh Comp: ag Humphrey Edwards for throwing Severall Stones down the Hill contrary to an order of Councill.

Samuel Desfondaime complained to the governor and council that the wife of Mr Hemon and a slave of theirs had gone into his [...] wood and taken cattle and hogs that were there, at the same time as his servant William Sterling [...] had been present. He asked that Hemon's wife be examined about the hogs and cattle, and that the matter be looked into further.

Hemon's wife, being examined, stated that she and their slave had gone into the great wood to look for cattle and hogs that they had lost some time before.

Thomas Blenham stated that he saw a black sow lying dead at Hemon's house, which had one ear cut off and the other apparently whole. After staying about half an hour at Hemon's house and returning home, he went back about an hour later and found that the other ear, which he had thought whole, had been mostly cut off and was bloody. He believed the sow had been [...] with a hog.

William Sterling [...] stated that three days before Hemon's wife went into the great wood he had seen [...] with his master's hog, which was kept for breeding.

Before any further proceedings were taken, Hemon offered to give [...] Witcherling four dollars to buy another sow if his own could not be found within a fortnight.

The council ordered that Hemon's offer be accepted. As the case against his wife rested only on suspicion, Hemon and his household were discharged unless further evidence appeared, and were required to pay the costs of the council proceedings.

William Marsh informed the governor that Humphrey Edwards had thrown several stones down a hill, contrary to a council order, which Edwards could not deny, but claimed he had not known of the order [...].

Interpretations

The handling of the pig dispute shows the council operating as a court of civil and criminal first instance for disputes between free planters. The evidentiary standard applied was explicit: suspicion alone was not sufficient for a finding against Hemon's wife, and the discharge was conditional on no further evidence emerging. This reflects a recognisable due process standard rather than arbitrary decision-making.

The detail about the sow's ears is significant in context. Ear-marking was the standard method of identifying livestock ownership in early modern rural communities. The fact that one ear had been cut off and the other subsequently trimmed while the animal lay dead at Hemon's house strongly suggested an attempt to destroy the identifying marks, which was why the council treated the matter seriously despite the absence of direct evidence of theft.

Hemon's pre-emptive offer to pay four dollars for a replacement sow before the proceedings concluded was a practical strategy to close the matter without a formal finding of guilt. The council's acceptance of the offer, combined with a conditional discharge, allowed both parties to exit the dispute without a definitive verdict, which in a small community was probably preferable to a formal condemnation.

The complaint against Humphrey Edwards for throwing stones down a hill contrary to a council order, appearing immediately after the pig dispute, illustrates the range of minor regulatory matters the council handled alongside more serious complaints. A specific order against throwing stones suggests a prior incident or safety concern on that hill, making Edwards's action a contempt of council authority rather than a trivial nuisance.

Speculations

The trimming of the sow's second ear between Blenham's two visits to Hemon's house, within the space of about an hour, points to someone at the house deliberately destroying the animal's identifying mark while aware that the ear had already been noticed. Whether this was Hemon's wife, the slave or another member of the household cannot be determined from the evidence, but the timing made it extremely difficult for Hemon to argue the family had no knowledge of the animal's origin.

The involvement of a slave in going into the wood with Hemon's wife, without any examination of the slave being recorded, reflects the evidentiary rules of the period. Slaves were not competent witnesses in proceedings involving free persons, and their actions were legally attributed to their owners. This placed Hemon in the position of bearing responsibility for what his slave did without the slave's testimony being available to clarify or contradict the account.

281

299

It is ord[ered]

That the Said Humphrey Edwards for Contempt of Said [...] be fined a Shilling to [...] [...] Comp: and 5 Shillings more to [...] Rest.

Joyce [the] wife of Thomas Ashley Sol:r on behalf of her Husband made Complaint to us that Gab:t Joull- free a Soldier did yesterday break her Husband head, and Whipt her without any Provocation.

The Said Gab:t Joulls Saith the Said Tho: Ashley wife told his wife that he had [...] per Husband, who expressed what and askt him her or treat that he had wronged him, and presently have ill Language, by [...] Said Ashley over [...]- head a [...] a Stick, and his wife throwing a [...] at him he gave her a kick or two, but did her no harm.

It is ordered

That [...] Said Gab: Joull for breach of [...] Peace be fined have Sixpence to [...] [?] [...] [...] half a dollar more to [...] Said Thomas Ashley, and to pay Charges of Councill.

Margaret Colgrave w:do brought and delivered a Bill of the Garden house Charges, which amounts to [...] Some of Thirty three Shillings, and being Examined was thought [...] Said reasonable, and Accordingly

It was ordered

That [...] Said Marg: Colgrave have Credit for [...] Some aforesaid in [...] Said [...] [...] Books of Acco: And that she Pay two Shillings and [...] Pence for Every twenty Shillings for [...] Term of her agreement which Commences from [...] March 1702.

Margin Notes:

Humphrey Edwards for Contempt of Said order fined 5 Shell:

Joyce wife of Tho: [...] Comp: ag Gab: Joull for Breaking her Husbands head & Whipt them with out [...] manner of Provoc- tion.

Gab: Joull for breach of Peace fined Six Shillings.

Marg: Colgrave bro: in a Bill of what Charges she hath been at [...] Garden house

Marg: Colgrave to have Credit for [...] Sam aforesd and to pay 2 & [...] for Every twenty Shell for [...] Term of her agreement

Humphrey Edwards was fined 1s for contempt of the council order, together with a further 5s to the rest [...].

Joyce Ashley, wife of Thomas Ashley, soldier, complained on her husband's behalf that Gabriel Joullree, a soldier, had the previous day broken her husband's head and whipped her without any provocation. Gabriel Joullree responded that Ashley's wife had told his wife that he had [...] her husband. He asked what wrong he had done, and immediately received abusive language. He then struck Ashley over the head with a stick, and when Ashley's wife threw a [...] at him he kicked her once or twice but did her no harm. The council ordered that Gabriel Joullree be fined 6d for breach of the peace, together with half a dollar to Thomas Ashley, and that he pay the costs of the council proceedings.

Margaret Colgrave, widow, brought in and delivered a bill for charges at the garden house amounting to £1 13s 0d. The council examined the bill and found it reasonable. Margaret Colgrave was accordingly credited with that sum in the company's books of account, and was ordered to pay 2s [...] d for every 20s for the term of her agreement, which ran from March 1702.

Interpretations

The fine against Humphrey Edwards was split between two recipients - the company and a further unnamed party - which reflects a standard practice of dividing financial penalties between the governing authority and either the injured party or a general fund. The company's share represented a formal acknowledgement of the institutional harm caused by contempt of a council order, over and above any private remedy.

The complaint brought by Joyce Ashley on her husband's behalf, rather than by Thomas Ashley himself, suggests he was incapacitated by his injuries. Her standing to bring the complaint in his name without apparent procedural objection indicates that wives of soldiers could act as informal agents before the council in their husbands' absence.

The dual fine imposed on Gabriel Joullree - 6d to the council for breach of the peace and half a dollar to Ashley as direct compensation - illustrates the council's practice of combining a public penalty with a private remedy in a single order. This avoided the need for a separate civil claim and resolved both the institutional and personal dimensions of the offence in one proceeding.

The garden house charges brought by Margaret Colgrave suggest she had undertaken work or incurred expenses in connection with a company property, for which she was reimbursed by credit in the company's accounts rather than by cash payment. The ongoing charge of 2s [...] d per 20s for the term of her agreement points to a leasehold or service arrangement under which she occupied or managed the garden house in exchange for a periodic payment calculated as a proportion of some base sum.

Speculations

The mixed currency in the Joullree fine - 6d sterling for breach of the peace and half a dollar as compensation to Ashley - may reflect a deliberate distinction between the institutional penalty, expressed in the island's official accounting currency, and the private remedy, expressed in the trade currency more commonly used in everyday transactions between individuals. Alternatively, the dollar amount may simply reflect what Joullree had available to pay.

The fact that Joullree admitted striking Ashley with a stick and kicking his wife, while framing both acts as responses to provocation, suggests he expected the admission to be treated as mitigation rather than aggravation. The council's relatively modest fine of 6d, combined with a payment to Ashley, suggests it accepted at least part of his account, though the fine for breach of the peace indicates it did not accept that provocation fully excused his conduct.

282

300

John Johnson Sol:r Humbly desired that we would S[ell] [...] his Late Husband [...] deed which we made [...] of [...] (in payment of his debts) he being destitute of a habitation, pray that we would be pleased to grant him a small piece of ground joyning to it.

It is ordered.

That the Said Jo: Johnson have [...] Said house at [...] Rate of [...] [...] [...] and pay one dollar yearly for [...] ground now added for it which is the fore or the [...]

George Hoskison free Plant:r desired that we would [...] [...] have Society Ever [...] Land belonging to John Beals Orphan, offering to give them their [...] Value in that Land as [...] [...] [...] [...] as [...] when they are Son, which being Con- sidered it was thought would be for [...] Orphans good, And Accordingly.

It was ordered

That George Hoskison have the Said Land according to his Offer, for the benefit of [...] the terms of thirty [...] years, Paying besides the R[ent] yours, & if he fall no [...] [...]: then he Reserve [...] Said Land, and that he Cutt no Timber or other wood or fence, only to Secure [...] Pastures already placed, or otherwise to Improve [...] Said Land, upon Paths of being dealt with as a Trespasser.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

John Johnson to have Bar [...] and Acido[wn?] house & a p:ce of Ground belonging to it.

Jo: Johnson to pay 7 for [...] house & a Doll:r for [...] Ground belonging to it.

George Hoskison desired that he might have 30 Acres of Land belon- ging to John Beals Orph:n Offering to keep the [...] Cattle either in that or his Own when they are Span.

Geo: Hoskison to have 30 [...] Land according to his Offer for the benefit of years, & if he fall no Timber or other wood upon [...] Land upon pain of being dealt with as a Trespasser.

John Johnson, soldier, asked the council to grant him a small piece of ground adjoining the house of his late [...] deceased, which had been sold in payment of debts, as he was left without a home. The council ordered that Johnson have the house at the rate of [...] and pay $1 yearly for the ground added to it.

George Hoskison, free planter, asked the council for the use of 30 acres of land belonging to the orphan of John Beal, offering to give fair value for the land and to keep the orphan's cattle either on that land or on his own when they were weaned. The council considered that this arrangement would be to the orphan's benefit and ordered accordingly.

Hoskison was granted the 30 acres on those terms for a period of thirty [...] years, paying the rent due, on condition that he cut no timber or other wood or fencing except to secure pastures already in place or otherwise to improve the land. Breach of this condition would result in his being dealt with as a trespasser.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The sale of Johnson's late [...] house in payment of debts, leaving him without a home, reflects the council's role as both creditor and landlord in the island's small economy. The subsequent grant of the same house to Johnson at a set rate, with an additional charge for the adjoining ground, allowed the council to recover the debt through sale while still providing Johnson with accommodation on commercial terms. The arrangement resolved a welfare problem without waiving the financial obligation.

The grant of John Beal's orphan's land to Hoskison for thirty years was a guardianship arrangement in substance if not in name. The council retained oversight of the orphan's assets and granted their use to a responsible free planter in exchange for rent and the care of the orphan's cattle. This was a practical response to the problem of managing productive property on behalf of a minor with no adult guardian recorded as acting.

The prohibition on cutting timber or wood, except to maintain existing pasture boundaries, was a standard conservation clause in land grants on Saint Helena, where woodland was a limited resource. Breach was framed as trespass rather than as a contractual default, which placed Hoskison in the position of a wrongdoer against the crown's or company's property rights rather than merely a party in breach of a private agreement.

Speculations

Hoskison's offer to keep the orphan's cattle on his own land if necessary, alongside his request for the orphan's 30 acres, suggests he may have already been managing some of the orphan's assets informally before the council formalised the arrangement. His readiness to take on the land and the cattle together, and his offer of fair value, positioned him as the natural choice without any apparent alternative being considered.

The margin note's reference to Johnson paying 7 [...] for the house, alongside $1 for the ground, suggests a specific rate was agreed that the damaged main text does not preserve. The combination of a fixed property charge and a separate ground rent indicates the council treated the building and the land as distinct assets, each carrying its own annual obligation.

283

301

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the [...] day of July 1702 Att Fort James

Step:n Poirier Gover: Pres: Tho: Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Ed: Edmunds 3 in Coun:

Edward Heath Sol: made Complaint to Gov: and Councill that on Saturday Evening last William [...] this came into his [...] [...] into his back Kitchen, where he drew his Sword and Struck one of his dogs, which he hearing [...] out- and makeing a going [...] Severall Stairs out of his Chamber to See the better the matter, and as he was going into his [...] Kitchen Saw the Said Child have drawn Sword in his hand making three passes and Stabs at [...] Blush, whereupon Called to the Said Child and askt him what he was doing there, who made answer Swearing by his maker I [...] [...] needs to you, but Put his Sword upon [...] Scabbard, and when [...] Said Heath came to him he offered to draw it againe, but Did- not do any farther mischief to all is [...] Said Heath made oath never to any farther matter.

The Said Willis Child Saith that on the day aforesd in the Evening he intended to go to relief [...] his [...] being his Duty Sol:r [...] and being Sometime Deny out to go round the ordone Point, designed to [...] his [...] [...] Stone, had to de one Ruperts Valley, and as he was going by Edward Heaths house of Seeing a fire went into the Kitchin to Light a pipe of Tobacco, and if he could to get a hint of [...] to drink by [...] way, and when he was Stooping to take up a [...] fire one of [...] Said Heaths dogs bit him by one of his legs, where upon Drew his Sword and Struck at him, but Did not intend any harme, neither Did he offer any to his knowledge to [...] Said free Said or Edward Heath.

Margin Notes:

Ed: Heath Comp:t Wm Child for com- ing onto his [...] [...] [...] & Striking [...] of his Dogs [...] [...]

A consultation was held at Fort James on a Wednesday, the [...] day of July 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

Edward Heath, soldier, complained to the governor and council that on the previous Saturday evening William Child came into his back kitchen, where he drew his sword and struck one of his dogs. Hearing the noise, Heath came out of his chamber and went downstairs to see what was happening. As he entered the back kitchen he saw Child with a drawn sword making three passes and stabs at [...]. Heath called out and asked Child what he was doing there, to which Child replied with an oath that it was no business of Heath's. Child then put his sword back in its scabbard, but when Heath approached him he offered to draw it again, though he did no further harm. Heath swore he had nothing further to add to the matter.

William Child stated that on the same evening he had been on his way to relieve [...] as it was his duty as a soldier, and had been sent out to go round [...] point with the intention of going to [...] and on to Rupert's Valley. Passing Heath's house and seeing a fire, he went into the kitchen to light his pipe and to see if he could get a drink on his way. While stooping to pick up a piece of fire, one of Heath's dogs bit him on the leg, whereupon he drew his sword and struck at the dog, but said he intended no harm and had offered none to Heath or his household.

Interpretations

The complaint arose between two soldiers, Heath and Child, and was brought before the council rather than handled through military discipline alone. This again reflects the council's function as the primary forum for disputes of all kinds on the island, including those between members of the garrison.

Child's account that he entered Heath's kitchen to light his pipe and seek a drink while passing on duty raises a question about the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for soldiers moving through the settlement. His explanation was that the fire drew him in, which framed the entry as opportunistic rather than hostile, and his account of being bitten by the dog before drawing his sword provided a direct provocation for the act that had triggered the complaint.

The detail that Child made three passes and stabs with his drawn sword, as Heath observed, went considerably beyond a single reactive strike at a dog. This is what transformed the incident from a minor matter into a formal complaint, as it suggested Child's behaviour inside Heath's kitchen was more threatening than his own account acknowledged.

Speculations

The absence of any recorded order at the end of this entry suggests either that the consultation record is incomplete at this point or that the council had not yet reached a conclusion when the record was made. Given the relatively minor nature of the incident compared with others in this sequence, a modest fine or a direction to keep the peace between the two men would have been the probable outcome.

Child's route - around a coastal point towards Rupert's Valley - was consistent with a legitimate military errand, which lent some credibility to his account. However, the decision to enter a private kitchen while armed and on duty, and the subsequent drawing of his sword inside the building, would have been difficult to defend fully regardless of the provocation from the dog.

284

302

It is ordered

That upon Consideration of [...] Said Willis Child offending [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] not permitted to weare his Sword [...] [...] [...] our pleasure and if he Commits [...] [...] offence that [...] be Sent home for to [...] and [...] [...] the Causes.

[...] [...] Said Claim to abed he [...] [...] [...] in his [...] which was formerly belonging unto Cap: [...] all Mr Ffoalis debts [...] [...] Said [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] he bid him.

It is ordered

That if the Said Mr Kerr can prove his debt, then he Shall be Satisfied accordingly [...] Administrator of [...] Cap: Ffoalis Estate.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Wm Child not permitted to wear his Sword from this time during the Gov:t & Counc: pleasure.

Mr Kerr having a debt belonging to [...] Fould Says that Cap: Ffoalis Ow- him Money for Meissen he Sold him.

Mr Kerr to prove his debt and [...] Shall be Satisfied accordingly to Cap: [...]

The council ordered that William Child was not permitted to wear his sword until further notice, at the pleasure of the governor and council, and that if he committed any further offence he was to be sent home, together with a statement of the causes.

A Mr Kerr claimed a debt in connection with the estate of the late Captain Ffoulis, stating that Ffoulis owed him money for [...] he had sold him.

The council ordered that if Mr Kerr could prove his debt he was to be satisfied accordingly by the administrator of Captain Ffoulis's estate.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The penalty imposed on William Child - suspension of the right to wear his sword - was a specifically military punishment that stopped short of imprisonment, demotion or dismissal. The sword was the mark of a soldier's standing and his lawful authority to use force. Removing the right to wear it was both a practical restraint and a public humiliation, signalling that Child's conduct had placed his fitness to carry arms in doubt. The threat of being sent home if he reoffended gave the suspension real force without immediately ending his service.

The appearance of Mr Kerr as a creditor of Captain Ffoulis's estate illustrates how the administration of an intestate estate on a small island drew in outstanding private debts that might otherwise never have been formally recorded. The requirement that Kerr prove his debt before the administrator was obliged to satisfy it was the standard evidentiary safeguard against fraudulent or exaggerated claims against a deceased person's estate.

Speculations

The damaged state of the text around Child's order obscures whether any additional conditions were attached to the suspension of his sword-wearing privilege. Given the council's pattern in earlier cases of combining a penalty with a time limit or a specific trigger for restoration, it is probable that further terms were set out that are now unrecoverable.

The brevity of the Kerr entry, and the absence of any detail about what was sold or the amount claimed, suggests the matter was treated as straightforward in principle - a debt owed is a debt to be proved and paid - and that the council expected Kerr to bring his evidence at a subsequent session rather than resolving it immediately.

285

303

Island S:t Helena

At a Court of Judicature Held on Wednesday the 15 day of July in Fort James Hall

Step:n Poirier Gover: Pres:t Tho: Goodwin Dep:ty Gov: Ed: Edmunds 3 in Coun:

There [...] Considered and According to [...] usuall manner and those Persons appearing [...] Jurors are as followeth.

[...] Fould foreman [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] Selin [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] Commande [...] [...] Williams [...] Emer Hodg: [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] George Stign: [...] John [...] Honey [...]

[...] these all Sworne and no objection made [...]

William Beale free Planter made Complaint against George Hoskison free Planter in an Action of [...] Sett forth to us in his declaration that his Said wife [...] [...] George Hoskins was Daniel Barker deceased, who in possession w: his wife [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] James Valley which he died Disposed of a house Standing in Fort James Valley, which he [...] Said Barker bequeathed in his Last Will & Testament of Said Beales [...] to his Said wife during her naturall life, and after his decease to the next [heire] which Said house is now in the Register

Margin Notes:

Mr Beale Comp: ag [...] Hoskison about out Standing on for James Valley w: he has now in possession [...] of [...] Beale [...] Claims Right and Title to it &c:

A Court of Judicature was held at Fort James Hall on 15 July 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

A jury was assembled and sworn in the usual manner. The jurors were: [...] Fould, foreman, [...] Selin, [...] Commande [...], [...] Williams, [...] Emer Hodg [...], George Stign [...], John [...], Honey [...], and others whose names are too damaged to recover.

William Beal, free planter, brought a complaint against George Hoskison, free planter, in an action concerning a house standing in Fort James Valley currently in Hoskison's possession. Beal set out in his declaration that his wife [...] was connected to one Daniel Barker, deceased, who had been in possession of the house in Fort James Valley with his wife [...]. Barker had disposed of the house by his last will and testament, bequeathing it to his wife during her natural life and after her death to the next heir. The house was now registered [...].

Interpretations

The convening of a Court of Judicature, distinct from the regular consultations, marks a shift from administrative and summary proceedings to a formal court of law with a sworn jury. This was the appropriate forum for civil property disputes between free planters, where the stakes were high enough to require a verdict rather than a council order. The governor and council sat as judges, but the presence of a jury introduced a separate fact-finding body whose verdict would carry formal legal weight.

The structure of Barker's bequest - a life interest to his wife, remainder to the next heir - was a standard form of testamentary disposition designed to provide for a surviving spouse without permanently alienating the property from the bloodline. The dispute arose because the house had passed into Hoskison's possession, and Beal claimed through his wife a reversionary right to it as the next heir after the life tenant.

The registration of the house, noted at the end of the surviving text, points to a formal land registry kept by the council or its secretary. Registered title was the foundation of property claims on the island, and the fact that Beal referred to it suggests he intended to use the register as evidence of his right.

Speculations

The appearance of George Hoskison as defendant in a property dispute, so shortly after the council granted him the use of the Beal orphan's land and appointed him churchwarden, suggests his accumulation of land and influence in the free planter community was generating friction with other established families. Whether the house in Fort James Valley came into his possession by purchase, inheritance or some less formal arrangement is not recoverable from the surviving text, but the fact that a formal jury trial was needed to resolve the matter indicates the competing claims were sufficiently serious to resist a simple council determination.

286

304

of George Hoskion, wherefore [...] Said Beale desires to Sho[w] [...] whole Title he [...] Said Hoskion Injoys the Said House this case never appearing by Defendant there.

The Said Hoskion Saith that himself his Predecessor [...] [...] and [...] [...] have been in Peacable and Quiet Possession of the Said House the [...] Terme of fifteen years or thereabouts without any manner of [...] [...] at molestation, and Thing Causfide, told Cast the [...] have [...] good Evidence, and w[...] So Long presume that it Still [...]s [...] his own but however all this unreasonable Proceedings which Cast the Said Court, and Leaves [...] Judgm:t of the Same to the Bench and Jury.

Thomas Beales being Sworne Saith that he has often heard his Mother [...] [...] a little after her Husbands Barker Died Desire her Cattle for the Will of house now in Possession to [...] the praying of her Said Deed husbands debts, and after that Demand that him they could be paid.

Henry Beales being Sworne Saith that his Daughter Mary Beales did after desire him to Sell the Said house to pay the Ship-hat of her deceased Husbands Barkers debts, which Said house he according to her do[...] Sold to William Proeman you place [...] [...]

The Said Mary Beales replied she never gave her Consent to have [...] Said house Sold, neither did or never receive any payment for it, Cast of Bench and Jury being well Advised Contrary.

The Jury withdraws and Staid about [...] half an hours then returned and brought in their Verdict as followeth.

Mary [...] Beale was Cast in Suite by [...] Said Hoskison, and to pay him two dollars [...] [...] the Charges, and [...] Said Hoskison to remain in quiet Possession of [...] Said house belonging properly to [...] Receiver Jo: [...] and accordingly [...] [...] married.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Wm Beale Cost by him [...] son and to pay two Dollars.

Beal stated that he wished to show the full title by which Hoskison enjoyed the house, which had never been established by Hoskison as defendant.

Hoskison replied that he and his predecessors [...] had been in peaceable and quiet possession of the house for a term of around fifteen years without any molestation, and that having held it so long he had presumed it remained his own. He considered the proceedings unreasonable and left the judgement of the matter to the bench and jury.

Thomas Beal, being sworn, stated that he had often heard his mother say, shortly after her husband Barker died, that she wished to sell the house now in Hoskison's possession in order to pay her late husband's debts, and that after those debts were paid the remainder could be dealt with.

Henry Beal, being sworn, stated that his daughter Mary Beal had asked him to sell the house to pay the debts of her deceased husband Barker. He sold it accordingly to William Proeman [...].

Mary Beal replied that she had never given her consent to the sale of the house and had never received any payment for it.

The jury withdrew and returned after about half an hour with their verdict. William Beal was found against in the suit brought by Hoskison and ordered to pay Hoskison $2 [...] in costs. Hoskison was to remain in quiet possession of the house, which properly belonged to the receiver John [...], and accordingly [...] married.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The central legal issue was whether Mary Beal had authorised her father Henry to sell the house. Henry testified that she had asked him to sell it to pay Barker's debts. Mary denied both giving consent and receiving payment. The jury resolved the conflict in Hoskison's favour, which implies they accepted Henry's account and rejected Mary's denial, perhaps on the grounds that Henry's authority to act as her agent was sufficiently established by his testimony and by the fact of the sale having taken place without challenge for fifteen years.

Hoskison's defence rested substantially on long possession. Fifteen years of undisturbed occupation, without challenge or molestation, was a recognised basis for a possessory claim in English common law and its colonial equivalents. The argument was that even if the original title were disputed, the length and peacefulness of possession created a presumption in his favour that Beal had not rebutted.

The award of costs against William Beal, set at $2 [...], placed the financial burden of the litigation on the losing party. This was standard practice and served as a deterrent against speculative claims, particularly in a small community where court proceedings were a burden on all involved.

The reference to the house properly belonging to a receiver named John [...] introduces a complication that the damaged text does not resolve. A receiver in this context was probably an individual appointed to manage property on behalf of another, perhaps a minor or an absentee, which would explain why the house had passed through several hands and why its title remained uncertain.

Speculations

Mary Beal's denial that she had consented to the sale or received payment, made directly before the jury and in contradiction of her own father's sworn testimony, placed her in an extremely difficult position. The jury's verdict against her suggests they found her account implausible, perhaps because fifteen years had passed without any recorded challenge to the sale, which was hard to reconcile with a genuine claim that the transaction had been made without her knowledge or consent.

The involvement of Henry Beal as the man who actually conducted the sale, acting on his daughter's behalf, raises the possibility that the proceeds were applied to Barker's debts as intended but that Mary later disputed the transaction when she or her current husband William decided to pursue the property. If so, the suit may have been an opportunistic attempt to recover an asset that had been lawfully sold, rather than a genuine claim of wrongful dispossession.

287

305

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Thursday The 23 day of July 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Governo: Pres: Tho: Goodwin dep:ty Gov: Pus: Edward Edmunds 3 in Cou:

Who [...] being fully resolved and accordingly agreed to Build a Fortification [...] Ruperts Valley Secure from an Enemy, found that before [...] Said [...] can come into [...] Road, which [...] [...] [...] to pay most [...] Such happily meeting amongst them da Left [...] drawings of [...] Such Cap: [...] [...] here to [...] [...] man hat Blacks there [...] [...] [...] [...] these should be to Transport himself [...] men well Send [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] to take [...] of it, and make advance or bugging of Some Fortifications made [...] according to the best [...] Subject which he hath done very Carefully, Rosberry in case of Labour [...] Country [...] [...] [...] [...] Said Well, Yesterday being aforesd [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] the Governors high Placed to them [...] Complaints that [...] Said work tore a Timber Gawen, and desired them to Spare their men about Either their [...] [...] [...] Manners Naturals of [...] credit to reimburse you & both and did willingly get their Said Black Cattle.

Whereupon

All [...] [...] Said Blacks was drawne Accordingly and Divided into Severall parts to work as [...] [...] required.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Fortification to be built at Rup[erts] [...] Left [...] hat Blacks there [...] men well Send [...]

A consultation was held at Fort James on 23 July 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

The council resolved to build a fortification at Rupert's Valley to secure the island against an enemy approaching the road. A Captain [...] was sent to inspect the site and assess what fortifications could be built there, which he did carefully. The council then called on the planters to contribute their slaves to the labour, promising to reimburse them, and the planters agreed and willingly provided their slaves. The slaves were accordingly drawn together and divided into several working parties as the work required.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The decision to fortify Rupert's Valley reflects the strategic geography of Saint Helena. The road, where ships anchored, was the island's economic lifeline, and any enemy vessel approaching it would do so through predictable channels. A fortification at Rupert's Valley was intended to intercept or deter such an approach before it reached the main anchorage, adding a defensive layer beyond Fort James itself.

The mechanism for supplying labour was the compulsory contribution of slaves by the free planter community, with reimbursement promised by the council. This reveals how public works were funded and staffed on the island. There was no free labour pool available for large construction projects, and the garrison alone was insufficient. The planters' slaves were the only practicable workforce, and the council's authority to requisition them, even with compensation, was an exercise of sovereign power over private property in the public interest.

The organisation of the slaves into several working parties once assembled points to a degree of planning and coordination in the construction effort, with different groups assigned to different tasks rather than being directed as a single undifferentiated mass.

Speculations

The promise of reimbursement to the planters for the use of their slaves suggests the council anticipated resistance or at least expected that voluntary contribution alone would not suffice. Framing the arrangement as compensated requisition rather than a civic duty made it easier to secure cooperation quickly, but it also created a financial obligation on the council that would need to be settled once the work was done.

The damaged state of the text conceals much of the detail about the fortification's design and the captain's assessment. The reference to drawings being made suggests a more formal planning process than a simple field inspection, which implies the council intended a permanent or at least substantial structure rather than a temporary earthwork.

288

306

Island S:t Helena At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 4[...] day of August 1702 At Fort James

Step:n Poirier Govern: Pres: Tho: Goodwin dp:t Gov: Edward Edmunds 3 m Coun:

William Marsh free Planter made Complaint to Govern: and Councill that Gabriell Powell free Planter his Black boy had [...] charge of his and his Cattle, wherefore desires that the [...] [...] [...] Examined and askt the Said Powills Boy.

The Said Gab: Jowills Son is that Butcher he [...] his Black Boy run away for his Slavery caused or told [...] Said William Marsh to Stop him, and Said if any body Can prove that his Black did it he will make [...] him good.

Mr [...] Jun: Saith that on [...] 23 day of July last, [...] Benjamin [...] Come to his Masters, and Called him to go and See if he knew Some beast that was that they almost dead in Mr: Nicols Plantation, who accordingly went, and Saw that Some dogs had worried it. Then Saw to him and Gabriell Powill and Seeing his Black Boy asked him if he Sent any of their dogs at any Cattle yesterday or [...] day before, The Boy replied you Mean our Beasts at Some [...] which Run downe towards Mr: Hichs Plantation, and Sayd he did not Call [...] Black of [...] Cattle, but he came home at night.

Boy: [...] Saith to the Same Effect [...] [...] Mr Long hath, adding further that the Said Black Boy told him that he fastened the [...] door to [...] aside, whilst he Hunted the Cattle [?] of [...] Bitch.

The Said Powill Saith that the day abovesaid his Bitch was w:th him at [...] [...] which he Can prove.

Margin Notes:

Wm Marsh Comp: ag Gab:ll Powell Black boy for Hunting a Heifer and of her and Foill &c:

A consultation was held at Fort James on the 4[...] day of August 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

William Marsh, free planter, complained to the governor and council that Gabriel Powell's slave boy had [...] his cattle, and asked that Powell's boy be examined.

Gabriel Powell stated that his slave boy had run away from his work and that he had told William Marsh to stop him, adding that if anyone could prove his slave had done the damage he would make it good.

Mr [...] junior stated that on 23 July last, Benjamin [...] came to his master's house and called him to come and see some beast that was almost dead in Mr Nicols's plantation. He went and saw that dogs had worried it. He then spoke to Gabriel Powell and, seeing Powell's slave boy, asked him whether he had sent any of their dogs at any cattle the previous day or the day before. The boy replied, referring to some beasts that had run down towards Mr Hicks's plantation, and said he had not called the dogs off the cattle but had come home at night.

Boy [...] stated to the same effect as Mr [...] junior, adding further that the slave boy had told him that he had fastened the [...] door to one side while he hunted the cattle [...] with the bitch.

Powell replied that on the day in question his bitch had been with him [...], which he said he could prove.

Interpretations

The complaint against Powell's slave boy for setting dogs on Marsh's cattle placed Powell in the position of being responsible for the actions of his slave, even though the boy had apparently acted without orders and had run away from his work. Powell's offer to make good any proven damage was an acknowledgement of that vicarious liability, which was the standard legal position of a slave owner in relation to harm caused by his slaves.

The detail that the boy fastened a door to one side while he hunted the cattle with the bitch suggests a deliberate act rather than an accidental encounter between dogs and livestock. If true, it pointed to the boy having actively managed the situation to facilitate the worrying of the cattle, which was a more serious matter than a simple failure to control animals.

Powell's counter-claim that his bitch was with him on the day in question, and that he could prove it, was a direct challenge to the testimony about the bitch being used in the hunt. If the bitch had been with Powell all day, the account given by the second witness could not be accurate in that detail, which would weaken the overall case against the boy.

Speculations

The case turned on the credibility of the slave boy's own reported statement, which was conveyed to the council through free witnesses rather than by direct examination of the boy. The boy's account, as reported, was ambiguous enough to be read either as an admission that the dogs had chased the cattle or as a denial that he had deliberately set them on. This ambiguity was probably the reason the matter came before the council rather than being resolved by Powell's offer alone.

Powell's readiness to make good any proven damage, made at the outset before the evidence was examined, may have been a calculated move to limit his exposure. By conceding liability in principle while denying the specific facts, he placed the burden of proof firmly on Marsh without appearing obstructive, which was likely to influence the council's assessment of his good faith.

289

307

Wm: Marsh desires if Some witnesses might be Called to Justifie that the Said Gab: Powill Boy hath at Severall times Hunted his Cattle, which [...] Said Jodell owned to have ordered his Black to do for Trespassing on his Land.

It is ordered

That having no positive Evidence against the Said Powill and this Powell, the [...] but it being very probable his Black did [...] damage afors:) of Jury [...] Never [...] the determination hears be referred to [...] Jury at [...] next Sittings.

John Sich made Complaint to us that the Said Gabriell Powill or Slaves of his Formerly hath made a fott way through his Plantation, [...] [...] [...] denies his fences, which her Plantation Contra hath Evidence of but it is not [...] mentioned.

The Said [...] [...] that no any of his Country goes through the Said All that Plantation.

It is therefore ordered

That [...] Sich [...] his Evidence against [...] Said Powill appearing this day from [...] againe w:a againe if they dont agree before ensuing [...] [...] fortnight.

Mr Edward Edmunds makes Complaint that he has lost Severall pieces that the Carpenters had [...] him of great wood [...] [...] Carp [...] Square, whereupon desired us a warrant the make Search for them, which was granted and Mr Lay Ching found one [...] [...] gunwood fice at a boy to Search him [...] of houses of Sutton found also being [...] [...] great wood Searching for and one [...] fice at Sutton Sawis house &c:

Wherefore the Said Jareth was Summonsed to appear this day before us, who being Examined Saith he knows nothing of Ship fice that was found at his house, but if any was brought it was by his Blacks unknown to him, for they alwayes fetch wood from [...] Said great wood to burne, and never Saw any Squdled pieces brought.

Margin Notes:

No Positive Evidence ag: the Powell, the [...] to be Referred to [...] Jury [...] Next Sessing

John Sich Comp: that Gab: Powill or Some of his Family hath made a drift way through his Plantation [...] & has Evidence of but it not [...] mentioned.

The S: Sich [...] his Evidence to appear this day fortnight.

Mr Edw: Edmunds Comp: he had Lost Sev- erall [...] Carp: Square in [...] allowed therefore a War: to Search him Searching for and one fice at Sutton Sawis house &c:

Marsh asked that witnesses be called to show that Powell's slave boy had hunted his cattle on several previous occasions. It emerged that Powell had in fact ordered his slave to drive cattle off his land when they trespassed there.

The council ordered that as there was no firm evidence against Powell, but as it was probable his slave had done the damage, the matter was referred to a jury at the next sitting.

John Sich complained that Gabriel Powell or members of his household had made a drove way through his plantation and broken down his fences. He stated he had evidence of this but it was not produced that day. Powell denied that anyone from his household passed through the plantation. The council ordered that Sich produce his evidence at a hearing in a fortnight, and that if the parties had not reached agreement by then the matter would be determined at that sitting.

Edward Edmunds complained that he had lost several pieces of squared great wood that the carpenters had prepared for him. A warrant was granted to search for them. Mr Lay Ching found one [...] piece of gunwood [...] at a boy's house, and a further piece was found at Sutton's house during the search.

Jareth was summoned and examined. He stated that he knew nothing of the piece of wood found at his house, but that if any had been brought there it was by his slaves without his knowledge, as they always fetched wood from the great wood to burn and he had never seen any squared pieces brought in.

Interpretations

The admission that Powell had ordered his slave to drive trespassing cattle off his land introduced a new dimension to the complaint. What had appeared to be an unauthorised act by a runaway slave now carried the possibility of having been, at least on some occasions, an act carried out on Powell's instructions. This did not establish liability for the specific incident involving Marsh's injured beast, but it showed a pattern of behaviour that the council considered sufficiently probable to warrant a jury determination rather than dismissal.

The complaint by Sich about a drove way cut through his plantation reflects a recurring source of dispute in a small agricultural settlement where land boundaries and rights of way were not always formally recorded. A drove way was a track used for moving livestock, and its establishment through another person's land without consent was both a practical nuisance and a legal trespass. The destruction of fences compounded the damage by leaving Sich's enclosures open.

The search warrant granted to Edmunds was a significant use of council authority. Edmunds was himself a councillor and administrator of Ffoulis's estate, and his ability to obtain a warrant for a search of private houses on his own complaint illustrates again the overlap between personal interest and institutional power that characterised governance on the island.

The defence offered by Jareth - that his slaves had brought the wood without his knowledge as part of their routine fetching of fuel - was plausible in the context of a household where slaves moved independently to gather firewood from the great wood. However, the presence of squared timber, which was a prepared building material rather than rough fuel wood, made the explanation harder to sustain.

Speculations

The fact that the search turned up squared wood at two separate locations - a boy's house and Sutton's house - suggests the missing pieces had been distributed rather than kept together, which would be consistent with deliberate concealment or with the wood having been passed between individuals after being taken. A single piece at one location might be accidental; finds at two separate houses pointed more strongly to organised removal.

Powell's admission that he had ordered his slave to drive trespassing cattle off his land, while denying responsibility for the specific incident, placed him in a difficult position before the jury. The jury would need to determine whether the boy had acted on general standing instructions from Powell or entirely on his own initiative, a distinction that was unlikely to be easy to establish given that the key witness was a slave whose testimony carried no formal weight.

290

308

William Coales being Sworne Saith that he Saw a large Square fice lie in the Said Jarrets yard about 4 or 5 Inches Square which was Sound and whole, and Sayd to Willis Hayes who was with him he knew this is one of my fathers fice, who had Some then in [...] great wood.

William Hayes Jun:r Saith to [...] Same purpose as the Said Willis Coales hath already.

It is ordered

That the determination of this matter be referred to Jury at [...] next Sessing, Mr Decanter being answered [...] [...] the Said Jarret may not stay, we are satisfied.

Whereas Robert Addis and Thomas Dixon Stood bound as Security to [...] Mr Store Comp: for [...] goods and Chattles belonging unto William French towards [...] Payment of his debts [...] Said Comp: and for [...] good of his Children, they he might not forfeit, but that [...] Said Addis and Dixon being unwilling to Stand as Security any longer, desired they might be discharged for fear of further Trouble, which was granted them, and Accordingly.

It is ordered

That a Warrant be Immediately drawne and delivered to [...] [...] Marshalls to Impower him to make Seizure of [...] Said William Frenches Estate for [...] good of his Children and Security of the Said Mr Store Comp: debt, he being a very Extravagante fellow.

Whereas Thomas Price free plant:r deed bequeathed in his Last Will and Testam:t all his Estate both reale & personalle (Except Ten acres of Land) to his grand Children to be Equally divided between them as they come of age or marriage.

Margin Notes:

Mr Edm:ds Business Referred to a Jury at next next Sessing

Rob:t Addelin & Tho: Deacon being Bound for Wm French desires that they may be discharged for fear of future Trouble &c:

A Warr: to be deliv:d [...] Marshall to Seize Wm French Estate.

William Coales, being sworn, stated that he saw a large squared piece of timber lying in Jarrett's yard, about four or five inches square, which was sound and whole. He said to William Hayes, who was with him, that he recognised it as one of his father's pieces, as his father had some in the great wood. William Hayes junior confirmed the same account.

The council ordered that the matter be referred to a jury at the next sitting, and that Jarrett might not leave in the meantime [...].

Robert Addis and Thomas Dixon had stood as security to the company store for the goods and chattels of William French, towards payment of his debts to the company and for the benefit of his children, so that he might not forfeit. Addis and Dixon, being unwilling to continue as security and fearing further trouble, asked to be discharged. This was granted. The council accordingly ordered that a warrant be immediately drawn and delivered to the marshal, empowering him to seize William French's estate for the benefit of his children and to secure the company store's debt, French being described as a very extravagant fellow.

Thomas Price, free planter, deceased, had bequeathed in his last will and testament all his estate, both real and personal, except ten acres of land, to his grandchildren, to be equally divided between them as each came of age or married.

Interpretations

The identification of the timber by William Coales as his father's on the basis of its size and condition illustrates the informal methods of property identification used in the island's timber trade. Squared timber was a processed material that retained no individual mark once cut, making identification by recognition rather than by formal marking both necessary and inherently uncertain. The corroboration of a second witness was important in this context.

The surety arrangement for William French illustrates a standard mechanism of financial control. Addis and Dixon had pledged their own assets to guarantee French's debts to the company store. Their discharge, once granted, immediately exposed French's estate to direct seizure, since the buffer of private surety was removed. The council's simultaneous order for seizure shows that the discharge of the sureties and the protection of the company's debt were treated as a single transaction.

The description of French as a very extravagant fellow was not merely personal commentary. It served as the stated justification for the council's decision to act immediately rather than allow French further time to manage his affairs. Extravagance in this context meant a pattern of spending beyond his means that had already endangered the assets meant to provide for his children, making pre-emptive seizure necessary to preserve what remained.

The bequest by Thomas Price of his entire estate to his grandchildren, except ten acres, with equal division on coming of age or marriage, was a standard protective testamentary arrangement. By withholding the ten acres from the bequest, Price presumably reserved that land for a specific purpose, perhaps as a life interest for a surviving spouse or as a separate gift to another individual, though the damaged text does not preserve that detail.

Speculations

The order that Jarrett might not leave pending the jury determination suggests the council was concerned he might abscond before the case was resolved. This was a form of personal recognisance without formal bail, holding him on the island by council authority rather than by imprisonment. The fact that it was considered necessary implies the council did not fully accept his explanation and regarded flight as a real possibility.

The timing of Addis and Dixon's request to be discharged, coming at the same consultation at which French's extravagance was formally noted, suggests they had reached a point where they judged the risk of continuing as sureties to outweigh any benefit. Their withdrawal may have been precipitated by a specific recent act of French's that had made his insolvency appear imminent, even if that act is not recorded in the surviving text.

291

309

It is ordered

That the Said Boxes Executrix Mary French his daughter do bring a true Inventory of her deed do bring a true and faithfull Inventory of her deed fathers Estate this day fortnight.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 11 day of Aug:t 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Govern: Pres: Tho: Goodwin dp:t Gov: Edw:d Edmunds 3 in Coun:

Whereas Thomas Gargen [...] make being at Supper on Saturday night last at [...] [...] Garrett [...] [...] being very drunk uttered very undecified and unrespectfull words against our Soveraign Lady Queen Anne, which Cause [...] Coron:t to Secure him in prison till this day that he might be heard before Gov: and Councill, who being called humbly begged Pardon for his Crime Acknowledging his fault very Submissively, Protesting that nothing Else but [...] pots of drink moved him to utter Such words, desiring we would out of our Clemency Excuse him for this one offence.

Margin Notes:

Mary French Execu: to bring a true In ventory of her deed Fathers Estate.

Thom: Gargen being very drunk Used a [...] many disrespectfull words ag: our Soveraign Lady Queen Anne.

The council ordered that Mary French, executrix and daughter of the deceased Thomas Price, bring a true and faithful inventory of her late father's estate within a fortnight.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 11 August 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

Thomas Gargen, while at supper on the previous Saturday night at [...] Garrett's [...], was very drunk and uttered highly disrespectful words against Her Sovereign Lady Queen Anne. The cornet had him secured in prison until he could be brought before the governor and council. When called before them, Gargen humbly begged pardon for his offence, acknowledged his fault very submissively and protested that nothing but drink had moved him to say what he said, asking the council to excuse him for this one offence out of clemency.

Interpretations

The order requiring Mary French to bring an inventory of her father Thomas Price's estate, rather than of William French's estate as discussed earlier in the same session, reflects the separate legal identity of the two matters. Mary French was executrix of Thomas Price's will, and the inventory was required to give effect to the testamentary bequest to Price's grandchildren. This was a distinct proceeding from the seizure of William French's estate ordered immediately before.

The offence committed by Thomas Gargen - speaking disrespectful words against Queen Anne while drunk - was treated as seditious speech, which was a serious criminal matter regardless of the speaker's state of intoxication. The cornet's decision to imprison Gargen immediately, without waiting for a council sitting, reflects the gravity with which any words against the sovereign were received, even in a remote colonial setting. Drunkenness was explicitly raised as mitigation but not as a defence.

The cornet was a junior military officer, the lowest commissioned rank in a cavalry or garrison establishment. His authority to order imprisonment on his own initiative in a case of seditious speech illustrates the extent to which military and civil authority overlapped in the island's governance.

Speculations

The council's apparent willingness to consider clemency, given Gargen's submission and his attribution of the offence entirely to drink, suggests the words spoken were not judged to reflect a genuine political sentiment. In a small garrison community, a reputation for disloyalty would have been socially and professionally devastating, and Gargen's very public submission was probably calculated to neutralise that risk as much as to satisfy the council's formal requirements.

The fact that the incident occurred at supper at another man's house, with witnesses present, meant that ignoring it was not an option for the cornet or the council. The public nature of the offence required a public response, even if the eventual outcome was lenient.

292

310

Whereupon Considering that he haveing been alwayes very dutifull and respectfull to his Superiours, we are fully perswaded that his fitte and [...] to spill his blood in defending the Right of his Country, and being his first offence moved by too much drink, and being very ill disposed.

It is ordered

That the Said Thomas Gargen be discharged from his Con- finement, To pay 5 Shillings to [...] Poor, and Ten Shill: more to [...] Mr: Store: Comp: and that he take [...] oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, which he did accordingly.

Jo: Fuller free Planter made Complaint against Ensigne Fields Black named Tho: for Breaking open his house [...] many meats, Keeps fowles and Catchpole, desires the Said Ship was in [...] Road, but had no prove Money then his Black.

The Said Fullers Black Saith that when [...] Said down at Lemon valley he Saw the Said Tho: being Sworne two Bags of Cabbages and that the Said Tho: told him he Stole Some meate and [...] it out of his masters house, and hid it amongst the Banana trees.

The Said Fields Black Saith the Said Fullers Black tels lyes in Camp and did deny to have Stolen any of the Said pieces from [...] Said Fuller.

It is ordered

That both the Said Fullers and Fields Blacks be whipt on their naked Bodyes at [...] flagstaff, and that [...] [...] pay Charges of Councill Equally between them.

The Said Ensigne Field made Complaint to Govern: and Councill that when [...] [...] Dixon went off this Island he was [...] Indebted to him Three Dollars [...] money and gave Sheffield Note, and [...] him an order in writing to receive [...] Sume of Seventen of Thomas Dixon in Part of Payment and Accordingly made demand of [...] Said N: which the Said Dixon denyes to pay him, alledging that he gave the Said Fields two Perkins and Roralle Bowles of Punch, to gratifie him for doing Some Guard duty.

Margin Notes:

Tho: Gargen fined 5 to [...] poor & 10:t to [...] Comp: & to take [...] Oath of Allegiance and [...] Supremacy [...] he deed.

Jo: Fuller Comp: ag: Ensign Fields Black for Breaking open his house.

Fullers & Fields Blacks Both to be whipt.

Ensign Field Comp: ag Tho: Dixon for [...] him to pay him 17 shillings Shields Note Indorsed to him [...] Sev. [...] lets Tho: Dacon offers to pay [...] Said Field two Dol: w:th he Accepted of.

The council noted that Gargen had always been dutiful and respectful to his superiors, that they were fully persuaded he was fit and ready to defend the rights of his country, and that this was his first offence, brought on by excessive drink while he was in poor health. The council ordered that Gargen be discharged from confinement, fined 5s to the poor and 10s to the company store, and required to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, which he did accordingly.

John Fuller, free planter, complained against Ensign Field's slave, named Thomas, for breaking open his house and stealing meat, fowls and [...]. Fuller stated that a ship had been in the road at the time but that he had no proof beyond his slave's testimony.

Fuller's slave, being sworn, stated that while at Lemon Valley he had seen Thomas carrying two bags of cabbages, and that Thomas had told him he had stolen some meat from his master's house and hidden it among the banana trees.

Field's slave Thomas denied this, saying that Fuller's slave was lying, and denied having stolen anything from Fuller.

The council ordered that both slaves be whipped on their naked bodies at the flagstaff, and that their respective masters pay the costs of the council proceedings equally between them.

Ensign Field complained that when Thomas Dixon left the island he owed him $3 and had given Sheffield a note, together with a written order to receive 17s from Thomas Dixon in part payment. When Field demanded payment, Dixon refused, claiming he had given Field two firkins and several bowls of punch in return for Field performing some guard duty on his behalf.

The margin note records that Dixon offered to pay Field $2 in settlement, which Field accepted.

Interpretations

The conditions attached to Gargen's discharge combined a financial penalty, a public welfare contribution and a formal oath of loyalty. The fine of 5s to the poor and 10s to the company store addressed both the social and institutional dimensions of the offence. The oath of allegiance and supremacy was the substantive legal remedy for seditious speech, requiring Gargen to affirm his loyalty formally and on the record. Together these conditions transformed a potentially serious criminal matter into a managed act of public contrition.

The punishment of both slaves for the theft complaint, despite the conflicting testimony that left the truth unresolved, reflects the evidentiary and legal position of slaves before the council. Neither slave could give sworn testimony that was formally weightier than the other's, and the council could not determine which account was true. Whipping both was a way of ensuring punishment fell on the guilty party while accepting that the innocent one would also suffer. The equal division of costs between the masters extended the same logic to the financial penalty.

The dispute between Ensign Field and Thomas Dixon over the 17s note illustrates the informal credit arrangements that circulated among the island's small community. A written order to receive a sum from a named third party was a primitive bill of exchange, transferring a debt obligation from one party to another. Dixon's counter-claim - that he had discharged his obligation through gifts of punch and guard duty - was a claim of payment in kind rather than in cash, which the council was asked to weigh against the written instrument.

The settlement recorded in the margin note, by which Dixon paid Field $2 rather than the full 17s claimed, suggests the council encouraged or brokered a compromise rather than determining the matter by formal verdict. This was consistent with the council's general preference for resolved disputes over contested findings where the evidence was mixed.

Speculations

The decision to whip both slaves in the absence of a clear finding of guilt raises the possibility that the council regarded the punishment as serving a deterrent purpose beyond the specific case. In a community where slave theft was a persistent concern, a visible public punishment regardless of the precise allocation of blame may have been considered preferable to a finding of not proven that left the matter entirely unresolved.

Dixon's claim that he had paid in punch and guard-duty substitution, rather than in cash, suggests he may have hoped the informal nature of the transaction would make it difficult to enforce the written note against him. The fact that Field had thought it necessary to obtain a written order suggests he had anticipated exactly this kind of resistance, which implies some prior mistrust between the two men.

293

311

and thought [...] Said Sheils would not have demanded any thing more, but after Some dispute offers to pay the Said feild two dollars, therefore

It is ordered

That [...] Said ffeild Accept of [...] Said Dixons offers, (w:th he did) and in Consequence thereof [...] Said Dixon to be discharged.

The Said Thomas Dixon made Complaint that when he was mounted [...] Guard last, he Left his [...] Beding in the Ser:t Roome in Possession of [...] Wills [...] he received him the Said of [...] Jueling the being not well, Praying which guard [...] Said Rypon Wills Refor afore [...] Told to to drink Punch and Smoak Tobacco in [...] Roome by which means his beding was Set on fire and beding wherefore desires that the Said Wills may make him Satis- faction for Said beding.

The Said Wills Saith [...] Said Dixon gave him no Charge of his bed neither doth he know how it Came [...] burn.

It is ordered

That the Said Rypon Wills Pay the Said Dixon the Sume of Twenty Shillings for his beding and fined Ten Shillings more to [...] Mr: Store Comp:t for his Suffering the Said to drink and burning fice into the flag Roome.

Whereas the Govern: being informed that Geo: Hoski- son and [...] free Planter Reyd [...] [...] Richard Alexander [...] playing at [...] Dixon free planter, Reyd [...] [...] Richard Alexander [...] [...] having [...] Gunner and had some high fifty Shillings, fifty [...] [...] [...] having many about to [...] [...] those dawnes [...] Some Clothes, whereupon the Said Hoskison and Alexander was Summoned to appear before us, who being Examined Could not deny [...] Crime, wherefore.

It was ordered

That the Said George Hoskison Return unto the Said Rich: Alexander all [...] Cloaths he has in Pawn, Staying only.

Margin Notes:

Tho: Dacon Comp:nt Rypon Wills for letting [...] Seld: Settles beding on fire &c:a

R: [...] m Wills to pay [...] Dixon 2:0: for his beding and fined 10: more to the Company.

Geo: Hoskison & Rich: Alexander, playing at [...] having [...] Gunner [...] to Stake down, Hoskison wore of [...] Alexander Some Clothes.

Geo: Hoskison to Return [...] Alexand:r his Cloaths again.

Dixon had believed that Sheffield would not demand anything further, but after some dispute offered to pay Field $2 0s 0d. The council ordered that Field accept Dixon's offer, which he did, and that Dixon be discharged accordingly.

Thomas Dixon complained that when he was last mounted on guard he had left his bedding in the sergeant's room in the possession of Rypon Wills, who had received it from him as he was unwell. Wills then allowed others to drink punch and smoke tobacco in the room, by which means the bedding caught fire. Dixon asked that Wills make him satisfaction for the loss.

Wills replied that Dixon had given him no charge over the bed and that he did not know how it came to burn.

The council ordered that Rypon Wills pay Dixon 20s 0d for the bedding and was further fined 10s 0d to the company store for allowing drinking and the fire that damaged the room.

The governor was informed that George Hoskison, free planter, and Richard Alexander had been gambling together, and that during the game Hoskison had won some fifty shillings [...] from Alexander, along with some of his clothes. Hoskison and Alexander were summoned and examined, and neither could deny the offence. The council ordered that Hoskison return to Alexander all the clothes he held in pawn, retaining only [...].

Interpretations

The liability imposed on Rypon Wills for the destruction of Dixon's bedding rested not on proof that Wills had personally set the fire but on his having permitted conduct - drinking and smoking in the sergeant's room - that created the risk. This was a form of negligence liability: Wills was responsible because he had control of the space and allowed dangerous behaviour within it, regardless of who actually caused the fire.

The dual penalty imposed on Wills - 20s 0d compensation to Dixon and a 10s 0d fine to the company store - again combined private remedy with institutional punishment in a single order. The fine reflected the fact that the sergeant's room was a military or company facility, and its damage was an offence against the institution as well as against Dixon personally.

The gambling complaint against Hoskison and Alexander reveals that the council actively policed gaming among the free planter community. The fact that clothes had changed hands as stakes alongside cash suggests the game had continued beyond what either man could comfortably afford to lose in money alone. Winning clothing from another man was a visible form of impoverishment that could not easily be concealed in a small community, which probably explains how the governor came to hear of it.

The order that Hoskison return Alexander's clothes, retaining only [...], was a partial unwinding of the gambling transaction rather than a full reversal. The council did not void the game entirely but restored the most personally significant losses while allowing Hoskison to keep some of his winnings. This calibrated response was consistent with the council's general approach of resolving disputes to a workable outcome rather than applying rules mechanically.

Speculations

Hoskison's appearance before the council as a defendant in a gambling matter, so shortly after his appearances as churchwarden and as a party in the Beal property dispute, continues the pattern of his prominence in the island's affairs. A man of his standing winning clothes from another free planter at cards was a social as well as a legal problem, since it created a relationship of personal humiliation between two men who would continue to live and work in close proximity.

The question of what Hoskison was permitted to retain from the gambling winnings, which the damaged text does not resolve, was probably the more contentious element of the order. The council's willingness to allow him to keep something suggests it did not treat gambling as automatically void but rather as a transaction to be adjusted in the interests of fairness.

294

312

only one dayes Pay According to the order made against Gaming [...] 23 of July 1638.

Upon [...] Reading of which order the aforesaid Geo: Hoskison talked very Impudently to the Governour, wher- =upon It is ordered

That [...] Said Hoskison be fined five Shillings to [...] use of [...] Church for his Impertende Language.

John Alexander (who farmes [...] Licence for Retayling Strong drink) made Complaint that John Hemmon [...] Ship: Denyes to make payment for a years Licence, wherefore Desire that [...] Said Hemon might be Compelled to Satisfie him for [...] Liberty aforesaid According to their agreement.

The Said Hemon being present was asked why he did not make the Said Alexander Satis- faction for [...] years Licence, W:ho replied that he did not desire [...] Said Alexander to give him any Licence for that year, whereupon James Rider [...] Rypon Wills was Called and Swore, both both desired there they heard [...] Said Hemon askt [...] Said Alexander for a Licence to Sell Punch [...] years 1700 which was granted him for fourty Shillings [...] annum, therefore

It is ordered

That the Said Jo: Hemon pay [...] Said Alexander [...] Sum of fourty Shill: according to their agreement and Charges of the Coun:

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Geo: Hoskison fined 5:0 for his Impertinent Language to [...] Govern:t of [...] Church for his Impertende Language.

John Alexand: Comp:t ag: John Hemons for Denying to pay him a years Licence.

Jo: Hemons to pay [...] P: Alexand: 40: according to Agreement.

Hoskison was permitted to retain only one day's pay, in accordance with the order made against gaming dated 23 July 1638.

On the reading of that order, Hoskison spoke very impudently to the governor. The council ordered that he be fined 5s 0d to the use of the church for his impertinent language.

John Alexander, who held the licence for retailing strong drink, complained that John Hemon, [...] shipwright [...], refused to pay for a year's licence and asked that Hemon be compelled to satisfy him according to their agreement. Hemon, being present, was asked why he had not paid, and replied that he had never asked Alexander for a licence that year. James Rider and Rypon Wills were called and sworn, and both stated that they had heard Hemon ask Alexander for a licence to sell punch for the year 1700, which had been granted at 40s per annum. The council ordered that Hemon pay Alexander 40s 0d according to their agreement, together with the costs of the council proceedings.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The gaming order of 23 July 1638, cited as the basis for restricting Hoskison's penalty to one day's pay, shows the council operating within a body of standing regulations that predated the current administration by more than sixty years. The survival and application of such an order illustrates how colonial governance on Saint Helena maintained continuity through written rules even across long periods and successive administrations.

The licensing system for retailing strong drink was a revenue and regulatory mechanism operated by the council. Alexander did not hold a licence to sell drink as a personal right but farmed the licence, meaning he had purchased the right to collect licence fees from retailers on behalf of the council and profited from the difference between what he paid for the farm and what he collected. Hemon's refusal to pay his fee was therefore a dispute with Alexander as licence farmer rather than with the council directly, though the council enforced the agreement as if it were a public obligation.

Hoskison's impudent response to the reading of the gaming order, and the immediate fine for impertinent language, shows the council's sensitivity to any challenge to its authority in open session. The fine was directed to the church rather than to the company store, which may reflect a distinction between offences against public order, punished for the community's benefit, and offences against institutional authority, punished for the company's benefit.

Speculations

The gaming order of 23 July 1638 was applied to limit Hoskison's penalty rather than to increase it, which suggests the council used it as a ceiling on punishment rather than as a basis for prosecution. Hoskison may have been aware of the order and relied on it to moderate his exposure, which would explain why his subsequent impertinence to the governor carried a particular edge - he may have felt he had escaped lightly and shown it too openly.

The gap between the licence year of 1700 and the consultation date of 1702 suggests Alexander had allowed the debt to accumulate for two years before bringing the complaint. This delay may reflect a prior expectation that Hemon would pay voluntarily, or a reluctance to bring a formal complaint against a man with whom he continued to deal, with the matter only reaching the council once the relationship had broken down entirely.

295

313

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 1:t day of Sep:t[br] 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Gover:t Pres:t Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Cow:d Edmunds 3 m Coun:

Whereas in the Consultation Held the 23 day of July Last, Mary French Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of her deceased Father Thomas Box it was ordered She Should bring unto us a true and Faithfull Inventory of her Said deed Fathers Estate which this Day According to Did and made oath that She did not Conceale any thing of the Said Estate. And Likewise Henry Coales & Jo:n Nichalls made Oath that the Said Inventory was appraised According to the Best of their Skill and knowledges.

It is ordered

That the Said Inventory be received and approved of and Copyes given when demanded.

In perswance to an order of Councill bearing date the 23 day of July last, at as abovesaid William French Sol:r Brought an Inventory of his Estate, and it produced Mr: Nicholls and James Greentree free planters for Security that he might not [...] Bayle [...] part of his [...] [...] for these reasons Specified in the said Consultation and Accordingly Entered into the Recognizance before last mentioned.

Margin Notes:

Thomas Box Inventory Read & approved of.

John Nicholls and James Greentree bound for Wm French that he shall not Insteoleams part of his Estate.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 1 September 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

In accordance with the order made at the consultation of 23 July last, Mary French, executrix of the last will and testament of her late father Thomas Box, brought a true and faithful inventory of his estate and swore on oath that she had concealed nothing. Henry Coales and John Nichols likewise swore that the inventory had been appraised to the best of their skill and knowledge. The council ordered that the inventory be received and approved, and that copies be given out when demanded.

In pursuance of the same order of 23 July last, William French, soldier, brought an inventory of his estate and produced Mr Nichols and James Greentree, free planters, as security that he would not dispose of any part of his estate, for the reasons specified in that consultation. They accordingly entered into a recognisance as stated.

Interpretations

The sworn appraisal of Thomas Box's inventory by two named individuals, Henry Coales and John Nichols, reflects the standard probate requirement that an inventory be valued by disinterested parties rather than by the executor alone. Their oath bound them personally to the accuracy of the valuation and provided the council with an independently verified account of the estate's worth before approving it.

The recognisance entered into by Nichols and Greentree as security for William French was a formal bond by which they pledged their own assets against French's compliance with the council's order not to dissipate his estate. This converted a personal obligation of French's into a financial risk for his sureties, giving them a direct interest in monitoring his conduct and deterring him from acting against the council's restrictions.

Speculations

The appearance of John Nichols in both proceedings at the same consultation - first as an appraiser of Thomas Box's inventory and then as a surety for William French - again illustrates the very small pool of reliable free planters available to the council for quasi-judicial and administrative functions. The same individuals were called upon repeatedly across different institutional roles, which made genuine independence difficult to maintain in practice.

296

314

Island S:t Helena

Wee John Nichols and James Greentree Both of the Said Island free planters do hereby bind our Selves Unto the R: Hono: Comp: in the Sum of Sixty Pounds in Current money of the Said Island, That Will French Sol:r Shall not Embezle nor waste any of his Estate Consisting in the perticulares hereafter mentioned which amounts to [...] Sum of fifty five Pounds twelve Shillings In witness whereof we have hereunto Sett our Hands this first day of September 1702.

10 Acres Land . . . . 10=00=0 one Negros Man . . . 20=00=0 2 Cowes 1 Heifer ) 1 Bullock Steer ) 15=15=0 3 Heifer Calves ) Goats at . . . . . . 7=00=0 Hoggs . . . . . . . . 2=17=0 Totalle . . . £ 55=12=0

Witnessed [...] Jo:n Alexander

Jno Nichols James Greentree

Mr Tho: Goodwin and Mr Edward Edmunds Execut: of the Last Will and Testament of Sam:o Wrongham free Planter deeds Presented an Inventory of the Said Wronghams Estate which they made oath was also Said Estate Jnventory to [...] best of their knowledge But was only Mentioned in perticulars without the values which being not usuall [...] Govern:t declares Shall not be for a future president.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

John Nichols & Ja: Greentree bond.

The Inventory of Sam: Wronghams Estate Reced.

John Nichols and James Greentree, both free planters of Saint Helena, bound themselves to the Right Honourable Company in the sum of £60 0s 0d in current money of the island, guaranteeing that William French, soldier, would not embezzle or waste any of his estate, which consisted of the following particulars amounting in total to £55 12s 0d:

10 acres of land: £10 0s 0d One negro man: £20 0s 0d 2 cows, 1 heifer, 1 bullock steer, 3 heifer calves: £15 15s 0d Goats: £7 0s 0d Hogs: £2 17s 0d Total: £55 12s 0d

The bond was witnessed by John Alexander and signed by John Nichols and James Greentree on 1 September 1702.

Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, executors of the last will and testament of Samuel Wrongham, free planter deceased, presented an inventory of Wrongham's estate and swore it represented the estate to the best of their knowledge. However, the inventory listed items without valuations, which was not the usual practice. The governor declared that this should not be taken as a precedent for the future.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The bond of £60 0s 0d exceeded the total value of French's estate by £4 8s 0d, which was deliberate. Setting the bond above the estate's value meant that if Nichols and Greentree were called upon to pay it they would suffer a net loss, giving them a stronger incentive to prevent French from dissipating his assets than if the bond merely matched the estate's worth.

The valuation of the slave at £20 0s 0d, the single largest item in French's estate, illustrates the centrality of slave ownership to the economic position of even a relatively modest free household on the island. The slave represented more than a third of the total estate value, exceeding the combined worth of all the livestock and roughly doubling the value of the land.

The governor's objection to the Wrongham inventory, on the grounds that it listed items without valuations, established a formal rule for future probate practice on the island. An unvalued inventory was useless for the purposes of settling debts, calculating shares or identifying waste, and the governor's declaration that it would not serve as a precedent protected the integrity of the probate process against informal or incomplete submissions.

Speculations

The appointment of Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, both senior council members, as executors of Samuel Wrongham's estate is notable. Their willingness to act as executors for a free planter suggests either a personal connection to Wrongham or a situation in which no other suitable person was available, which would be consistent with the pattern seen in the Ffoulis administration earlier in these records. The submission of an incomplete inventory by two men who were themselves responsible for probate administration across the island suggests the omission was an oversight rather than a deliberate act.

297

315

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 15 day of September 1702 Att Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Govern:t Pres: Tho:s Goodwin dp:t Govern:t Edward Edmunds 3 m Coun:l

Whereas yesterday about five of [...] Clock in [...] afternoon Edward Heath folks hath Considered and [...] Undertaken to making up and perfect [...] Fortifications at Ruperts at [...] [...] to be [...] at Rate of 150 Shill: (fred) told [...] Impow:t as to give the he made with the Gov: Govern: [...] behalf to go on w:th the Said Fortifica- the Real morning [...] tion, asked the Said Govern: Knight of his Authority [...] Sent for him & prosecute [...] him Sending inform, that tow Asked him of his unwill: would rather have it Decided in Councill And [...] forward with the [...] might Sent for Mr Thomas Goodwin and Mr Edw: Edmunds Fortification who w:th provid [...] on board the Ships now in [...] Road, Answered Yes, and and the Evenings bring very urgent and any Delays is very Sorry for [...] laboring of great [...] [...] [...] for this [...] and [...] and Said Last Night. and asking [...] [...] their Skill [...] Abutar [...] Person Toward do [...] all [...] of which is what good what they have often told the Govern: that nothing Should get him [...] house of their going on board, but it is more [...] But all that while the Govern: having him [...] of them he could not [...] proved and the [...] Edward breath being called and demanded [...] was this he did permit all in his Buttons [?] Saith that he is very Sorry for what he Said Last night, and is very willing to go on w:th the Said Fortifications [brought? [...] wood this morning when [...] [...].

Tho: Dacon Witness, Thomas Dixon Ser: being Sworne [...] Govern: to [...] Geo: Sent for [...] Evidence that he Sent for Mr Goodwin told Mr Edmunds Goodwin & Mr Dix: declares that this morning about Six of [...] Clock the Gov: ordered him to Send a detain of [...] Guard for [...] Said Mr: Goodwin and Mr Edmunds, and then told [...] Govern: that they went on board of Ship [...] morning about Six of [...] Clock.

[signature]

Margin Notes:

Edw: Heath Longs to Stand to his [...] [...] he made with the Gov: the New morning [...] Gon: Sent for him & Asked him of his unwill: to foreward with the [...] Fortification who [...] Answered Yes, and is very Sorry for [...] Said Last Night.

Tho: Dacon Witness of Geo: Sent for Mr Goodwin & Mr Dix:[...]

A consultation was held at Fort James on 15 September 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

The previous afternoon, Edward Heath had agreed to undertake the completion of the fortifications at Rupert's Valley at a rate of 150s [...]. The following morning, however, he appeared unwilling to proceed and, when asked about this by the governor, said he would rather have the matter decided in council. The governor sent for Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, who were on board ships then in the road. Heath was called before the council and asked to account for what he had said the previous night. He stated that he was very sorry for what he had said and that he was willing to go forward with the fortifications, and had brought wood that morning for the purpose.

Thomas Dixon, sergeant, being sworn, stated that at around six o'clock that morning the governor had ordered him to send a detachment of the guard for Goodwin and Edmunds, and that he had informed the governor that they had gone on board ship at around six o'clock that morning.

The consultation was signed [...].

Interpretations

The contract with Heath to complete the Rupert's Valley fortifications at a fixed rate of 150s reflects a shift from the earlier arrangement, in which slave labour was requisitioned from the planters, to a direct engagement with a named individual at an agreed price. This was a more formal contractual relationship that placed the obligation to perform on Heath personally and gave the council a clear basis for enforcement if he failed to proceed.

Heath's reluctance the evening after agreeing the contract, and his stated preference to have the matter decided in council rather than proceeding on the governor's authority alone, suggests he had second thoughts about the terms or the scope of the work, and sought the formal protection of a council decision before committing further.

The governor's immediate dispatch of a guard detachment to summon Goodwin and Edmunds from the ships in the road illustrates both the urgency the governor attached to the fortification work and his willingness to use military authority to compel the attendance of council members. The fact that two senior councillors had gone on board ship without informing the governor, at a moment when their attendance was needed, was itself a source of friction underlying the recorded proceedings.

Speculations

Heath's apology and prompt resumption of work, bringing wood that same morning, suggests his reluctance the previous evening may have been a negotiating position rather than a firm refusal. By forcing the matter into council he may have been seeking either a formal guarantee of payment or clarification of what the 150s rate was expected to cover, and the council session gave him the public commitment he needed before proceeding.

The damaged and confused state of the text throughout this entry suggests the record was written under pressure or reconstructed from notes, which may itself reflect the urgency and disorder of the events described.

298

316

Island S:t Helena At a Consultation Held on Tues- day the 29 day of Septem: 1702 At Fort James. Pres: Step:n Poirier Gov: Thomas Goodwin dp:t G[ov:]

Whereas the Govern:t being informed that William Edmunds Should Speak Some words to his discredit, the Said Govern:t hath thereupon Summoned [...] Evidence here after mentioned to appear before him and Councill this day to declare what words it was that [...] Said Mr: Edmunds Should Speak before them.

Elzabeth the wife of Jo: Sutton being Sworne De- clares that She was Conversing when [...] Said Mr: Edmunds and Mr ffeild were discoursing about [...] thoughts of [...] Island and amongst that discourse they Spoke in [...] that She believed the new Fortifications [...] Ruperts if taken by an Enemy) would be [...] to Give the [...] Iland, and that [...] [...] and Fortification, were Evacuation the party, forced [...] [...] Retreat to [...] [...] [...] [...] To which Mr: Edmunds made answer, What for Running away, between the Govern:t and Mr ffeild is [...] away, whereupon the Said Deponent Pledged from [...] [...] [...] that you have [...] am at [...] Jamison of [...] [...]

Mr: ffeild being Sworne declares that Mr Edmunds and he was discoursing about [...] thoughts of [...] Island and the Enemy taking it, and that in Case [...] Enemy Should take the Fortifications, they must retreat to [...] Hills, and Imperson to beat them of againe, to which Mr: Edmunds Replied you are of [...] Governours opinion to Run away, or to that Effect, the Deponent also declares that he heard [...] Said Mr: Edmunds Say that it was very Convenient to have Some defence in [...] Country, meaning Ammunition, that in Case the Enemy Scaled the Turkey [...] Fortifications, they might Run to [...] Hills to beat them off againe.

W: abram Roberts Chife mate of [...] [...] Sworne Deposeth that he heard Mr: Edmunds Say that it was this opinion if they Runn away they ought to be Shot through [...] [...]

Mr Edmunds Acknowledges all [...] abovesaid Evidences to be true.

[signature] Poirier Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

The Gov:t is Informed of Mr Elmands Spoke Some words to his dis- credit, for which he was Summoned to ap- pear before Gov:t &c:a

A consultation was held at Fort James on 29 September 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

The governor, having been informed that William Edmunds had spoken words to his discredit, summoned the witnesses named below to appear before him and the council to report what those words were.

Elizabeth, wife of John Sutton, being sworn, stated that she was present when Edmunds and Mr Field were discussing the defence of the island. During that conversation, someone said that if the new fortifications at Rupert's Valley were taken by an enemy they would be sufficient to give up the island, and that if the fortifications were evacuated the party would be forced to retreat [...]. To this Edmunds replied, asking what the point of running away was, and said that as between the governor and Mr Field, [...] running away [...].

Mr Field, being sworn, stated that he and Edmunds had been discussing what would happen if an enemy took the island, and that in such a case they would need to retreat to the hills and fight back from there. Edmunds replied that Field was of the governor's opinion, which was to run away, or words to that effect. Field also stated that he heard Edmunds say it was very sensible to keep some ammunition in the interior of the island, so that if an enemy scaled the fortifications at [...] they could retreat to the hills and beat them off again.

Abraham Roberts, chief mate of [...], being sworn, stated that he heard Edmunds say that in his opinion anyone who ran away ought to be shot through [...].

Edmunds acknowledged all the above evidence to be true.

The consultation was signed by Stephen Poirier and Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The charge against Edmunds was not that he had advocated cowardice but that he had made a remark that the governor interpreted as a slight on his own conduct or strategic judgement. The specific words attributed to Edmunds - that the governor's view amounted to running away - touched directly on the governor's honour and military competence, which in a colonial garrison context was a serious matter regardless of the conversational setting in which the words were spoken.

The distinction Edmunds appeared to be drawing, between abandoning the fortifications entirely and conducting a strategic retreat to the hills to continue resistance, was a legitimate military debate rather than a statement of disloyalty. However, framing the governor's position as equivalent to running away gave the remark an insulting edge that transformed a tactical disagreement into a personal affront.

The testimony of Abraham Roberts, chief mate of a ship in the road, as a witness to a private conversation among island officials is notable. His presence suggests the discussion took place in a social setting that included visiting ships' officers, which meant words spoken in what might have seemed an informal context were heard by men outside the island's governing circle.

Edmunds's acknowledgement that all the evidence was true placed him in a difficult position. He could not claim he had been misrepresented, only that his words had been taken in a sense he had not intended, though the record does not show him making that argument.

Speculations

The governor's decision to summon witnesses and hold a formal council examination over words spoken in a private conversation suggests the remark had reached him through a report rather than through direct hearing, and that he treated the matter as requiring a public record rather than a private settlement. The formal examination served to establish Edmunds's words on the record in a way that would give the governor authority to act against him if he chose to do so, while allowing the matter to be closed without immediate punishment if Edmunds's acknowledgement was considered sufficient.

The debate about retreating to the hills rather than holding the fortifications to the last reflected a genuine strategic tension on the island. Fort James and the Rupert's Valley fortifications could not be indefinitely held against a determined enemy with naval support, and the question of when retreat became the rational military choice was one on which reasonable officers could disagree. The governor's apparent preference for holding the fortifications may have been as much about morale and political signal as about military calculation.

299

317

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Mon- day the 5 Day of Oct:br 1702 Att Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Govern:t Thomas Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Pres:t Edward Edmunds 3d in Coun:t

Whereas on the 12 day of July last being a Generace Randevous of the whole Island the Govern:t and Councill did apply themselves to the free Planters Rhtoing them [...] majority we were in for the help of their Blacks to forward the Forti- fications, freely all [...] pons, offering payment for [...] Same which many [...] promised to Reward [...] and Satisfaction But Experience hath proved that after Every Black almost had imbught, one week they were very [...] Back in doing any more, and frankly Sorry part of them Sent us word forthwith that they would not Send their Blacks any more, Except Rich: Hurling, Jonas Ridge, Edward Bagley, and Some others who Said they would Send their Blacks still, and then where- =upon Considering that [...] Said work is in a faire way to Come to an End Wee have resolved Sind alone [...] [...] Spared from [...] Some [...] Plantations now, to hire whites and Blacks, Render the Said [...] and three Blacks belonging to [...] great Fort, to [...] number of Ten more than we may be no longer at an uncertainty.

It is therefore agreed & ordered

That any of our Sol:d:s that are willing to work at the Said Fortifications shall have 18 [...] besides their Salary finding themselves Victuals, And their Black shall have 12 [...] pay on the Same Ann:t

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Any Soeld:rs that hath a Minde to worke at [...] Fortifi- cations at Ruperts it to have 18 a day besides their Sallery and Every Black 12 a day, finding them- selves Victallalls.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 5 October 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

At a general muster of the whole island on 12 July last, the governor and council had appealed to the free planters, explaining the difficulty they were in and asking for the loan of their slaves to advance the fortification works, offering payment. Many planters had promised to help, but experience had shown that after almost every slave had put in one week's work, most planters pulled them back and bluntly sent word that they would send no more slaves. The exceptions were Richard Hurling, Jonas Ridge, Edward Bagley and some others, who said they would continue to send their slaves.

Considering that the work was now in a fair way to being completed, the council resolved to hire white workers and slaves directly, drawing on three slaves belonging to the great fort, to make up a total of ten workers, so that the council would no longer be dependent on the uncertain cooperation of the planters.

The council ordered that any soldier willing to work at the fortifications would be paid 18 [...] per day in addition to his regular salary, finding his own food, and that each slave would be paid 12 [...] per day on the same terms.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The shift from requisitioned planter labour to directly hired workers marks a significant change in how the fortification project was managed. The earlier arrangement, under which planters contributed their slaves in exchange for a promise of payment, had broken down because the planters retained the practical ability to withdraw their slaves at will. By moving to direct hire, the council secured a workforce whose attendance it could control without depending on the ongoing goodwill of private individuals.

The distinction between the daily rates for soldiers and slaves - 18 [...] and 12 [...] respectively - placed a formal monetary value on the labour of each group while establishing a clear hierarchy of compensation. The soldiers' higher rate reflected their status as free men finding their own food, but the fact that slaves were paid at all, even at a lower rate, indicates that the payment was made to their owners rather than to the slaves themselves, as a direct hire fee for the use of their labour.

The naming of Richard Hurling, Jonas Ridge and Edward Bagley as the planters who continued to cooperate after the others withdrew served a public record function. Their loyalty to the council's project was formally noted, which in a small community carried social and perhaps commercial significance as a mark of standing with the governing authority.

The appeal to the planters at the general muster of 12 July, framed as an explanation of the difficulty the council faced, suggests the council initially sought voluntary cooperation through persuasion rather than compulsion. The subsequent withdrawal of most planters' slaves, described as blunt and without apology, shows that the planters felt confident enough in their position to refuse a request from the governing body without apparent fear of consequences.

Speculations

The planters' collective withdrawal after one week suggests a coordinated decision rather than a series of independent choices. A single week was long enough to satisfy the appearance of cooperation while limiting the actual burden on each household, and the near-simultaneous withdrawal of most contributors points to an agreement among the planters to limit their exposure to the project once the initial goodwill had been demonstrated.

The council's decision to draw on slaves belonging to the great fort as part of the new workforce reveals that the fort itself held slaves as institutional property, available for deployment on public works. This resource had apparently not been fully exploited under the earlier arrangement, perhaps because the council had hoped to manage the project without drawing on its own assets, or because the fort slaves were needed for other duties.

300

318

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 3 day of Novemb: 1702 Att Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Govern: Pres: Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Edw: Edmunds 3m Coun:

Whereas Mr Stephen Col[...] President at Surrat by his Lett: to Govern: bearing date [...] 31 of March 1702 desires him that William Sterling one of his Mother in Law might be [...] to [...] of Mr: Thomas Tomaster Passenger on board the Ship Thomas to go along with him for England to be Educated there, Wee Considering it [...] Come to the great advantage of the Said or[phan] but he being Bound apprentice to Sam: De Fount [...] for [...] terme of Seven years Commenceing from [...] day of March last, the Said De Fountain [...] was Asked who did represent to us, that Said Mother in law and his wife hath brought his Said apprentice up from a Child (being quite to them by his mother on her death bed) not without great Care and Charges, and now being his Apprentice his night year Some [...] [?] of there Labour this being asked what Satisfaction he demanded them =by desired us to allow him as only found, but after Some dispute it was agreed that he Should have the Sume of twelve pounds on Accordingly discharges him his Inden- tures is [...] Said Sum, Shall be paid out of Some [...] [...] the Said William Sterling hath, But if they dont give to the Said Sum after appraised by two Indifferent and [...] the Said Govern: Both Engaged to pay the [...] balance thereof to the Said Defountaime.

It is also ordered

That for the discharging of the Govern: and Councills the Said Mr Thomas Tomaster Shall give us [...] under his hand that he hath the Said Will: Sterling m- his possession.

These are to Certifie all persons that I have at the request of the Right Worshipfull Stephen Col[...] [...] Master taken off this Island William Sterling and resolve to Dispose of him according to the Directions reced from Said Stephen Col[...] Dated on the Island of S:t Helena [...] 16 day of November 1702.

Tho: Tomaster Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

William Sterling Orphan Left in the care of Mr Thomas Tomster according to Mr Stephen Col: president at Surrat before.

Thom: Tomaster Reced for Wm Sterling.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 3 November 1702, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

Stephen Col[...], president at Surat, had written to the governor by letter dated 31 March 1702 asking that William Sterling, one of his mother-in-law's family, be released from his apprenticeship to travel to England for his education on board the ship Thomas, under the care of passenger Thomas Tomaster. The council considered this would be greatly to the orphan's advantage.

However, William Sterling was bound apprentice to Samuel De Fountain for a term of seven years from March last. De Fountain was asked about the matter and represented to the council that his mother-in-law and his wife had raised Sterling from a child, having been given charge of him by his mother on her deathbed, at considerable care and expense. Sterling was now in his ninth year of being known to them and they had been looking forward to the benefit of his labour. When asked what satisfaction he required, De Fountain initially asked only for what he was owed, but after some discussion it was agreed that he should receive £12 0s 0d. He accordingly discharged Sterling from his indentures, on condition that the sum be paid out of whatever assets Sterling held. If those assets, once appraised by two disinterested persons, did not meet the full amount, the governor undertook to pay De Fountain the balance.

The council further ordered that Thomas Tomaster give a written undertaking that William Sterling was in his possession, to discharge the governor and council of further responsibility.

Thomas Tomaster certified that at the request of the Right Worshipful Stephen Col[...] he had taken William Sterling off the island and undertook to dispose of him according to the directions received from Stephen Col[...]. This certificate was dated 16 November 1702 and signed by Thomas Tomaster and Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The indenture binding William Sterling to Samuel De Fountain was a formal legal contract of apprenticeship, under which Sterling was obliged to serve De Fountain for seven years in exchange for training, keep and the other standard terms of an indenture. The early discharge of an apprentice required the master's consent and compensation, since the master held a legally enforceable right to the apprentice's labour for the agreed term. The payment of £12 0s 0d was the price at which De Fountain released that right.

The governor's personal undertaking to pay any shortfall between Sterling's appraised assets and the £12 0s 0d due to De Fountain was an unusual financial commitment for a colonial governor to make in an official record. It suggests either a personal connection to Stephen Col[...] or the president at Surat, or a recognition that Sterling's assets were likely to fall short and that the council wished to ensure De Fountain was not left out of pocket as a result of a decision made in the public interest.

The certificate issued by Thomas Tomaster, acknowledging receipt of Sterling and undertaking to act on Col[...]'s directions, formally transferred responsibility for the boy from the island's governing authority to Tomaster personally. This was the council's mechanism for closing its own liability once Sterling left the island, ensuring that if anything went wrong during the voyage or in England, the council had a written record that it had discharged its duty.

The role of the president at Surat in initiating the arrangement illustrates the reach of the East India Company's internal networks across its trading stations. A senior Company official at Surat could write to the governor of Saint Helena and expect his instructions to be acted upon, using the island as a waystation not only for ships but for the movement of people within the Company's wider system.

Speculations

De Fountain's initial statement that he asked only for what was owed to him, followed by the agreement of £12 0s 0d after some discussion, suggests the negotiation was more substantive than the record implies. The phrase "after some dispute" indicates De Fountain pushed for more than a nominal sum and that the council had to work to reach a figure both sides would accept. The governor's undertaking to cover any shortfall from Sterling's assets may itself have been a concession that brought De Fountain to agreement.

The care taken to record Tomaster's certificate within the consultation record, dated a fortnight after the consultation itself, suggests the council kept the record open until the formal handover was completed and documented. This points to an awareness that the discharge of Sterling from his indentures created a legal exposure for the council that would only be resolved once Tomaster had formally acknowledged receipt of the boy.

301

319

At a Court of Judicature Held on Tuesday the 6:th day of Octo: 1702 At the Sessions House near Fort James

Step:n Poirier Gov:t & Judge Pres:t Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Ed: Edmunds 3 m Coun:

After [...] Court was opened According to [...] Accustomed manner those persons Appointed for Jurors are as follow- =eth:

7 Philip Lascake 1 Jo:n ffeild Foreman 8 Rich:t Swallow 2 Robert Addis 9 Thom: Dixon 3 Ras: Rurling 10 Hugh Hodge 4 Jo:n Midge 11 Lile Long 5 Geo: Swallow R:[...] 12 Edw:d Bagley 6 James Rider

who were all Sworne

Then Steven a Slave of Johnson, Jack a Slave of Edward Heaths, and Jack a free Black who lives w:th [...] Said Heath were all brought [...] [...] and their Indictment Read and Swearnes Tralled, and Examined as followeth.

Jack Yampot Edward Heaths Black declares that he is guilty of Robbing Jo: Coales of Breaking open the [...] [...] makes from whence he tooks, he is order of [...] [...] and Raised last night four or five Coales [...] to Jo:n Harmans house and [...] Left in [...] For- tably amongst the Sam [...] the bushes, Amongst Coffises that he Broke open Mr Stephons fore House and took out of a false Sider Coales of Brandy, [...] of which he Carried to the Said Harmons house.

Free Jack Saith that Jack Yampot told him that he Broke open Mr Lustins house and Stole Seven Bottles of Brandy but Broke five of them a going to hid them amongst the bushes, and told him then Legg of him on his knees not to Tell of it.

Margin Notes:

The Tryall of Stephen a Slave of Cullsons Jack, a Slave of Edw: Heath, and Jack a free Black for Breaking open John Miedge, and of Stephen Laskous house in Fort James Valley.

A Court of Judicature was held at the Sessions House near Fort James on 6 October 1702 [Note: this consultation is out of date order], with Governor Stephen Poirier sitting as judge, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

After the court was opened in the usual manner, the following jurors were sworn:

John Field, foreman; Robert Addis; Ras [...] Rurling; John Midge; George Swallow R.[...]; James Rider; Philip Lascake; Richard Swallow; Thomas Dixon; Hugh Hodge; Lile Long; Edward Bagley.

Steven, a slave of Johnson; Jack, a slave of Edward Heath; and Jack, a free black man living with Heath, were all brought before the court, their indictment was read and they were tried and examined as follows.

Jack Yampot, Edward Heath's slave, declared that he was guilty of robbing John Coales, of breaking open [...] from which he took [...], and that the previous night he had taken four or five [...] to John Harman's house and left them hidden among the bushes. He also admitted that he had broken open Mr Stephen's [...] house and taken out of a concealed [...] coals of brandy, some of which he had carried to Harman's house.

Free Jack stated that Jack Yampot had told him that he had broken open Mr Lustin's house and stolen seven bottles of brandy, but had broken five of them while going to hide them among the bushes, and had then gone down on his knees and begged him not to tell anyone.

Interpretations

The Court of Judicature, held at the Sessions House rather than at Fort James itself, was the island's formal criminal court, distinct from the regular council consultations. The governor sat explicitly as judge rather than merely as president, and the presence of a twelve-man sworn jury gave the proceedings the structure of a criminal trial on the English model.

The trial of two slaves alongside a free black man in the same proceeding illustrates an important legal distinction. Steven and Jack Yampot were tried as property of their owners as well as as individuals, and any punishment fell on their persons rather than their estates. Free Jack occupied a different legal position - he was not owned by anyone - but his status as a free black man in a slave society placed him outside the full protections available to free white inhabitants, and his trial in the same court on the same indictment reflected that ambiguity.

Jack Yampot's confession in open court, admitting guilt to multiple break-ins and thefts across several properties, was the most direct form of evidence available to the court. Confessions were treated as conclusive in this period, and the detail he provided - naming locations, quantities and the hiding place among the bushes - gave the court everything it needed to proceed to verdict without relying on circumstantial evidence alone.

The use of Harman's house as a storage point for stolen goods raises the question of whether Harman was knowingly involved in receiving stolen property or simply had a location convenient for concealment without his knowledge. The record does not resolve this.

Speculations

Jack Yampot's account of kneeling before Free Jack and begging him not to tell suggests the two men had a prior relationship of some trust, and that Yampot had involved Free Jack by telling him about the thefts before the matter came to court. Free Jack's decision to give evidence against Yampot rather than maintain silence may have been the result of pressure from Heath or the council, or a calculated choice to distance himself from the crimes before he was implicated in them.

The breaking of five of the seven stolen brandy bottles during concealment, noted in Free Jack's testimony, points to the haste and disorder of the theft rather than a planned operation. The detail was probably included because it explained the discrepancy between the number of bottles stolen and the number that could be produced as evidence.

302

320

Elenor the wife of Jo:n Hemon Being Examined Saith that her Children told her that the aforesaid Blacks was drunk whereupon went into the Plantation where they were drunk whereupon went into [...] Plantation where they were to See who they was where She found [...] Said yam Pott and free Jack who She perceives had been a drinking and thereupon asked [...] Said Jack yam pott if he would Joyne eighteen pence for to get Some Arrack, the Said Yarmpott replied he could tell him to get Arrack without money to which free Jack made Answer we have got a bottle of Arrack which he bought of Ser: Rurling for four Shillings So a little while after, they Retyring, they Came to their house and Brought Some Brandy w: Gotten out She forced them out againe to which Yarmpott replied my Master pays you for my Lodging here, but they being now Rude, She them Retyrd those and perswaded them to give her a little [...] in a bottle [...] Police which She mistrusting they like Sent it down to [...] fore next morning to Exa- mine [...] Sent it being then out [...] Guard.

Leah Bertrant being Sworne Saith that She being at Thomas Burnhams house [...] day after, Mr Burnham told her that Mr: Harmons had Sold about [...] Brandy that was Stolen from Mr: Lustin, whereupon went to Mr: Harmons and told her that She had heard of Mrs Burnhams that She had Brave Savings there Last night but would not have Said any thing of it had not they made Such a noise w:th Cursing [...] thee Saith that about Last Saturday who five weeks [...] Went to the Said Hemons house at which time Mr: Hem on am asked her to Stay w:th him all that night, for Jack yam pott would Give up [...] [...] and bring Some Arrack for he had given him 18 pence get her Some, and was very urgent to her to Stay but She told him She Could not.

Sutton Jreach Junio: being Sworne Saith that he went one Evening to Jo: Hemons his house, and a little after he Came [...] Said Hemons wife gave him a dram and Said She believed it was Somebody [...] Brandy that was Stolen out [...] houses Lately Broken open, and desired him to Stay with her all night (who did) for Jack yam Pott and free Jack had Come more who the [...] [...] that [...] Said free Jack bought a bottle of Ser: Rurling who that [...] paid four Shillings, whilst he Drank part of and So did Mr: Hemons and her Children Also at last [...] [...] Said Blacks was drunk and went to dansing and then to fighting whereupon She beat them and turned them out of the house.

Then [...] Jury withdrew and Stayed about an hour then brought in their Verdict [...] Said Black Jack yam pott, free Jack and Black Steven was all Guilty of all Crimes Said to their Charge and deserved to die.

Margin Notes:

The Jury found all [...] aforesaid Blacks Guilty of [...] Crimes & Reserve Them to Die.

Eleanor, wife of John Hemon, being examined, stated that her children told her the blacks were drunk, whereupon she went into the plantation to see who they were and found Jack Yampot and Free Jack, who had clearly been drinking. She asked Free Jack whether he would contribute 18d towards some arrack. Yampot replied that he could tell him how to get arrack without money, to which Free Jack answered that they already had a bottle bought from Sergeant Rurling for 4s 0d. A little while later they came to her house and brought some brandy, the origin of which she was suspicious of, and she turned them out. Yampot replied that his master paid her for his lodging there. They were now behaving badly and she persuaded them to leave her a little [...] in a bottle, which she mistrusted and sent down to the fort the next morning to be examined.

Leah Bertrant, being sworn, stated that while at Thomas Burnham's house the following day, Burnham told her that Harmon had sold some of the brandy stolen from Mr Lustin. She went to Harmon's and told her she had heard from Mrs Burnham that there had been brandy there the previous night. She also stated that about five weeks before the previous Saturday, she went to John Hemon's house, where Hemon asked her to stay the night, saying that Jack Yampot would bring some arrack as he had given him 18d to fetch some. She declined.

Sutton Jreach junior, being sworn, stated that one evening he went to John Hemon's house, and shortly after arriving Hemon's wife gave him a drink and said she believed it was probably brandy stolen from the houses lately broken open. She asked him to stay the night, which he did. Free Jack and Jack Yampot came later. Free Jack had bought a bottle from Sergeant Rurling for 4s 0d, of which he and Hemon's wife and her children all drank. The blacks then became drunk, began dancing and then fighting, whereupon she beat them and turned them out.

The jury withdrew and after about an hour returned its verdict. Jack Yampot, Free Jack and Steven were all found guilty of all the crimes charged against them and held to deserve death.

Interpretations

Eleanor Hemon's testimony reveals that her household was a regular gathering point for Yampot and Free Jack, and that she was aware the brandy they brought was probably stolen before she sent a sample to the fort. Her decision to send it for examination the following morning, rather than immediately, suggests she was uncertain how to handle the situation and may have hoped to satisfy herself privately before involving the authorities. Her husband's role in the background of the testimony, asking Leah Bertrant to stay the night on the promise of arrack that Yampot would provide, points to a household that was knowingly benefiting from the stolen goods.

The purchase of a bottle from Sergeant Rurling for 4s 0d, confirmed by both Free Jack in his earlier statement and by Sutton Jreach, introduces Rurling as a supplier of arrack to the blacks on the night of the thefts. Whether Rurling knew the money used to buy it came from stolen property, or that his customers were engaged in a series of break-ins, was not addressed in the record but would have been a relevant question.

The jury's verdict that all three deserved to die was the standard formula for a capital finding in this period. It did not automatically result in execution but placed the sentencing decision with the governor and council, who could commute the punishment if they judged it appropriate.

The involvement of a free black man in the same crimes as two slaves, and his conviction on identical terms, illustrates that free status offered no protection in a criminal trial where the evidence was clear. Free Jack was tried, convicted and condemned on the same basis as the slaves, with no apparent distinction made in the verdict.

Speculations

The pattern of behaviour described across the three witness testimonies - Yampot and Free Jack moving between the plantation, Hemon's house and the hiding place among the bushes over several evenings, with brandy appearing in quantities that changed from visit to visit - suggests the thefts were carried out over more than one night and that Hemon's household served as an informal distribution point for the stolen goods. The fact that Hemon himself solicited a woman to stay the night on the promise of arrack that Yampot would supply points to his active participation in the arrangement rather than mere passive tolerance of what his wife allowed.

The detail that Yampot reminded Eleanor Hemon that his master paid for his lodging there, when she tried to turn them out, suggests a long-standing financial arrangement between Heath and the Hemon household for Yampot's accommodation. This gave Yampot a degree of leverage over Eleanor Hemon that complicated her ability to refuse him entry, and may explain why she tolerated his presence even when she suspected the brandy was stolen.

303

321

Whereas after So many Robberyes, which hath been Committed, and is daily, but at Last Some of [...] Actors hath been found out, viz: Stephen Jo:n Coulsons Black, Jack Yarmpott Edward Heaths Black and free Jack, a Black who formerly belonged unto Andrew Phillips mast:r Gunna, who at his death gave him his freedom. They were Evidently Guilty before us both by Strong Circum- stances, and their owne Confession of Committing the Late Robberies in Breaking open the houses of Mr: Lustin, Jo:n Miedge and [...] Mr: Johnson & Consequently deserved death According to [...] Law. But considering that the Planters must pay the Sums we Should think fitt to Value them at, And on this Accs: being very willing to Satisfie the Said free men, as much as us Lies, It was agreed that at [...] Next Sessing we Should give Liberty to the Jury to [...]best what [...] (Suppose they found them Guilty of the Indictment they Vitoed & Eattle be Rid of them [...] death According to their deserts, & by other Corporall Punishment, viz: Biden in the mornings to pay four fold for the damages they have Committed, and [...] Estate them and keep them from Doing as they live make- -ing free Jacks to Come a Slave againe, Condemning them to be henceforth to Serve the Comp: their naturall life [...] which was agreed to them Accordingly. But [...] Said Jury after along while, Considering of themselves, brought in their finding a [result?] them Guilty as aforesaid, and being demanded of what Accordinment they abovesaid punish- ment of death, and that they Should die this [...] Said Advised of death, and the Judge By Advice might be rid of Such rogues from the Judge By Advice of Mr: [...] Goodwin (Mr Demmer, Swearing therein- Flo:) Sentence of death was pronounced against them [...] these as followeth.

You Jack yarnpote, Black Steven and Jack freelmark, you and Every one of you are to Returne to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of Execution, and there to be hanged by [...] neck till you are dead. And [...] [...] Lord have mercy upon your Soules.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

The Judge pronounced Sentence.

Following a series of robberies that had been committed repeatedly, some of those responsible had at last been identified: Steven, a slave of John Coulson; Jack Yampot, a slave of Edward Heath; and Free Jack, a black man who had formerly belonged to Andrew Phillips, master gunner, who had given him his freedom on his death. All three were plainly guilty, both on strong circumstantial evidence and by their own confession, of breaking open the houses of Mr Lustin, John Midge and Mr Johnson, and accordingly deserved death under the law.

However, the council considered that the planters would be required to pay whatever value was placed on the condemned slaves, and being very willing to satisfy the free men as far as possible, it was agreed that at the next session the jury would be given the option of finding them guilty of the indictment and, rather than condemning them to death, imposing other corporal punishment instead: whipping in the mornings, payment of four times the value of the damages committed, and making Free Jack a slave again, condemning all three to serve the company for the rest of their natural lives. This was agreed accordingly.

However, after deliberating for a long time, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty as stated above and, being asked about the punishment, determined that the condemned should suffer death. On the advice of Thomas Goodwin, sentence of death was pronounced against all three as follows.

"You Jack Yampot, Black Steven and Jack Free [...], you and every one of you are to return to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, and there to be hanged by the neck till you are dead. And [...] Lord have mercy upon your souls."

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The council's initial preference for corporal punishment and lifelong servitude over execution was driven by a direct financial calculation. Hanging a slave destroyed an asset that belonged to his owner, who was entitled to compensation from public funds. The council weighed the cost of compensating Heath and Coulson for the loss of their slaves against the cost of keeping three convicted criminals alive as company servants, and initially favoured the cheaper option. The jury's insistence on the death penalty overrode this calculation.

The re-enslavement of Free Jack as part of the proposed alternative punishment illustrates the precarious legal position of freed blacks in this society. Freedom granted by a deceased master could be revoked by public authority as a criminal penalty, reducing a free man back to the status of property. The sentence ultimately pronounced treated Free Jack identically to the two slaves, with no distinction made in the mode or place of execution.

The formula of the death sentence - return to the place of confinement, thence to the place of execution, hanging by the neck until dead - was the standard form used in English criminal courts of this period. Its use here confirms that the Court of Judicature on Saint Helena consciously modelled its procedure and language on English common law courts, even in a remote colonial setting with a small jury drawn from the free planter community.

The role of Andrew Phillips, master gunner, in giving Free Jack his freedom on his deathbed is significant. The manumission was a private act with permanent legal consequences, and the fact that it was recorded and recognised by the court shows that deathbed grants of freedom had formal standing on the island. The council's willingness to reverse that freedom as a criminal penalty was a direct assertion of sovereign authority over private manumission.

Speculations

The jury's rejection of the council's preferred alternative, after a long deliberation, suggests a genuine disagreement within the jury about the appropriate punishment. The length of the deliberation points to serious debate rather than a straightforward decision, and the eventual insistence on death may reflect either a strong sense among the jurors that the volume and persistence of the robberies required a decisive deterrent, or a reluctance to accept the council's openly financial reasoning as a basis for sparing men the jury had already found deserving of death.

The council's transparency about its financial motivation - openly stating that it wished to spare the planters the cost of compensation - was unusual and perhaps politically necessary. By putting the reasoning on the record before the jury deliberated, the council gave the jurors an explicit basis on which to choose mercy without appearing to be acting out of weakness. The jury's rejection of that basis was therefore also a public statement that the community's appetite for justice outweighed the council's concern for the planters' pockets.

304

322

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the [...] day of Jan:y 1702 Att Fort James.

Pres: Step:n Poirier Govern: Thomas Goodwin dp:t Gov: Mr: Edmunds 3 m Coun: absent

Whereas Sentence of death was passed on Steven Jo: Johnson Slave Jack yam pott, Edward Heaths Slave, and Jack free Black According to [...] Verdict of a Jury of twelve men at a Session Held on Wednesday the [...] day of October last past, We have however Judged fitt to Suspend the Execution of the Said free Jack Lavoring to [...] worried fatally of our from Masters to Judge how they will dispose of the Said free Jacks destiny, We have in the mean before proceeding According to the Laws and [...] Customs of this place, in granting warrants to the owners of the Said Blacks Declares that they might Collect the vallue of the Said Blacks adjudged Guilty, But Considering that the value of fourty Six pounds the vallue of [...] Said Blacks, would be a great Charge for the Inhabitants of the Said Island to be paid at one Since [...] being further that it was promised to the Said Jury, that in [...] any Crime found Guilty they Should be Considered they Could be Kept to work till they have made Engagement But only perforce in Care to Save [...] Said free Jack alive meerly for the Benefit of our Late masters Employers him [...] their work.

We therefore to prove our Sincerity have thought of another means to take from part of the abovesaid Stapses as much as Lies justly in our power, that is, That the Said Edward Heaths Shall have [...] Said free- man Indge, at [...] Jack at his Service att the rate of Sixpounds Spannum till [...] Anneum till Twenty fourty four pounds the vallue of [...] Said Jack be Interly good pound be paid, Said Jack this is four years, Provided always that in Case the the vallue of the Said Comp: others otherwise, or that he die before there to Black that was hanged time is Expired, then a Warrant Shall be granted to the Re- Except [...] Comp: orders Heaths to Satisfise him, what remains due to him be [...] to the Contrary. [...] Pole only [...] Said Inhabitants, the which the Said [...] [...] Heath agreed unto, and Subscribed Accordingly, And also doth Oblidge himself his heirs [...] to do his duty, that the Said Black Shall not do any damage to any [...] Inhabitants as long as he is his Said Service and hinder him, And these presents to be recorded in [...] our Book and if any needs to remain in [...] Costs offered to have a Coppy of [...] Administration him, if need be.

[signature] Poirier Tho: Goodwin Tho: Goodwin [...] Strant

Margin Notes:

This Consultation [...] want is Entered in [...] wrong place.

Edw: Heath to have free Jack [...] was Condemned [...] Dge, at [...] Jack as his Service [...] Anneum till twenty four pound the vallue of his Said Comp: others Black that was hanged Except [...] Comp: orders to the Contrary.

A consultation was held at Fort James on a Wednesday, the [...] day of January 1702 [that is, 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin, with Mr Edmunds absent from council.

Sentence of death had been passed on Steven, slave of John Johnson; Jack Yampot, slave of Edward Heath; and Free Jack, at a session held on the [...] day of October last. The council had judged it appropriate to suspend the execution of Free Jack, pending a decision from those in authority above them about how to dispose of his case. In the meantime, and before proceeding according to the laws and customs of the island, warrants had been granted to the owners of the condemned slaves so that they might recover the value of their slaves found guilty. However, the total value of the condemned slaves, assessed at £46 0s 0d, was considered too great a charge for the inhabitants of the island to bear all at once.

The council also noted that a promise had been made to the jury that if the condemned were found guilty they would be kept to work until they had made good the damages, but that this had been intended only as a means of keeping Free Jack alive for the benefit of those who had employed him.

To reduce the burden on the inhabitants as far as was justly possible, the council resolved that Edward Heath should have Free Jack in his service at a rate of £6 0s 0d per annum until £24 0s 0d, the assessed value of Free Jack, was entirely paid, which would take four years. If the company directed otherwise, or if Free Jack died before the term expired, a warrant was to be issued to Heath to satisfy whatever remained due to him, unless the company ordered to the contrary. Heath agreed to this arrangement and subscribed accordingly. He also bound himself and his heirs to ensure that Free Jack would do no damage to any of the inhabitants during his service, and undertook to be responsible for restraining him.

The arrangement was to be recorded in the council's book, and a copy of the administration was to be provided to anyone who needed one.

The consultation was signed by Stephen Poirier, Thomas Goodwin and [...] Strant.

Interpretations

The suspension of Free Jack's execution pending guidance from superior authority reflects the unusual legal problem his case presented. As a free man who had been condemned to death and whose freedom had in effect been revoked by the verdict, his fate raised questions that went beyond routine colonial administration. The council's decision to refer upwards rather than proceed immediately suggests it was uncertain of its own authority to carry out the sentence on a free man without higher sanction, even though it had no such hesitation in the cases of the two slaves.

The assessed value of £46 0s 0d for the three condemned individuals represented the compensation owed to their owners under the island's practice of reimbursing planters for executed slaves. Spreading this liability across the whole inhabiting population would have placed a significant burden on a small community, and the council's search for an alternative mechanism was a direct response to that practical constraint.

The arrangement by which Heath received Free Jack's labour at £6 0s 0d per annum against a total debt of £24 0s 0d was a form of indentured servitude dressed in financial language. Free Jack's condemned status meant he had no legal standing to object, and Heath's obligation to prevent him doing harm to others was the practical equivalent of the restraint that would otherwise have been exercised through imprisonment or execution. The four-year term was determined entirely by the arithmetic of the debt rather than by any assessment of rehabilitation or punishment.

Heath's binding of himself and his heirs to answer for Free Jack's conduct extended the obligation beyond his own lifetime, which was an unusual personal commitment. It reflected the council's recognition that if Free Jack caused further harm during his service, the financial and legal consequences would fall on Heath rather than on the public.

Speculations

The margin note recording that this consultation was entered in the wrong place suggests it was written up out of sequence, probably because the January sitting occurred after a gap in the record and the clerk placed it where space was available rather than in strict chronological order. This points to the practical difficulties of maintaining orderly records in a small colonial administration under pressure.

The promise made to the jury that the condemned would be kept to work rather than executed, mentioned here as a prior commitment, does not appear explicitly in the record of the October session. Its appearance now suggests either that the commitment was made informally during the jury's deliberations or that the council had communicated it to the jury as an inducement to accept a non-capital verdict, which the jury ultimately rejected. The council's acknowledgement of the promise, even after the jury had voted for death, indicates it felt bound by it at least in relation to Free Jack.

305

323

[...] Warr: Given to John Coulson to Collect his Money for his Black that was hanged.

John Coulson whose Black was Executed w:th the Said Edward Heaths desired a warrant for [...] Collecting [...] vallue of his Said Black, which was granted him As followeth.

Island S:t Helena

Whereas there hath been Lately Executed two Negroesmen Slaves viz: one belonging to Edward Heath &c: and [...] other to Jo: Coulson free Blacks for daily Committing Robberies and Breaking open houses to [...] [...] damage of Severall of [...] Inhabitants wherefore the Said Jo: Coulson hath desired a Warrant of us the Govern:t and Councill for the Rembursmnt and Satisfaction of [...] Loss of the two Said Negros as we should think fitt to value him, Who According to the Best distribution and Government of the Said Island have to the Best of our Judgment valued the Said Negros, Rejected at twenty two pounds and have Computed that three Shillings [...] Pole have past the Negros pettyised the Said Inhabi- tants but [...] Virtue of [...] Said Negros the Inhabitants will Just make Satisfaction for [...] loss thereof.

Therefore that Satisfaction be made, Accordingly Wee do hereby Strictly Charge and Command you listed hereina- re hereunder Specified, to pay and Satisfie the aforesaid Jo: Coulson the respective Sums of money made against yo: respective names, being as aforesaid three Shillings [...] for [...] payable Negros for poles and Boy.

And this warrant doth hereby Impower you Jo: Coulson to make Satisfaction and [...] Collect the full Satisfaction for thereof, if your abovesaid Items & and [...] [...] deprives hath means that Shall deny and Refuse to pay and Save [...] if you as aforesaid. Given under our hands the [...] [...] Hono: Comp: Seale affixed hereunto this 16 day of Jan: 1702.

Poirier Tho: Goodwin Edw: Edmunds

[Table:] men women Cattle £ s d Cap:t Thomas Goodwin . . . 3 1 4 . . 00 12 0 Mr: Edward Edmunds . . . . 1 2 1 . . 0 3 0 Jo:n Alexander . . . . . . 2 2 . . . . 0 5 0 Jo:n feild . . . . . . . . 2 2 . . . . 0 5 0 Carried over 8 3 11 . . 01 13 0

A warrant was granted to John Coulson to collect the value of his slave who had been executed alongside Edward Heath's slave.

John Coulson, whose slave had been executed, requested a warrant to collect the value of his slave. This was granted as follows.

Two negro men slaves had recently been executed, one belonging to Edward Heath and the other to John Coulson, for committing repeated robberies and breaking open houses to the damage of several inhabitants. Coulson requested a warrant from the governor and council for reimbursement of the loss of the two slaves, at whatever value the council thought fit. The council valued the two slaves together at £22 0s 0d and calculated that a poll of 3s per head on the inhabitants would be sufficient to meet that sum. The warrant accordingly charged and commanded those listed below to pay John Coulson the sums set against their respective names, being 3s per poll for men, women, cattle and boys.

The warrant empowered Coulson to collect the full satisfaction thereof, and provided that if any person listed refused to pay, Coulson was authorised to proceed against them accordingly. The warrant was issued under the seal of the Right Honourable Company on 16 January 1702 [that is, 16 January 1703], signed by Stephen Poirier, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

The following amounts were assessed:

Captain Thomas Goodwin: 3 men, 1 woman, 4 cattle - £0 12s 0d Mr Edward Edmunds: 1 man, 2 women, 1 cattle - £0 3s 0d John Alexander: 2 men, 2 women - £0 5s 0d John Field: 2 men, 2 women - £0 5s 0d Subtotal carried over: 8 men, 3 women, 11 cattle - £1 13s 0d

Interpretations

The poll tax mechanism used to fund compensation for the executed slaves was a collective levy on the free inhabitants, assessed by household according to the number of men, women, cattle and boys each household contained. This was not a tax on wealth or income but on the productive capacity of each household, treating men, women, cattle and boys as equivalent units of economic value for the purpose of calculating the levy. The rate of 3s per poll was the same across all categories, which meant that a household with more dependants or livestock paid more regardless of its actual cash position.

The warrant empowering Coulson personally to collect the levy from named individuals, and to proceed against those who refused, made him the enforcement agent of the council's order rather than requiring the marshal to collect on his behalf. This transferred the administrative burden of collection to the party with the most direct financial interest in its success, which was an efficient but potentially contentious arrangement in a small community.

The valuation of both executed slaves together at £22 0s 0d, against Free Jack's individual valuation of £24 0s 0d recorded in the previous consultation, implies that Heath's slave Jack Yampot and Coulson's slave Steven were assessed together at a combined value lower than that placed on Free Jack alone. This may reflect a judgement about their relative age, health or skill, or it may reflect the different mechanism used to value Free Jack, whose labour was to be monetised over four years rather than compensated in a single payment.

The appearance of Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds in the list of those assessed for the poll, immediately below their own signatures on the warrant, illustrates the self-applying nature of the levy. The council members who issued the warrant were themselves liable under it, which gave the instrument a degree of institutional legitimacy that a levy falling only on others would have lacked.

Speculations

The decision to value the two executed slaves together at £22 0s 0d, rather than individually, may have been a deliberate simplification to make the arithmetic of the poll calculation easier, or it may reflect a genuine assessment that the two men together were worth that sum. If the latter, it would imply that Heath's slave Jack Yampot was valued significantly below Free Jack, which might explain why the council was more willing to seek an alternative to Heath's financial loss than to Coulson's.

The structure of the poll table, listing men, women and cattle as separate columns with boys implied in the overall count, suggests the island maintained a reasonably detailed census of its free households for administrative purposes. The ability to produce such a table at short notice points to records being kept that went beyond simple headcounts, and the inclusion of cattle alongside people in a poll assessment reveals that livestock was treated as a taxable unit equivalent in some respects to a human dependent.

306

324

Reconshines men women Totalle £ s d Brought over . . 8 3 1 . . 1 13 0 Matthew Barett . 1 . 4 . . 0 3 [...] Ras: Rurling . . 2 1 2 . . [...] [...] Thomas Dixon . . 1 1 8 . . [...] [...] [...] Maxwell . . 2 1 3 . . 0 9 [...] Thomas Gargen . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Stephen Bills . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Rich: Alexander . 3 . 9 . . . 0 9 [...] Rypon Wills . . . 2 1 9 . . [...] [...] Mr Hemmmon . . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Ones Howard . . . 2 2 . . . 0 6 [...] Henry Coales . . 3 3 . . . 0 9 [...] Thomas Binley . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Thomas Coales . . 1 3 . . . 0 3 [...] Paul Charles . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Sam: Derfournieine 3 1 4 . . 0 12 [...] Will: Dufton . . . 1 . . . . 0 5 [...] Will: ffranck . . 1 . . . . . 0 3 [...] Jonas Ingham . . . 1 1 . . . 0 [...] [...] Mr Long . . . . . 1 4 2 . . 0 6 [...] Thomas Hills plant: 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Robert Addis . . . 1 . 1 . . 0 3 [...] Walter Richard . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Jo:n Bagly . . . . 1 1 2 . . 0 [...] [...] Orlo Corbagley . . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Jim Rosonak [...] . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Royn Brown . . . . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Wilt Beale . . . . 1 . . . . . [...] Edward Bagley . . . 2 4 . . . 0 5 [...] Will Coale . . . . [...] Marga: Colgrave . . 1 1 2 . . 1 0 [...] [...] Ruton . . . . 2 4 9 . . 0 3 [...] Jo:n [...] . . . . . 2 [...] . . . [...] Mr [...] [...] . . . . . . 0 12 [...] James Dragon . . . . 2 2 . . . 0 6 [...] Jonas Dufton . . . . 2 1 2 . . 0 [...] [...] Martha Carle . . . . 1 1 3 . . 0 3 [...] James Carthopen . . . [...] John Medlecke . . . . 2 1 3 . . 0 9 [...] [...] Macdonald . . . 2 1 9 . . 0 3 [...] Henry Frances . . . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] [...] Goodwin . . . . 3 1 4 . . 0 12 [...] Rich:t Durling . . . . 2 [...] . . 0 6 [...] James Greentree . . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Will: Mage [...] . . . 1 . . . . . 0 3 [...] Rich: Handing . . . . 1 . . . . . 0 3 [...] Geo: Hoskison . . . . 4 3 7 . . 1 1 [...] Mad:m Johnson . . . . 2 2 4 . . 0 12 [...] Hutton Isaak Sen:r . . 2 2 . . . 0 6 [...] Mr: Luskin . . . . . . 2 . . . . . 0 6 [...] Rob: Leek . . . . . . 1 . 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Jo:n Miedge . . . . . 1 . 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Jonas Miedge . . . . . 1 . 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Par: 1sd over . . 6 [...] [...] . . [...] 17 02 0

Brought over . . 36 18 14 . . 17 05 [...] Will: Marsh . . . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Mich: Morris . . 2 2 . . . 0 6 [...] Jo:n Nichols . . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Gab: Powell . . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Sarah Redgerd . . 2 1 3 . . 0 9 [...] James Rider . . . 4 1 5 . . 0 15 [...] Tho: Swallow . . 2 1 3 . . 0 9 [...] Jo:n Sich . . . . 3 4 4 . . 0 12 [...] Rich: Swallow . . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Frances Howard . . 1 1 2 . . 0 6 [...] Wilt: Beale . . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Lemon Whitley . . 1 1 . . . 0 3 [...] Sam: Wronghams . . 4 . . . . 0 12 [...] R: Lasclow [...] . 2 . . . . . 0 6 [...] ([...] omitted) [...] 11 [...] 145 . . 22 4 [...]

Attested According to its yearly Acco:t reced pmt

Jo:n Alexander

The poll assessment continued as follows, with amounts assessed at 3s per poll for men, women, cattle and boys where legible:

Brought over: 8 men, 3 women, 1 cattle - £1 13s 0d Matthew Barrett: 1 man, 4 cattle - £0 3s [...d] Ras. Rurling: 2 men, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £[...] [...d] Thomas Dixon: 1 man, 1 woman, 8 cattle - £[...] [...d] [...] Maxwell: 2 men, 1 woman, 3 cattle - £0 9s [...d] Thomas Gargen: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Stephen Bills: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Richard Alexander: 3 men, 9 cattle - £0 9s [...d] Rypon Wills: 2 men, 1 woman, 9 cattle - £[...] [...d] Mr Hemon: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Ones Howard: 2 men, 2 women - £0 6s [...d] Henry Coales: 3 men, 3 women - £0 9s [...d] Thomas Binley: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Thomas Coales: 1 man, 3 women - £0 3s [...d] Paul Charles: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Samuel Derfournieine: 3 men, 1 woman, 4 cattle - £0 12s [...d] William Dufton: 1 man - £0 5s [...d] William Frank: 1 man - £0 3s [...d] Jonas Ingham: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 [...s] [...d] Mr Long: 1 man, 4 women, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Thomas Hills, planter: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Robert Addis: 1 man, 1 cattle - £0 3s [...d] Walter Richard: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] John Bagley: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 [...s] [...d] Orlando Bagley: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Jim Rosonak [...]: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Royn Brown: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Wilt Beal: 1 man - £[...] [...d] Edward Bagley: 2 men, 4 women - £0 5s [...d] Will Coale: [...] - £[...] [...d] Margaret Colgrave: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £1 0s [...d] [...] Ruton: 2 men, 4 women, 9 cattle - £0 3s [...d] John [...]: 2 men, [...] - £[...] [...d] Mr [...] [...]: - £0 12s [...d] James Dragon: 2 men, 2 women - £0 6s [...d] Jonas Dufton: 2 men, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 [...s] [...d] Martha Carle: 1 man, 1 woman, 3 cattle - £0 3s [...d] James Carthopen: [...] - £[...] [...d] John Medlecke: 2 men, 1 woman, 3 cattle - £0 9s [...d] [...] Macdonald: 2 men, 1 woman, 9 cattle - £0 3s [...d] Henry Frances: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] [...] Goodwin: 3 men, 1 woman, 4 cattle - £0 12s [...d] Richard Durling: 2 men, [...] - £0 6s [...d] James Greentree: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] William Mage [...]: 1 man - £0 3s [...d] Richard Handing: 1 man - £0 3s [...d] George Hoskison: 4 men, 3 women, 7 cattle - £1 1s [...d] Madam Johnson: 2 men, 2 women, 4 cattle - £0 12s [...d] Hutton Isaac senior: 2 men, 2 women - £0 6s [...d] Mr Luskin: 2 men - £0 6s [...d] Robert Leek: 1 man, 1 cattle - £0 3s [...d] John Midge: 1 man, 1 cattle - £0 3s [...d] Jonas Midge: 1 man, 1 cattle - £0 3s [...d] Subtotal carried over: 6 [...] - £17 2s 0d

Brought over: 36 men, 18 women, 14 cattle - £17 5s [...d] William Marsh: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Michael Morris: 2 men, 2 women - £0 6s [...d] John Nichols: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Gabriel Powell: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Sarah Redgerd: 2 men, 1 woman, 3 cattle - £0 9s [...d] James Rider: 4 men, 1 woman, 5 cattle - £0 15s [...d] Thomas Swallow: 2 men, 1 woman, 3 cattle - £0 9s [...d] John Sich: 3 men, 4 women, 4 cattle - £0 12s [...d] Richard Swallow: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Frances Howard: 1 man, 1 woman, 2 cattle - £0 6s [...d] Wilt Beal: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Lemon Whitley: 1 man, 1 woman - £0 3s [...d] Samuel Wrongham's estate: 4 men - £0 12s [...d] R. Lasclow [...]: 2 men - £0 6s [...d] ([...] omitted) Grand total: [...] men, 11 [...], 145 cattle - £22 4s [...d]

The account was attested as correct in accordance with the yearly account received and payment made, by John Alexander.

Interpretations

The poll table is the most comprehensive surviving snapshot of the free population and livestock holdings of Saint Helena in 1702 to 1703. Its organisation by household, recording men, women, cattle and boys separately, reveals the demographic and economic structure of the free planter community in detail that no other document in these records approaches. The variation in household size and cattle holdings across the list illustrates the considerable range of wealth within what was formally a community of free planters.

The appearance of Samuel Wrongham's estate as a liable entry, assessed for four men at £0 12s 0d, shows that the poll obligation fell on estates under administration as well as on living householders. The estate's slaves were treated as assessable units regardless of the fact that their owner was dead and his affairs were still being wound up by executors Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds.

Margaret Colgrave's assessment of £1 0s 0d stands out as significantly higher than the amounts assessed against most other entries with similar household compositions. This may reflect an error in the manuscript, an additional charge related to her garden house arrangement with the company, or a different basis of assessment applied to her specific situation.

The attestation by John Alexander, who held the licence for retailing strong drink, confirms that he served a broader administrative function on the island beyond his commercial role. His certification of the poll account as correct gave the document its formal authority as a record of what each inhabitant owed.

Speculations

The grand total of £22 4s [...d] collected across the whole island was designed to meet the £22 0s 0d valuation of the two executed slaves, with the small surplus probably intended to cover the costs of collection and administration. The near-exact correspondence between the levy and the valuation confirms that the poll rate of 3s per head was calculated precisely to produce the required sum rather than set at a standard rate that happened to approximate it.

The inclusion of women as separate assessable units alongside men, at the same rate, is notable. In most English taxation of this period, women heading households were liable but women within households were not separately assessed. The island's practice of counting all adult members of a household, regardless of sex, suggests either a local adaptation of the poll principle or a reflection of the economic contribution that women made to planter households in a labour-scarce environment.

307

329

It is ordered

That the Said Hatton Sterling be fined four Shillings to the Church, and Charges of Court for Neglecting his office.

George Hoskison and mary his wife Came before us and desired to have Some Linnen Returned to them which they Lent Cap:t Jo:n ffoulis a little after he Came to [...] Said Island.

It is ordered

That one paire of Sheets and one p:r Pillow Bears Shall be returned to the Said Hoskison by [...] Administrator of [...] Said Said Cap:t ffoulis Estate.

Whereas Complaint was made to the Govern:t and Coun:l against Parelion Paulbin and Thomas Ashleys wife for Lewd Actions Suspected to be Committed by the aforesaid Persons declared as followeth.

Step:n Child Gunnas make being Sworne Saith that not long through he went into the Dwelling house of Thomas Ashley, Standing in Rupert valley, and Soone after Jo:n Long Holled him would they Drink a bottle of Punch, and that She heard Parelion askt Mr: Ashley the Reason why the Said Long did Sollere him, to which the Said Mr: Ashley Answered it was Become of Joshing, the Said Parelion Said we must do Something that the Said Mr: Ashley replied that he did not know whether John Long was a man by me, who a little after this Depot: went away and Againe about Eight of [...] Clock night, and Soaking in Returned the Said Martinsen and Mr: Ashley Strong together by the fire Side, and presently after Saw her get up and go towards the back door as [...] and Parelion had been Coming out, whereupon the Said Deponent Rum to [...] End of Mr: Hoskions house and perceiving nobody to Come out of the Said Ashleys house went against the window and then Saw no Light it being past but while he was gone She heard then did make a great Crackling as if Some people were Exercise- -ing their Bodies w:th, and moreover heard a breathing, also this Deponent declares that he heard the Said Mr: Ashley Speak these words Claping his hands on her kneel, when the Said Boy [...] fire Say God dam my precious Soule and yours if ever the knows any man besides her husband, and you Speaking to the Said Parelion.

Margin Notes:

Geo: Hoskison & his wife desired [...] they are right have [...] Linnen Returned [...] they lent Cap:t ffoulis.

One p:r of Sheets & One [...] Pillow bears to be returned to [...] Said Hoskison.

[...] made ag: Parelion Paulbin & Tho: Ashley wife for Lewd Actions Committed by the persons aforesaid.

Hatton Sterling was fined 4s 0d to the church, together with the costs of the court, for neglecting his office.

George Hoskison and his wife Mary came before the council and asked for the return of some linen they had lent Captain John Ffoulis shortly after he arrived on the island. The council ordered that one pair of sheets and one pair of pillowcases be returned to the Hoskisons by the administrator of Captain Ffoulis's estate.

A complaint was made to the governor and council against Parelion Paulbin and the wife of Thomas Ashley for suspected lewd behaviour, as declared by the following witness.

Stephen Child, master gunner, being sworn, stated that not long before he had gone into the dwelling house of Thomas Ashley, standing in Rupert's Valley. Shortly after, John Long called out to ask whether they would drink a bottle of punch. He heard Parelion ask Mr Ashley why Long was soliciting him, to which Ashley answered that it was because of joking. Parelion said they must do something, and Ashley replied that he did not know whether John Long was a man by him. A little after, the witness went away and returned at around eight o'clock that night. On returning, he found Parelion and Mrs Ashley sitting close together by the fireside. Shortly after, he saw her get up and go towards the back door, as if Parelion had been coming out. The witness then ran to the end of Mr Hoskison's house and, seeing nobody come out of Ashley's house, went to the window. There was no light inside, but while he stood there he heard a loud creaking noise as if people were exerting themselves physically, and also heard breathing. The witness further stated that he heard Mrs Ashley speak these words, clapping her hands on her knee when the boy [...] at the fire said, "God damn my precious soul and yours if ever she knows any man besides her husband", speaking to Parelion.

Interpretations

The complaint of lewd behaviour was a moral offence within the churchwarden's remit, but its gravity meant it was brought directly before the governor and council rather than handled at the parish level. Suspected adultery in a small garrison community carried consequences beyond personal morality: it threatened the social order of households whose men were liable for military duty and whose women managed property and children in their husbands' absence.

The testimony of Stephen Child was entirely circumstantial. He heard sounds he interpreted as physical exertion and breathing, saw the two accused sitting close together and noted Mrs Ashley's movement towards the back door, but admitted he saw nobody come out and saw no direct evidence of the act alleged. The legal weight of such testimony depended entirely on whether the council and any subsequent jury found the inference irresistible, which in this period courts frequently did where the circumstantial chain was strong enough.

The oath attributed to Mrs Ashley - swearing that she had known no man besides her husband - if genuinely spoken in the context described, was a form of self-incrimination through protest. Unsolicited oaths of fidelity, made in circumstances suggesting guilt, were treated in contemporary legal practice as evidence of consciousness of wrongdoing rather than as exculpatory statements.

Speculations

The witness's decision to run to Hoskison's house and then to the window, rather than confronting the two accused directly or leaving, suggests he was gathering evidence rather than acting spontaneously. Whether he was doing so on his own initiative or at someone else's prompting is not clear from the record, but the deliberateness of his movements points to a degree of premeditation in how the complaint was assembled.

The involvement of John Long in the earlier part of the evening, asking whether the group would drink punch and then apparently withdrawing, may be significant. Long's solicitation and subsequent absence created the conditions in which Parelion and Mrs Ashley were left alone, and the question of whether this was accidental or arranged is one the record leaves open.

308

330

It is ordered

That that the decision of this matter be referred to the Jury at the next Generall Sessions, And likewise that the Said Pereg: Parlebion at no time under that pre- tence forever do [...] presume to go into the Said Tho:s Ashbeys house, nor in Company with the Said Ashbeys, neither in Publique nor private, on [...] forfeiture of Ten pounds, and likewise [...] Said Mr: Ashley is not to come into Company w:th [...] Said Parlebion nor to have any Correspondancy w:th him on paine of forfeiting the Same Sume aforesaid.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

The decision of this matter Referred to [...] Jury and if [...] Said Parlebin Comes into Mrs Ashleys Comp: &c: then in Publique or Private to pay 50: and Mrs Asby [...] Same.

The council referred the matter to a jury at the next general sessions. In the meantime, Peregrine Parlebion was ordered not to go into Thomas Ashley's house or into the company of Mrs Ashley, whether in public or in private, on pain of forfeiting £10 0s 0d. Mrs Ashley was likewise ordered not to come into Parlebion's company or have any correspondence with him, on pain of the same forfeiture.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The injunction against contact between Parlebion and Mrs Ashley, issued before any jury verdict, was a preventive order rather than a punishment. It served two purposes: it protected the community from further suspected misconduct while the case was pending, and it created a new enforceable offence if either party defied it. Breach of the order would itself become evidence of intent and disregard for the council's authority, strengthening the case against both parties at the subsequent sessions.

The forfeiture of £10 0s 0d was a substantial sum relative to the fines imposed elsewhere in these records, where penalties typically ran to shillings rather than pounds. The size of the forfeiture reflects the seriousness with which the council treated suspected adultery, and was calibrated to deter rather than merely to punish a breach.

Speculations

The discrepancy between the main text, which set the forfeiture at £10 0s 0d, and the margin note, which recorded it as 50s, suggests either that the margin note was written before the final figure was agreed or that the clerk made an error in one of the two entries. The main text, being the formal order, would carry precedence, but the lower figure in the margin note may reflect an earlier proposal that was revised upward before the order was sealed.

309

331

Island S:t Helena

At a Sessions Held on Tues- =day the [...] day of Jan:y 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Gov:r Pres: Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov:r Pres: Edw:d Edmunds 3 m Coun:t

After the Court was opened According to [...] usuall Cus- tome those persons Appointed for Jurors are as followeth:

Jo:n ffeild foreman one Jo:n Nichols 10 Robert Addis 2 Jo:n Long 11 John Miedge 3 Jos Addisons 12 Orindo Ridgley 4 James Rider 5 Tho: Dixon 6 Hugh Bodley 7 Phin Wells 8 Philip Castake 9

Who were all Sworne.

Then George Hoskison Church warden for this present year made Complaint to the Bench and Jury present year made Complaint [...] who hath altogether that Thomas Easton Singling [...] whose Husband was a Bastard Child of Sarah Drurm [...] years ago, did not take any manner of Care for the maintenance of Said Child, Annished off [...] Island leaving [...] years ago Wherefore desires that [...] Said Thomas Easton might give Sufficient Security that [...] Child might not become a Charge to [...] Parish.

The Said Thomas Easton Saith that no person hath any Cause to make Complaint of in this matter, having Ever Since the Child was born, hath taken Care for the maintanance thereof and promist [...] to do & long as he lives on [...] Island, upon which he was admonished to performe his promise.

Margin Notes:

Geo: Hoskison Comp:t Thomas Easton that [...] not taking Care [...] his Bastard Child begotten by Sarah [...] ffrigg.

A sessions was held at Fort James on a Tuesday, the [...] day of January 1702 [that is, January 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin, with Edward Edmunds, third in council.

After the court was opened in the usual manner, the following jurors were sworn: John Field, foreman; John Long; Joseph Addison; James Rider; Thomas Dixon; Hugh Bodley; Phineas Wells; Philip Castake; John Nichols; Robert Addis; John Midge; Orlando Ridgley.

George Hoskison, churchwarden for the current year, brought a complaint before the bench and jury that Thomas Easton had fathered a bastard child on Sarah Drum [...] some years ago, had taken no care for the child's maintenance and had left the island for a period, leaving the child without support. Hoskison asked that Easton be required to give sufficient security that the child would not become a charge on the parish.

Easton replied that no one had cause to complain, as he had taken care of the child's maintenance since its birth and promised to continue doing so for as long as he lived on the island. He was accordingly admonished to keep his promise.

Interpretations

The complaint was brought by the churchwarden rather than by the child's mother, which reflects the churchwarden's statutory duty to prevent illegitimate children from falling on the parish for their support. The financial interest of the parish, rather than the welfare of the child or the rights of the mother, was the primary concern that gave Hoskison standing to bring the complaint. This was standard English parish practice, directly reproduced in the island's governance.

The requirement that Easton give security - a formal bond guaranteeing his future maintenance payments - was the usual remedy in bastardy cases, converting a moral promise into a legally enforceable financial obligation. The fact that Easton's verbal promise was accepted in lieu of formal security, on the strength of his admonishment, suggests the council was satisfied that the complaint had been adequately addressed without the need for a bond, perhaps because Easton's record of maintenance to date was accepted as credible.

Speculations

The timing of the complaint, brought some years after the child's birth and apparently prompted by Easton's temporary departure from the island, suggests Hoskison acted when the child appeared most at risk of becoming a parish charge rather than as a matter of routine oversight. The complaint may have been triggered by Easton's absence rather than by any failure of maintenance before he left, and his return and renewed promise resolved the immediate concern without a formal bond being required.

310

332

Leonard Hunt free Planter made Complaint against William Dufton Sol:r for that his two Sons had Taken Some Jewels, and yams out of his Plantation.

Will: Dufton Sol:r denys the Action, and desires Profe.

Jo: Nichols Junio: Said Leonard Hunts apprentice being Sworne Saith that Some time ago, he Carried a dungh Colt by his masters to fight w:th another of Will Duftons, and Some hours after that day, the Said Duftons wife Called to him and askt him if his master had a good milving fowles who made answer no, not very many, presently after She Sent one of her Sons to him with Some powder and Shott to Shoot a fowle of his masters for her, who Accordingly did and Sent it by the Boy, and about half an houre after he went to the Said Duftons house and when Leah Bertrant was picking it, at which time Mr: Dufton asked him if She would Come there to Supper, who told her he would [...] further Saith that [...] Said Duftons Sons Came into his masters Plantation and took a bagg of yams and hid in Some brunt above the Plantation, and at night Carried them home.

The Said Duftons Sons Saith that [...] Said Jo: Nichols gave them the bagg of yams and hoyst them over the wall with it.

Leah Bertrant being Sworne Saith that She Eate part of a fowle at her Sister Duftons, but it was her owne and as for [...] fowle that [...] aforesaid Jo: Nichols Saith She picks and She declares it to be false, and that he was not there at Supper.

William Marsh being Sworne Saith that as he and his Son Robert was at work in his plantation he heard the Said Hunts Blacks Crie out Severall times, whereupon Sent his Son to See what was [...] matter, who when returned gives told him that Will Duftons two Sons was in [...] Said Hunts Plantation w:th John Nichols, who that [...] Said Black w:th [...] was [...] reason they Cryed.

Then George Hoskison and Orlando Bagley Church wardens made presentation of foregreen Paelebion Sol:r and Joyce the wife of Thomas Ashley Sol:r for that they lived in Lewd ness, As is Suspected by Severall passages.

Margin Notes:

Leon: Hunt Comp: ag Wm Dufton two Sons for Taking Some Fowl and Yams out of his Plantation.

Geo: Hoskison & Orlando Bagley Church Wardens Comp: ag: Pareg: Parlebion and Joyce the Wife of Thomas Ashley for that they Leved in Leudness.

Leonard Hunt, free planter, complained against William Dufton, soldier, that his two sons had taken fowl and yams from his plantation. Dufton denied the charge and asked for proof.

John Nichols junior, apprentice to Leonard Hunt, being sworn, stated that some time before he had taken a dunghill colt to his master's to fight with one of Dufton's. Some hours later that day, Dufton's wife called to him and asked whether his master had good laying fowl, to which he replied not very many. She then sent one of her sons to him with powder and shot to shoot a fowl from his master's stock for her, which he did and sent back by the boy. About half an hour later he went to Dufton's house and found Leah Bertrant picking the fowl. At that time Mr Dufton asked him if she would come to supper, and he said he would [...]. He further stated that Dufton's sons came into his master's plantation, took a bag of yams and hid them in some burnt ground above the plantation, then carried them home at night.

Dufton's sons stated that John Nichols had given them the bag of yams and hoisted it over the wall for them.

Leah Bertrant, being sworn, stated that she had eaten part of a fowl at her sister Dufton's house, but that it was her own. She denied that she had been picking the fowl described by John Nichols and stated that he had not been there at supper.

William Marsh, being sworn, stated that while he and his son Robert were at work in his plantation he heard Hunt's slaves crying out several times. He sent his son to investigate, who returned and told him that Dufton's two sons were in Hunt's plantation with John Nichols, and that the slave had been crying out for that reason.

George Hoskison and Orlando Bagley, churchwardens, then made a formal presentment of Peregrine Parlebion, soldier, and Joyce, wife of Thomas Ashley, soldier, for living in lewdness, as was suspected from several incidents.

Interpretations

The complaint against Dufton's sons turned on whether John Nichols was a willing participant in the removal of the yams or a victim reporting a theft. The sons' claim that Nichols gave them the yams and helped hoist the bag over the wall reframed the incident as a consensual transaction rather than a theft, which would have exposed Nichols himself to liability as an accomplice. The conflicting testimony placed the council in a position where it had to assess the credibility of a bound apprentice against that of the sons of the accused, with no independent witness able to resolve the central question directly.

The use of powder and shot belonging to Dufton's household to shoot a fowl from Hunt's stock, at Mrs Dufton's request and through the agency of Hunt's own apprentice, was a more serious matter than a simple theft. It involved the deliberate suborning of another man's servant to steal from his master, which was an aggravated form of the offence and would have been treated as such had it been formally charged.

The formal presentment of Parlebion and Joyce Ashley by the churchwardens at the sessions, following the council's earlier referral of the matter to a jury, was the procedural step that brought the lewd behaviour complaint into the court's jurisdiction. The churchwardens acted here in their capacity as officers responsible for moral discipline, making the presentment on behalf of the parish rather than as private complainants.

Speculations

The appearance of Leah Bertrant as a witness in this matter, having also appeared in the brandy theft proceedings earlier in these records, suggests she moved in the same social circles as several of the parties in dispute and was a familiar figure before the council. Her denial that she had been picking the fowl described by Nichols, and her insistence that the fowl she ate was her own, may reflect genuine innocence or a desire to distance herself from a household whose conduct was under scrutiny.

The crying out of Hunt's slaves when Dufton's sons entered the plantation, noted by Marsh, was probably the slaves' way of alerting their master to the intrusion without directly confronting free men. This behaviour points to the limited options available to slaves when faced with trespass or theft by free persons: they could make noise to attract attention but could not physically intervene without risking punishment for assaulting a free man.

311

333

The Said Pereg: Parlebion and Joyce wife of Thomas Ashley was Called, and [...] Indictment read against them to which they pleaded not Guilty, and desired proof.

Stephen Child Gunners mate being Sworne Saith that that Some time ago, he being going up [...] Valley designing to go to Mrs Colgraves house went on his [...] way to Thomas Ashleys house, where he found Tho: Said Ashley, his wife, Pereg: Parlebion and John Long drink a bowle or two of Punch, and about five of the Clock he went away but about eight went there againe thinking to find Some [...] Company he Left there, Duty door being Shut and Seeing a light on the house looks in at a win- dowe and Saw [...] Said Parlebion and Ashleys wife Sitting downe by the fire Side tatalking amongst which discourse he heard the Said Parlebion askt Ashley wife why John Long followed him there So often, She replied it may be for a pipe of Tobacco, the Said Parlebion Got up and Shebt Something, But about what he Cant Just tell, and at [...] Sometime heard Ashleys wife Say and Swear that She knew no man on the Island but her Husband and [...] the Parlebion which She might thank his boldsoing tongue for, And thinking that they would have Some out of [...] house whin he Saw them get up, rum to Gorge Hoskisons door and then Saw that [...] Candle was put out, which made him mistrust Something, whereupon went to the window againe and listening heard a breathing and the [...] as he thought make a Crackling &c: heard no body Speak, then went down [...] [...] and askt Ashley if his bed had used to Cracke, who told him yes, and After Saw [...] Said Parlebion Come from out [...] Valley Into [...] Fort.

Then the Jury withdrew and Stayed about halfe an houre and returned their verdict as followeth.

That Leonard Hunt was Cast in Suite by Dufton and to pay him 12 Damage and Court Charges, they Laying no Stress on [...] Evidence of Jo: Nicholsa boy.

Also.

That [...] Church wardens had no Cause of Com- =plaint against the abovesaid Parlebion and Ashleys wife.

Margin Notes:

Leon: Hunt was Cast by Dufton and to pay 12 Damage.

The Church Wardens had no Cause of Complaint ag: Parlebion & Ashley wife.

Peregrine Parlebion and Joyce Ashley were called and the indictment was read against them, to which they both pleaded not guilty and asked for proof.

Stephen Child, gunner's mate, being sworn, stated that some time before he had been going up the valley intending to visit Mrs Colgrave's house and stopped at Thomas Ashley's house on the way, where he found Ashley, his wife, Peregrine Parlebion and John Long drinking a bowl or two of punch. At around five o'clock he left, but returned at about eight o'clock hoping to find some of the company he had left there. The door was shut but seeing a light inside he looked through a window and saw Parlebion and Mrs Ashley sitting by the fireside talking. During their conversation he heard Parlebion ask Mrs Ashley why John Long followed him there so often, to which she replied that it may have been for a pipe of tobacco. Parlebion got up and said something that Child could not clearly make out. He then heard Mrs Ashley say and swear that she knew no man on the island but her husband, and that Parlebion might thank his bold tongue for that. Thinking they were about to come out, Child ran to George Hoskison's door when he saw them get up, and at that point saw the candle put out, which made him suspicious. He returned to the window and, listening, heard breathing and what he thought was a creaking noise, though he heard nobody speak. He then went down and asked Ashley whether his bed usually creaked, and Ashley said yes. Afterwards Child saw Parlebion come out of the valley into the fort.

The jury withdrew and after about half an hour returned its verdict. Leonard Hunt was found against in his suit with Dufton and ordered to pay 12s 0d in damages and court charges, the jury having placed no weight on the evidence of John Nichols, as he was only a boy. The jury further found that the churchwardens had no cause of complaint against Parlebion and Mrs Ashley.

Interpretations

The jury's rejection of John Nichols's testimony on the grounds that he was only a boy reflects the lower evidential weight assigned to child witnesses in this period. His account was the most direct evidence of the theft of the yams and the shooting of the fowl, but the jury treated it as insufficiently reliable to overcome Dufton's denial, and found against Hunt accordingly. The explicit recording of the reason for discounting Nichols's evidence was unusual and suggests the jury was aware its verdict required explanation.

The acquittal of Parlebion and Mrs Ashley, despite Child's testimony about the extinguished candle, the creaking and the breathing, shows the jury was unwilling to convict on circumstantial evidence alone in a case of this gravity. Child had seen and heard nothing conclusive, and Mrs Ashley's sworn denial of any impropriety, however suspicious its context, gave the jury a basis for a not guilty verdict that protected both parties from the severe social and financial consequences of a conviction for adultery.

The detail that Child asked Ashley afterwards whether his bed usually creaked, and that Ashley confirmed it did, suggests Child was either genuinely uncertain about what he had heard or was constructing a narrative that would be difficult to refute. Either way, Ashley's answer, whether innocent or not, provided an alternative explanation for the sound that the jury may have found sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

Speculations

The jury's acquittal in the lewdness case, coming after the council had already imposed a £10 0s 0d no-contact order on the two parties, created an awkward situation. The council's order had been based on a strong inference of guilt that the jury declined to confirm. Whether the no-contact order remained in force after the acquittal is not addressed in the record, but the tension between the council's pre-trial intervention and the jury's verdict illustrates the limits of the council's authority when a formal jury process returned a different conclusion.

The fact that Child ran to Hoskison's door rather than confronting the parties directly, and that Hoskison was the churchwarden who subsequently brought the presentment, raises the possibility that Child reported what he had seen to Hoskison before the matter came to the council, and that Hoskison used that report as the basis for the complaint. If so, Child was both the source of the complaint and its primary witness, which the jury may have noted in assessing his credibility.

312

333

Then Court ordered.

That the former order of Councill forbidding the Said Parlebion and Ashleys wife to Come in Each others Company, or to have any correspondency one w:th the other, do remaine Still in force during our pleasure.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednes- day the 6 day of Jan:y 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Gov:r Pres: Tho: Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Edw: Edmunds 3 m Coun:

Whereas Thomas Gargen Gunnes mate having Chief dismised himself from [...] Comp: Service.

It is ordered

That Stephen Child Gunns mate Succeed the Said Gargen, Rich: Alexander 3 mate to Succeed [...] Said Child and Thomas Sandason quarter Gunna Succeed [...] Said Alexander. And being in want of another man to make up [...] Great Crew We have made Choice of Jo:n Choering his [...] to be Quarter Gunney.

[signature] Poirier Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

The form: ord: of Coun: to Remain in force forbidding Parlebion & Ashleys wife to Come in each others Comp:

Thom: Gargen having dismist himself from Comp:s Service Step:n Child 2: Mate to Succeed &c:

The court ordered that the earlier council order forbidding Parlebion and Mrs Ashley from coming into each other's company or having any correspondence with one another was to remain in force until further notice.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 6 January 1702 [that is, 6 January 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

Thomas Gargen, gunner's mate, having dismissed himself from the company's service, the council ordered the following promotions: Stephen Child, gunner's mate, was to succeed Gargen; Richard Alexander, third mate, was to succeed Child; and Thomas Sanderson, quarter gunner, was to succeed Alexander. A further vacancy in the gun crew was filled by the appointment of John Choering [...] as quarter gunner.

The consultation was signed by Stephen Poirier and Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The court's decision to maintain the no-contact order against Parlebion and Mrs Ashley despite the jury's acquittal was a direct assertion of the council's authority to act in matters of public morality independently of the formal verdict. The jury had found no proved cause of complaint, but the council retained a residual power to restrict the behaviour of individuals whose conduct it considered a threat to public order, even without a criminal conviction. The order's continuation on the council's pleasure rather than for a fixed term left the restriction open-ended and entirely within the council's discretion to lift or enforce.

The sequence of promotions following Gargen's departure illustrates the cascading effect of a single vacancy in a small garrison. Each promotion created a further vacancy below it, and the entire gun crew structure had to be reorganised to fill one gap at the top. The appointment of John Choering to the new quarter gunner position completed the chain and restored the crew to its required complement.

Speculations

Gargen's dismissal of himself from the company's service, coming relatively shortly after his fine and oath of allegiance following his drunken words against Queen Anne, may not have been entirely voluntary. The phrasing "having dismissed himself" was the standard formula for a resignation, but in a garrison context the distinction between a voluntary departure and one encouraged by superiors was not always clear. His departure may have been negotiated rather than freely chosen.

313

334

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 19 day of Jan:y 1702 Att Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Gov:r Pres:t Tho: Goodwin dp:ty Gov:r Edw: Edmunds 3 in Coun:ce

Whereas while the French Ship was plying about [...] Island (which was on Sunday and Monday the [...] 12:th Instant) The Governour Sent Corporalle Hemman up into [...] Valley just as [...] of Sapton had beaten, for Severall young men to come within the fort, that night to do Severall duty, and to Strengthen the Garrison, amongst whome the Said Hannon [...] Ordered Rich: Swallow Soce Plant:t to repayre within the fort, But refused to obey his order, altho: the Said Hannon told him it was the Govern:rs Order, Whereupon he [...] Said Swallow was Summoned to appear before us this day to Answer for [...] Crimes, Seeming very Poenntent and Begged Pardon, Saying that he thought [...] Said Hemmons orders him of his owne Record to go within the fort, there have- -ing been formerly an old Grudge betwix them. And did not do it in Contempt at all of [...] Govern:ts order. Therefore Considering the Said [...] Swallow is but a Raw young man and Seeming very Sorrowant for his Crime, besides we being perswaded that his disobediance did not Spring out of any ill designe or malice.

It is ordered

That the Said Richard Swallow be fined but Ten Shillings to [...] R: Hono: Comp: and to aske forgiveness at [...] head of [...] Company, great Generall Masters.

Margin Notes:

Richard Swallow fined 10: for Diso- beying [...] Govern:rs orders and to aske forgiveness at the head of [...] Comp: next Muster day [...].

A consultation was held at Fort James on 19 January 1702 [that is, 19 January 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds, third in council.

While a French ship was manoeuvring around the island on Sunday and Monday the [...] 12th of that month, the governor had sent Corporal Hemon up into the valley, as soon as the drum had beaten, to order several young men to come within the fort that night to perform duty and strengthen the garrison. Among those ordered to report, Hemon directed Richard Swallow, free planter, to come within the fort. Swallow refused, even after Hemon told him it was the governor's order. Swallow was summoned to appear before the council to answer for his conduct.

Swallow appeared very penitent and begged pardon, saying that he had thought Hemon was acting on his own initiative rather than conveying the governor's order, as there had formerly been bad feeling between the two men, and that his refusal was not intended as contempt of the governor's authority. The council, considering that Swallow was a young and inexperienced man who appeared genuinely sorry, and being persuaded that his disobedience did not spring from any ill intent or malice, ordered that he be fined 10s 0d to the Right Honourable Company and required to ask forgiveness publicly at the head of the company at the next general muster.

Interpretations

The appearance of a French ship off the island was a direct military threat that activated the garrison's emergency procedures. The drum beat was the signal for the free planter community to report for duty, and refusal to comply in those circumstances was not merely a disciplinary matter but a failure of the island's collective defence. The council's response, though relatively lenient given the context, reflected the seriousness of the situation by combining a financial penalty with a public act of submission.

The requirement to ask forgiveness at the head of the company at the next muster was a form of public humiliation designed to restore the authority of the chain of command in the eyes of the whole garrison. It was not enough for Swallow to apologise privately to the governor or to Hemon; the apology had to be made before the assembled company to repair the public damage done by his defiance.

The prior bad feeling between Swallow and Hemon, accepted by the council as an explanation if not an excuse, illustrates how personal animosities within the small garrison community could interfere with military discipline at critical moments. The council's acceptance of this explanation as genuine mitigation suggests it was a known grievance rather than a fabrication.

Speculations

The council's leniency towards Swallow, explicitly grounded in his youth and apparent remorse, may also have reflected a pragmatic calculation. In a small community where every able-bodied free planter was needed for the garrison, a heavy punishment that alienated Swallow or damaged his standing would have undermined the very defensive capacity the incident had exposed as vulnerable. A fine and a public apology restored discipline without removing a useful member of the community from active cooperation.

The timing of the French ship's appearance, on a Sunday and Monday, was significant. Sunday was the one day when the free planters were least likely to be at their posts or in immediate readiness, and a foreign vessel manoeuvring around the island on that day would have been well aware of the reduced state of alertness it might encounter. Whether this was deliberate or coincidental, the incident exposed the limits of the island's weekend readiness in a way the council could not ignore.

314

335

Walter Belvard free Planter made Complaint Hunt Entertained his [...] from him, after that he had [for- -warned] him and that when he went to [...] Said Hunts house to demand his wife, the Said Hunts wife threw Severall Stones at him which hath Caused him to void Blood upwards and downwards, and being Bruised wherefore desires that the Said Hunt may be ordered not to Entertain his wife any Longer, and that he may have an Action granted him of Assault and Battery against the Said Hunts wife.

Leonard Hunt Saith he did not Hinder his mother in law the Said Belwards wife to go with her husband when he Came to demand her, nor him from going into his house to her, But when the Said Belvard the [...] offered to Enter his wife told him he Should not do it there, and whether his wife threw any Stones at [...] Said Belvard or no, he Cant Tell.

William Dufton Sol:r being Sworne Saith that he was w:th the Said Belvard when he Came to the Said [...] Hunts to demand his wife, and when he asked for her, the Said Hunt made answer, She was within his house and might Come out to him if She pleased, or he might go into her [...] the Said Belvard Rurling Said, Security of Said Steps told him to that not Come into his house for he would he that his mother there, and threatened to do [...] organ if Plans, hims Set Honder at him, and [...] See her him, See her him Come on [...] Best.

Elsur [...] Said Belwards wife Saith things that her husband obliges her to greatly Abiding her more ther- abouts have than a wife, also it was [...] Connective with him any Longer, [...]s he Should mislece her, and Says he is daily in danger of her life to [...] She Made oath [...] against him for her agrement.

It is ordered

That the Said Walter Belvard Shall give good Security for his being of the good behaviour towards his people and Specially towards his wife that he do no wise [...] to her to no more as he hath done, but to respect her as a man ought to do his wife, And that he pay [...] and Marshalls, And the [...] Hunt to pay [...] Said Dufton two Shillings Damage to Belvard for [...] And the [...] Hunt to pay [...] Said Dufton two Shillings for her wife throwing at Being an Evidence, and Six pence Damage to the B: Belvard for his wifes throwing her Stones at him, when She Should have kept them for a better use.

Margin Notes:

Walter Belvard Comp:t ag: Leonard Hunt for Entertain- ning his Wife from him &c:a

Walt:r Belvard to give good Security to be of good Behaviour towards his Wife & [...] Hunt to pay Dufton 2:- for being an Evidence &c: Damage to Belvard for her Wife throwing Stones at him.

Walter Belvard, free planter, complained that Leonard Hunt had harboured his wife after being warned not to do so, and that when Belvard went to Hunt's house to demand his wife back, Hunt's wife threw several stones at him, causing him to void blood both upwards and downwards and leaving him bruised. He asked that Hunt be ordered to stop harbouring his wife and that he be granted an action of assault and battery against Hunt's wife.

Leonard Hunt stated that he had not prevented his mother-in-law, Belvard's wife, from going with her husband when he came to demand her, nor had he stopped Belvard from entering the house. When Belvard offered to enter, his wife told him he should not do it there, and Hunt said he could not tell whether his wife had thrown any stones at Belvard.

William Dufton, soldier, being sworn, stated that he was with Belvard when he went to Hunt's house to demand his wife. When he asked for her, Hunt answered that she was inside and could come out to him if she pleased, or he could go in to her. Belvard was then told not to come into the house, and was threatened accordingly [...].

Belvard's wife stated that her husband obliged her to endure treatment far beyond what a wife should bear, and that she was unwilling to continue living with him, as she feared he would harm her. She swore she was in daily fear for her life from him.

The council ordered that Belvard give good security for his good behaviour towards his household and especially towards his wife, and that he treat her with the respect due to a wife rather than as he had done. He was also ordered to pay the marshal's costs. Hunt was ordered to pay Dufton 2s 0d for attending as a witness, and to pay Belvard 6d in damages for his wife throwing stones at him, the council noting that she should have kept them for a better use.

Interpretations

The complaint turned on two distinct issues: Belvard's claim that Hunt was wrongfully harbouring his wife, and Belvard's wife's counter-claim that she had good reason to leave. The council's response addressed both. Rather than ordering the wife to return, the council placed the obligation on Belvard to reform his conduct and give security for his future behaviour, which implicitly accepted his wife's account of mistreatment as credible. The failure to order her return was a practical recognition that forcing a woman back into a household where she feared for her life would serve neither justice nor the community's interest.

The requirement that Belvard give security for good behaviour was a standard legal instrument in cases of domestic violence, converting the moral obligation to treat a wife well into an enforceable financial bond. Breach of the security would expose Belvard to forfeiture, giving the council a mechanism to punish future misconduct without waiting for another complaint.

The award of 6d against Hunt for his wife's stone-throwing, described by the council as stones she should have kept for a better use, was a token damages award accompanied by an unusually sardonic observation. The small sum reflected the limited harm of the act relative to the wider dispute, while the council's comment suggests it did not regard the stone-throwing as entirely unprovoked given the circumstances of Belvard's demand.

Speculations

The council's implicit sympathy for Belvard's wife, evident in its refusal to order her return and its focus on his behaviour rather than hers, points to a recognition that the formal legal position of a husband as head of household did not automatically override evidence of abuse serious enough to cause physical injury. The wife's sworn statement that she feared for her life was the critical element that shifted the council's response from a straightforward harbourage order to a conduct requirement placed on Belvard himself.

Hunt's position as Belvard's mother-in-law's son placed him in a difficult situation from the outset. As a family member who had taken in a woman fleeing her husband, he was exposed to a legal complaint of harbouring while also acting in a way most observers would have considered natural. The council's relatively light treatment of Hunt, limited to the cost of Dufton's attendance as a witness, suggests it did not regard his conduct as seriously culpable in the circumstances.

315

336

Orlando Bagley & Charles Howard Execut:rs of the Last Will and Testam:t of Thomas Earle free Planter brought this day an Inventory of his Estate both reale and personall Estate, which they made oath was a true Inventory to the best of their knowledge.

It is ordered

That the Said Inventory be received and kept in [...] Clerks office and Copyes given thereof when demanded.

Neomy Collier and Thomas Swallow Jun:r come to the Governour last week and desired that the Banes of Matrimony might be published betwixt them, the Gov: being dubious whether her husband was dead or no, with whome she went off [...] Island about Eight years ago, they were ordered to appear this day before Gov:r and Coun:l that [...] truth of [...] matter might be better informed into.

The Said Neomy Collier offers to take her oath that her uncle who Lives in [...] [...] Saith her account w:t be the best of her Remem- brance was dated the 19 of Dec:r 1693, his [...] England where in was mentioned that her husband Collier was dead, and that it is about Six years Since he parted from her and desired that Edward Heath &c: might be Sworne and Examined.

Edward Heath &c: being Sworne Saith that a Seaman belonging to the Ship Eliza, Lady Hamed Jo: Smith and he being Sitting at his door, Saw the Said Harmony [...] is far Lashie tracks, dogs, who mentioning he heard the Said Smith made answer I killed Some years ago with me Don:t Clear m man of war, who hath told him Severall times that he ruined above on this Island, And when he was at Virginia he hoped to Carry him to his grave, and Said that [...] Said Neomy Collier was Certainly the Said Deceased Don:t Colliers wife of Edmonds.

It is ordered

That [...] Banes of Matrimony be published betwixt the Said Thomas Swallows and Neomy Collier, and marry when they [...] Thomas think Convenient.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Thomas Earles Inventory Reced.

Neomy Collier & Thomas Swallow Jun: Desires [...] Banns of Matrimony to be published betwixt them.

The bans of Matrimony to be published betwixt [...] Thomas Swallow Sen: & Neomy Collier.

Orlando Bagley and Charles Howard, executors of the last will and testament of Thomas Earle, free planter, brought an inventory of his real and personal estate and swore it was a true inventory to the best of their knowledge. The council ordered that the inventory be received and kept in the clerk's office, with copies to be given out when demanded.

Naomi Collier and Thomas Swallow junior had come to the governor the previous week to ask that banns of matrimony be published between them. The governor, being uncertain whether her husband was still alive - she having left the island with him around eight years before - ordered them to appear before the governor and council so that the matter could be properly investigated.

Naomi Collier offered to swear that her uncle, who lived in [...], had written to her with an account that, to the best of her recollection, was dated 19 December 1693, in which it was mentioned that her husband Collier was dead. She stated that Collier had parted from her around six years before, and asked that Edward Heath and others be sworn and examined.

Edward Heath, being sworn, stated that a seaman belonging to the ship Eliza, named John Smith, had been sitting at his door with him when, in the course of conversation, Smith said that he had known Collier some years before on a man of war, that Collier had told him several times that he had been ruined on the island, and that when Smith was in Virginia he had heard that Collier had died there. Smith stated that Naomi Collier was certainly the widow of the deceased Collier.

The council ordered that the banns of matrimony be published between Thomas Swallow and Naomi Collier, and that they marry when they thought convenient.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The council's investigation into whether Naomi Collier's first husband was dead before permitting the publication of banns reflects its responsibility to prevent bigamy, which was both a moral offence and a legal one. In the absence of a formal death certificate, the council accepted a combination of a letter from a relative and the hearsay testimony of a sailor who had known Collier and heard of his death in Virginia. This was the best evidence available in a pre-registration era for deaths occurring abroad, and the council's acceptance of it as sufficient was a pragmatic response to the impossibility of obtaining better proof.

The letter from Naomi's uncle, dated 19 December 1693, was already around nine years old at the time of the consultation. Its age meant that even if accurate at the time of writing, it offered no certainty about events in the intervening years. The council nonetheless accepted it alongside Heath's testimony as sufficient grounds to proceed, which suggests the threshold for proof of death in remarriage cases was relatively low where direct evidence was unobtainable.

The detail that Collier had told Smith he had been ruined on the island, and that Smith later heard of his death in Virginia, places Collier's trajectory after leaving Saint Helena as one of decline and eventual death abroad. This background gave the council additional reason to accept that he was unlikely to return even if the evidence of his death was not conclusive.

Speculations

The gap between the letter's date of 19 December 1693 and Naomi's statement that Collier had parted from her around six years before the consultation suggests the letter and the separation were roughly contemporaneous events, both occurring in the mid-1690s. If Collier left the island and died in Virginia shortly afterwards, the letter from the uncle may have been written in response to news that reached England before it reached Saint Helena, which would explain how Naomi learned of the death through a relative rather than directly.

The council's willingness to act on hearsay evidence relayed through Heath, who had heard it from a sailor at his door in casual conversation, points to the practical difficulty of establishing facts about people who had left the island and died abroad. In a community where formal records of deaths occurring elsewhere were simply unavailable, oral testimony of this kind was the only mechanism through which such facts could be established, and the council accepted it as such rather than leaving Naomi in permanent legal uncertainty.

316

337

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday [...] the 2:d day of February 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Govern:t Pres: Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov:r

John Hemon Comp:r made Complaint to us That Elizabeth the wife of John Johnson Sol:r Sold a piece of Silk belonging to his wife without her Consent, Some time before he was Persona to pay him for and used to her, which the Said Johnsons wife Refuses to pay [...] [...] he Sold her him for.

Jo:n Johnson denyes that Ever his wife Sold any Silk belonging to the Said Hemmons wife, And makes demand of a [...] that the Said Hem on his wife gave to his daughter Susanna, and for Severall more particulars as [...] his Bille makes appears his Charges [...] Hemon with.

The Said Hemmons Saith that his wife had no power to give or dispose of any thing belong or by him, them, and Both deny We owe the Said Johnson for any the particulars his Charges him with.

James Hawres Sol:r Saith that he being at Supper at the house where Jo:n Johnson lives the Said Jo:n Hemons wife Came trying into the house and Said that he never had been dissuading her for giving [...] Said Johnsons, Eldest place a heaper.

Mary ffrenck Saith to [...] Same purpose as the Said James Hawkes hath justified, adding what she heard the Said Hemonis wife Tell her husband, that she gave the Said Johnsons place the heifer that day as She made him a promise of marriage.

It is ordered

That According to a former order of Councill bearing date the first day of Aprill 1695 the Said Hemmons hath no Cause of Complaint against the Said Johnson and to pay all Charges of Councill Except [...] Said Johnsons Evidence, And likewise the Said Johnson by Said order, hath

Margin Notes:

John Hemons Comp:t ag: wife of John Johnson Sol:r for Re [...] to pay him for and used [...] of Silk he Sold her him for.

Hemons hath no Cause of Comp: ag: the Said Johnson.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 2 February 1702 [that is, 2 February 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

John Hemon complained that Elizabeth, wife of John Johnson, soldier, had sold a piece of silk belonging to his wife without her consent, some time before, and had refused to pay him for it.

Johnson denied that his wife had ever sold any silk belonging to Hemon's wife, and in turn made a claim against Hemon for a [...] that Hemon's wife had given to his daughter Susanna, together with several other particulars set out in his bill of charges against Hemon.

Hemon replied that his wife had no power to give or dispose of anything belonging to him, and both parties denied owing Johnson anything for the particulars he charged them with.

James Hawkes, soldier, stated that while at supper at the house where Johnson lived, Hemon's wife came in and said that she had never been dissuading her from giving Johnson's eldest [...] a heifer.

Mary French stated the same as James Hawkes, adding that she heard Hemon's wife tell her husband that she had given Johnson's [...] the heifer that day, as she had made him a promise of it.

The council ordered that in accordance with a former council order dated 1 April 1695, Hemon had no cause of complaint against Johnson and was to pay all costs of the council proceedings except Johnson's witness costs. The record of Johnson's position under the same order breaks off at this point.

Interpretations

The dispute involved a series of cross-claims between the two households that went beyond the original complaint about the silk. Johnson counter-claimed for a heifer given by Hemon's wife to his daughter, and Hemon denied his wife had authority to make such a gift. The question of a wife's capacity to dispose of household property without her husband's consent was a recognised legal issue in this period: a married woman had no independent legal standing to contract or transfer property, and any transaction she entered into was voidable by her husband. Hemon's argument that his wife lacked the power to give or dispose of his property was therefore legally orthodox, whatever the practical realities of the arrangement.

The council's resolution of the matter by reference to a standing order dated 1 April 1695 suggests the dispute, or something closely resembling it, had a prior history between the same parties or households, and that the earlier order had already established the legal position between them. Applying it again eight years later without detailed re-examination indicates the council treated the earlier determination as binding precedent for the same class of complaint.

Speculations

The testimony of Mary French, that Hemon's wife told her husband she had given the heifer to Johnson's [...] as she had promised, suggests the gift was made to honour a prior commitment rather than spontaneously. If the promise predated the marriage or was made without Hemon's knowledge, it would explain both why his wife felt bound to honour it and why Hemon denied any obligation to ratify it. The council's order against Hemon on the silk complaint, while leaving Johnson's counter-claim unresolved in the surviving text, suggests the balance of the dispute favoured Johnson overall.

317

338

no Cause to Complaine against the Said Hemmon, and that they discharge Each other from any Demands what- =soever from [...] beginning of the world to [...] date hereof.

Sam: Maxwell Sol:r made Complaint to us that Humphrey Edwards Sol:r had reported Severall times that he Run away from Bankes ffore, when he was there on the Alarme, and also a french Ship which plyed about the Island.

The Said Humphrey Edwards being Called denyes that Ever he reported Such a thing, only Said to Mr: Powills (they being talking about mentioning from Bankes) that they all Run away as he heard Say.

Richard Alexander Gunners mate being Sworne Saith that when the Alarme was made for [...] Said Ship he repaired to his post at Bankes ffore, and during all knows that he was there, it was Notifie the Ship [...] away from the Island, No person offered to Run away, And doth believe that the Said report was from this, that when he fired the two last Guns at Said Ship, [...] Maxwell did him for fear, being little he might let them End of Bankes house to be within his Rule fall.

Sarah the wife of Gabriel Powill Sworne Saith that Humphrey Edwards Stoped one day to their house when heard Jo:n Hoskison the [...] him what news, he heard, who replies he got [...] news, Heare is that all Bankes men Run- away, one [...] and all, to which their Deponent made Answer hey late Brother James was here last night and Said all Bankes men did Run away, But Rich: and Brunlden the Said Humphrey replied Hay he and all Run away for I have the [...] Affidavit of [...] it.

Thomas Burnham free Plant:r Sworne Saith that when Rich: Alexander offered to [...] he Saw Some of [...] men on top of [...] house and Same as [...] Side of it but he was in the Valley for [...] at a great [...] distance, the Landing of an Enemy, but never Saw it at all.

Jo:n Marsh being Sworne Saith that he did not See any Body Run from Bankes Guns, only Saw [...] Maxwell go a side way up to See where the Ship Struck that was fired thereat.

Sutton

Margin Notes:

Sam: Maxwell Comp:t ag: Humphrey Edwards for Reporting of he Run away from Bankes fort when a Alarm was for a French Ship that plyed about [...] Island.

Johnson had no cause to complain against Hemon either, and both parties were to discharge each other from all demands whatsoever from the beginning of the world to the date of the order.

Samuel Maxwell, soldier, complained that Humphrey Edwards, soldier, had reported on several occasions that Maxwell had run away from Banks Fort when he was there on the alarm raised by the French ship that had manoeuvred around the island.

Edwards, being called, denied ever having reported such a thing, saying only that he had mentioned to Mr Powell, in the course of a conversation about Banks Fort, that he had heard they all ran away.

Richard Alexander, gunner's mate, being sworn, stated that when the alarm was raised he had gone to his post at Banks Fort and that during the entire time he was there, as the ship moved away from the island, no person offered to run away. He believed the report had arisen from the fact that when he fired the last two guns at the ship, Maxwell had moved to the end of the Banks Fort building to be within range, which may have been mistaken for flight by those at a distance.

Sarah, wife of Gabriel Powell, being sworn, stated that Edwards had stopped at their house one day when John Hoskison asked him what news he had heard. Edwards replied that all the Banks Fort men had run away, one and all. She answered that her late brother James had been there the previous night and said the same, but that Richard and Brunlden had stayed. Edwards replied that Brunlden had run away too, and that he had an affidavit to prove it.

Thomas Burnham, free planter, being sworn, stated that when Richard Alexander offered to [...] he saw some of the men on top of the building and on the side of it, but he himself had been in the valley at a great distance watching for the landing of an enemy and had not seen the events at the fort directly.

John Marsh, being sworn, stated that he did not see anybody run from Banks Fort, but only saw Maxwell move to one side to see where the ship had been struck by the guns fired at her.

[The record breaks off.]

Interpretations

The complaint by Maxwell against Edwards for spreading a report that he had abandoned his post was a matter of military honour with serious practical consequences. In a garrison where every man's reliability under threat was essential, a reputation for cowardice at the moment of alarm was professionally and socially damaging in a way that a private insult was not. The formal complaint before the council was the mechanism by which Maxwell sought to have the report publicly refuted and Edwards held accountable for spreading it.

Edwards's distinction between saying that he heard they all ran away and personally reporting it as fact was a standard defence in defamation cases of this period. The argument was that repeating a report was not the same as originating it, and that his words reflected what others had told him rather than his own observation. Sarah Powell's testimony, however, placed Edwards in a much more exposed position: she heard him claim to have an affidavit proving Brunlden's flight, which went well beyond merely repeating hearsay and implied Edwards had actively gathered evidence to support the allegation.

Alexander's explanation of Maxwell's sideways movement as a tactical repositioning to observe where the ship was hit, rather than flight, was the most direct rebuttal of the report. As the man who had fired the guns and was present throughout, his testimony carried particular weight in establishing what had actually happened on the fort during the engagement.

Speculations

Edwards's claim to possess an affidavit proving that Brunlden had run away, if true, suggests he had gone to some trouble to document the alleged cowardice of the Banks Fort men after the event. This level of effort pointed to something beyond casual gossip, and raised the possibility that Edwards had a personal motive for damaging the reputations of those who had been at the fort, whether out of rivalry, resentment or some prior grievance not visible in the record.

The fact that the French ship's manoeuvring around the island had already featured in an earlier consultation, when Richard Swallow was fined for refusing to report to the fort, suggests the incident had generated a wider series of disputes about who had and had not done their duty. The complaint against Edwards was probably one of several aftershocks from the same alarm, in a community where the question of who had stood their ground and who had not was a matter of continuing social consequence.

318

339

Sutton Isaack Jun:r being Sworne Saith that when the two last Great Guns was fired at Bankes Ser:t Maxwell went a little way off from [...] Gun to See where the Shot fell, and Saw [...] Several there.

Jo:n Havetson being Sworne Saith that Some time Since, the Said Humphrey Edwards Came to his Land- lord Powills house, who having Some discourse together the Depo:t asked him what news he had heard, who replied he, I hear all Bankes men Run away when [...] [...] Ship went by there, But if I had been there I would have brought them back or Shot them.

It is ordered

That the Said Humphrey Edwards for Raising Such a false report of the Said Ser:t Maxwell to ride the wooden horse three times three days Successively for [...] Space of one houre Each time with consequent Eyes to Each legg, And to be kept in prison till the time of his punishment is Expired, and pay Charges of Councill.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Hum:phry Edwards to Ride [...] wooden horse 3 Successive days & to be kept in prison till he reced his punishment for Raising such a false Rep:t of the Said Maxwell &c:

Sutton Isaac junior, being sworn, stated that when the last two great guns were fired at Banks Fort, Sergeant Maxwell moved a little way from the gun to see where the shot had fallen, and saw several [...] there.

John Havetson, being sworn, stated that some time before, Edwards had come to his landlord Powell's house and, in the course of conversation, was asked what news he had heard. Edwards replied that he had heard all the Banks Fort men had run away when the ship went by, and that if he had been there he would have brought them back or shot them.

The council ordered that Edwards, for raising a false report against Sergeant Maxwell, be made to ride the wooden horse three times on three successive days, for one hour each time, with [...] tied to each leg, and be kept in prison until his punishment was completed. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the council proceedings.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The wooden horse was a military punishment instrument: a narrow wooden beam raised on legs, on which the offender was made to sit astride with weights attached to his feet to increase the pain and prevent him from lifting himself off the edge. It was a standard garrison punishment for military offences that did not warrant flogging or imprisonment alone, and its use here reflected the military character of the offence. Spreading a false report of cowardice among garrison men was treated as a disciplinary matter requiring a physical and public penalty rather than merely a fine.

The sentence of three sessions on the wooden horse on three successive days, combined with imprisonment between sessions, was structured to maximise both the physical discomfort and the public visibility of the punishment. The repetition over three days ensured the penalty was not a single brief humiliation but a sustained and conspicuous one, seen by the whole community at the fort.

Edwards's statement that if he had been at Banks Fort he would have brought the men back or shot them was the most damaging piece of testimony against him. It showed he had not merely repeated a rumour but had embellished it with a declaration of what he personally would have done, which went well beyond hearsay and demonstrated an active investment in the allegation of cowardice.

Speculations

The escalation of Edwards's reported words from the earlier testimony - where he claimed to have an affidavit - to the account given by Havetson, where he boasted he would have shot the men himself, suggests his version of events became more colourful each time he repeated it. This pattern of elaboration was probably what convinced the council that Edwards was not merely relaying a rumour but was actively promoting a damaging narrative, which justified a punishment significantly harsher than the fines imposed for most other offences in these records.

The imprisonment pending punishment, rather than release between sessions on the wooden horse, was designed to prevent Edwards from absconding or seeking to avoid the remaining sessions of his penalty. It also extended the punitive period beyond the three hours of actual riding, making the total experience considerably more severe than the formal sentence alone might suggest.

319

340

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 16 day of Feb:y 1702 At Fort James.

Pres: Step:n Poirier Gover:m Pres: Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov:r

Whereas it hath pleased god to take into him- self Mr Edward Edmunds third of our Councill, We therefore in pursuance of the Right Hono: Comp: Orders Sent us, good [...] Instruction [...] Hood Cap:t [...] [...] Penard:t Dated the 1:th day of Decemb: 169[...] the Seventy fourth paragraph Enjoyed us, that in Case of the death of any one of Councills another Should be Chosen Either of [...] the Planters or Sol:rs to fill up the place of the Deceased, We have Accordingly Unanimously Chose [...] Jo: ffeild Sol:r to be Introduced and Third in Councill till the Right Hono: Comp:s pleasure be known otherwise.

Whereupon the Said ffeild was Called, who thankfully Accepted of the Said place.

And Consequently It is ordered that the Said Mr Jo: ffeild Shall take place Accordingly, and have the [...] rite of Said place.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Mr Edw: Edmunds 3: m Councill being Dead we have appointed Ser:t John ffeild to Succeed him till Comp:s pleasure be known otherwise.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 16 February 1702 [that is, 16 February 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

God having taken Edward Edmunds, third in council, the governor and council proceeded in accordance with the Right Honourable Company's orders, specifically the seventy-fourth paragraph of instructions issued under Captain [...] Penard [...] dated 1 December 169[...], which directed that in the event of the death of any councillor, another person should be chosen from among the planters or soldiers to fill the vacancy. The council unanimously chose John Field, soldier, to be introduced as third in council until the Right Honourable Company's pleasure was known otherwise.

Field was called, accepted the appointment with thanks, and was ordered to take up the place and exercise the rights belonging to it accordingly.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The death of Edward Edmunds removed from the council the man who had served throughout these records as administrator of the Ffoulis estate, third in council at virtually every sitting, and as executor of Samuel Wrongham's estate. His loss reduced the council to two members and made the appointment of a replacement an immediate administrative necessity rather than a matter of discretion.

The council's authority to fill the vacancy was derived directly from the Company's written instructions, cited by paragraph number and date. This precision reflects the importance of establishing that the appointment had a proper legal basis, since a council acting without its full complement might otherwise be open to challenge on the validity of its decisions. The citation of the specific paragraph protected both the new appointee and any orders made at subsequent sittings.

The selection of John Field, soldier, rather than a free planter, was a choice available under the Company's instructions, which permitted either. Field had appeared frequently in these records as a juror, a party in minor disputes and a witness, and his appointment gave the council a third member drawn from the garrison rather than from the landowning community.

Speculations

The unanimous choice of Field suggests no alternative candidate was seriously considered or that any initial disagreement was resolved before the consultation was formally recorded. In a council of two, unanimity was a foregone conclusion in any case, but the formula was preserved to demonstrate compliance with the Company's procedural requirements.

The reference to the Company's instructions by paragraph number and approximate date, with the year partly illegible, suggests the clerk was working from the original document rather than from memory, and that the instructions were kept available for reference at Fort James as a standing authority for the council's actions.

320

341

Island S:t Helena February [...] 16 1702

The Worshipfull Stephen Poirier Esq: Governours Declaration against Mr Jo: Kerr Minister.

Whereas Some time about Last Christmas was a twelve month George Hoskison free Planter gave the Govern:ts advice that Mr: Jo: Kerr the Minister of Comp: Chaplaine was a most Dangerous man and was about Setting People together by the Ears worse then Ever Mr Humphrey was, And that the Said Mr: John Kerr had positively declared to him, that he Came to the Said Island to purpose to Ruine [...] french Refugees but was desired not to take any notice of it then, being according to expose his Situation in the sight of all men. But however to the many wrongs and relapses of Injustice done to the Said Govern:t Departure was liked out to Summons the Said Mr: Hoskison and his wife to give their affronts that the world might know that he [...] Said Mr: Kirk did him to be as good as his word, And the Said Hoskison and his wife appearing for the Benevolence, Cap: Ffoulis, Mr: Tho: Goodwin who Mr: Edmunds bearing the the Said Govern:t for their Sake to Let it alone for the present, and on agredering to them that my Hon: ffeild and he was not Secure of Such a man promised me firmly that at any time they could Bear Swiftness of the Same, and Vindicate this Cause on their defence part it by, But the Said Jo: Fountain & Mr: Edmunds being Dead, and So may Mr: The [...] Govern:t [?] aged to such [...] Said Promise, that the Said Mr: Kerr as born Advised of in his foolish Condition doth Continued and owns thereways to oppose the Said Govern: with false Insinuations, Therefore in writing that the Said Mr: Hoskison his wife and Mr: Thomas Goodwins Affidavits be recorded Accordingly.

George Hoskison being Sworne Saith that Last Christ- mas was twelve months to [...] best of my knowledge that on Christmas day Doctor Kerr was at long house, the Intended discourse doth Still Remembered, But to Conclude the Said Dr: Kerr Said he did not know however nothing it was to Ruine [...] french Rogues [...] Refugee that as a trouble to [...] Best of my Knowledge is true. Further Saith that, that day [...] [...] the Govern:ts Brow offered him and his wife to give their affronts against the Sand Mr: Kerr, he heard Cap:t ffoulis, Mr Thomas Goodwin, and Mr Edmunds Intercession with [...] Govern:t to pass the Said Mr: Kerrs affronts, and Said before he was Guilty of any Said thing againe, they would Certainly be his Enemies.

Geo: Hoskison

Witnesses: Jo:n ffeild Joseph hopp Phil: Carstake

Margin Notes:

Gov:t Poiriers De- claration ag: Mr: John Kerr Minister.

George Hoskison De- claration ag: Mr Jo: Kerr Minister.

Governor Stephen Poirier's declaration against Mr John Kerr, minister, dated 16 February 1702 [that is, 16 February 1703].

Around Christmas a year before, George Hoskison, free planter, had warned the governor that John Kerr, the Company's chaplain, was a dangerous man who was setting people against one another worse than a Mr Humphrey had done before him, and that Kerr had told Hoskison directly that he had come to the island with the express purpose of ruining the French refugees. The governor was asked at the time not to act on this information, so as not to expose Hoskison's position publicly. However, given the many subsequent wrongs done to the governor, he had resolved to summon Hoskison and his wife to give their formal account so that the world might know what Kerr had done. When Hoskison and his wife appeared, Captain Ffoulis, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds had interceded with the governor on Kerr's behalf, asking him to let the matter rest for the present, and had promised firmly that if Kerr ever behaved in the same way again they would themselves bear witness against him and vindicate the governor's cause. However, both Ffoulis and Edmunds were now dead, and the governor considered himself released from his promise of restraint. Kerr had continued and still persisted in opposing the governor with false insinuations. The governor therefore directed that the affidavits of Hoskison, his wife and Thomas Goodwin be recorded.

George Hoskison, being sworn, stated that around Christmas a year before, to the best of his knowledge, Doctor Kerr had been at the long house and that during the conversation Kerr had said he did not know how it was to ruin the French rogues and refugees, or words to that effect, which to the best of his knowledge was true. He further stated that on the day the governor had offered Hoskison and his wife the opportunity to give their formal account against Kerr, he had heard Captain Ffoulis, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds intercede with the governor to pass over Kerr's offence, saying that if Kerr were ever guilty of the same thing again they would certainly be his enemies.

The declaration was signed by George Hoskison and witnessed by John Field, Joseph Hopp and Philip Carstake.

Interpretations

The governor's declaration against Kerr was a formal accusation entered into the council record, designed to establish a documented basis for action against the chaplain. By placing Hoskison's sworn account on the record alongside his own declaration, the governor created an official instrument that could be used to support Kerr's removal or prosecution, and that would survive as evidence even if individual witnesses later withdrew or died.

The role of the French refugees as the target of Kerr's stated hostility is significant. The presence of French Protestant refugees on Saint Helena, presumably Huguenots who had fled France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, represented a distinct community within the island's free population. A chaplain actively working to ruin them would have been a source of serious communal division, and the governor's alarm at Kerr's stated intentions reflected both a duty of care towards all inhabitants and a practical concern about internal stability.

The deaths of Ffoulis and Edmunds, cited by the governor as releasing him from his earlier promise of restraint, illustrates how personal undertakings between named individuals could operate as informal constraints on governance. The promise had been made to three men; two were now dead and the third, Goodwin, was presumably the deputy governor now sitting beside the governor as the declaration was recorded. The governor's decision to proceed in Goodwin's presence, without suggesting that Goodwin's survival continued to bind him, implies that Goodwin either consented to the declaration or was no longer held to his earlier intercession.

The description of Kerr as having come to the island with the express purpose of ruining the French refugees, if accurately reported, was a statement of premeditated malice that went far beyond ordinary pastoral incompetence or personal animosity. Whether Kerr had actually said this or whether Hoskison's account was coloured by loyalty to the governor cannot be determined from the record alone.

Speculations

The timing of the declaration, made on the same day as the appointment of John Field to replace the deceased Edmunds, suggests the governor moved quickly to exploit the changed composition of the council. With Edmunds gone and Field, a soldier rather than a long-standing planter councillor, now in his place, the informal coalition that had previously restrained the governor's action against Kerr was broken. The governor may have been waiting for exactly this moment to act.

The reference to a Mr Humphrey as a predecessor who had similarly set people against one another points to a pattern of difficulty with the island's chaplains, suggesting the role itself was a source of recurring tension between the spiritual authority of the minister and the civil authority of the governor. Kerr's alleged behaviour, if true, repeated a familiar pattern rather than representing an isolated incident.

321

342

Whereas Mr: Jo: Kerr Chaplain to [...] R: Hono: Comp: and Bachelour of Divinity appeared before [...] Worship Stephen Poirier Governour of the Said Island, and did Enrich his plantation in Due time and forme, and was denyed the Privilege of an English Subject of having his protestation Acknowledged here to all the proceedings relating to the matter, He actually Protests against all the Illegall proceedings, desireing the Said Protestation might be recorded and Sent home to [...] R: Hono: Trusted Company.

This protestation Digned in all humble deference to [...] Governour, there was no publick meeting of [...] Govern:t and his Councill as was Enjoyed by the provision, and as it was alwayes ordinary in Cases of this nature. Jo: Kerr

The Govern:t Says that he being a Justice of peace, he ought to receive a cry of Loud [...] as Mr: Ashley in a former [...] of that nature, And as for his denyning to Consider Dr: [...] therefore I dont know what his means, because if offered him he Should write and bring himself, or by the Clerk witnessed as aforesaid.

George Hoskison and Henry from an Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Mr: Thomas Edmunds deed Came before the Govern:t Jo: Ffeild Allex and [...] [...] Earrings and Carries they might be borne, to appraise the Estate both personall and reale, of Severall [...] paid, belonging unto the Said late Mr: Edmunds, who before [...] to make to appraise and appointed to [...] the best of their skill & knowledge [...].

Whereas Mr Edward Edmunds deed in his life time Caused nor revoked and appointed his last Will and Jo:n Edmunds whose and to [...] Spreading among his planting, pleased to take him away also in a few Days time, after he had being the Said wife and [...] be proved Acknowledged and appraised, and knowledge Mr Edw: Edmunds and her [...] being of a mind to [...] Account [...] George Hoskison and her [...] being of a mind to [...] Account their Last Will and testament, that a ought this Day the [...] Governour and from [...] forth the Said settle an order of Having them proved, which was Accordingly Done as followeth.

Mr Thomas Goodwin and ffeild, Kerr was applied to the said Mr Edw: Edmunds Last will and Testament, made oath they Saw him make and Signe the Same, and Deceased that to be his Last Will and testament and none other.

Likewise

Hatton Hurling and Sam:o Maxwell Jun:r made oath that they Saw Mr Jo:n Edmunds deed Signe Seale and Deliver She was now produced, and that Shee declared and Pronounced the Same to be her Last Will and testament one

Margin Notes:

Doc:tr Kerr protest ag: all [...] Illegall pro- ceedings &c:

The Gov:t Says he being a Justice of peace ought to Receive all affidavit as Mr: the [...] Jo:n aforesaid of [...] Nature.

Feb: 14: 17: 1702

Mr Edw: Edmunds and his Wife Jo:n Edmunds Both they Last Wills and Testam:ts Reed & approved of.

John Kerr, chaplain to the Right Honourable Company and Bachelor of Divinity, appeared before Governor Stephen Poirier and formally protested against all the proceedings relating to the matter against him, on the grounds that he had been denied the privilege of an English subject in having his protestation acknowledged. He requested that his protestation be recorded and sent home to the Right Honourable Company. The protestation noted, with all due deference to the governor, that there had been no proper public meeting of the governor and his council as required by standing provision and as was ordinarily the practice in cases of this nature. The protestation was signed by John Kerr.

The governor replied that as a justice of the peace he was entitled to receive sworn testimony as in any other case of that nature, and that as for Kerr's denial of the proceedings, he did not understand his objection, since Kerr had been offered the opportunity to write his response himself or to have it witnessed by the clerk.

George Hoskison and Henry [...], executors of the last will and testament of the late Mr Thomas Edmunds, came before the governor, John Field, [...] and others, and asked that they be appointed to appraise the real and personal estate of the late Mr Edmunds. They were accordingly authorised to appraise the estate to the best of their skill and knowledge.

Edward Edmunds, in his lifetime, had made and signed his last will and testament, and his wife Joan Edmunds had also made and signed hers. Both wills were now produced for probate. Thomas Goodwin and Field swore that they had seen Edward Edmunds make and sign his will and that it was his last will and testament. Hatton Hurling and Samuel Maxwell junior swore that they had seen Joan Edmunds sign, seal and deliver her will and that she had declared it to be her last will and testament.

Interpretations

Kerr's protestation was a formal legal instrument, not merely a verbal objection. By entering a protestation on the record and requesting it be forwarded to the Company, Kerr was appealing over the governor's head to the ultimate authority on the island. This was the correct procedural step for a man who believed he had been subjected to an irregular proceeding, and its formality suggests Kerr had legal knowledge or advice behind him. The governor's counter-argument, that he had offered Kerr the opportunity to respond in writing, was designed to establish on the record that Kerr had been given procedural fairness, which would weaken the protestation when it reached the Company.

The probate of both Edward Edmunds's and Joan Edmunds's wills at the same session, so shortly after their deaths in rapid succession, reflects the urgency with which the council moved to settle the estates of a man who had been central to the island's administration. As administrator of the Ffoulis estate and third in council, Edmunds's own affairs needed to be placed under proper legal management without delay to prevent any confusion between his personal assets and those he had been managing in his official capacity.

The appointment of George Hoskison as executor of Thomas Edmunds's estate, combined with his role as churchwarden and his prominence in numerous other proceedings, confirms his position as the most active and trusted member of the free planter community at this period. His repeated appointment to quasi-official roles gave him an institutional influence that went well beyond his formal status as a free planter.

Speculations

Kerr's protestation that there had been no proper public meeting of the governor and council before the declaration was recorded points to a procedural vulnerability in the governor's action. If the declaration against Kerr had been entered into the record without a formally constituted council sitting, Kerr's objection had real substance, and the Company might well have found in his favour on that ground alone regardless of the underlying accusations. The governor's insistence that he was entitled to act as a justice of the peace in receiving sworn testimony was a response to exactly this challenge, but the two positions addressed different aspects of the procedure and did not fully resolve the conflict between them.

The rapid deaths of both Edward Edmunds and his wife Joan within days of each other, implied by the simultaneous probate of both wills, raises the possibility that both died of the same illness. In a small colonial settlement, an infectious disease could move quickly through a household, and the loss of both husband and wife in quick succession would have left their estate in particular need of prompt administration.

322

343

and that they knew of no other made by her Either in word or writing.

It is ordered.

That the aforesaid Mr Edward Edmunds, and his late wifes Last Wills and testaments be both approved off, and Copyes given when Required.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tues- day the 2 day of March 1702 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirier Govern: Pres:t Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gov: Jo:n ffeild 3 in place

Whereas by an order of Councill dated the 8 day of Decemb:r last past, Pereg: Parlebion Sol:r was Strictly forbidden not to presume to go into the house of the Ashley nor into the Company of his wife or have any Correspondance with them, which the Signature of You prominent that Contrary Denying it he was often to the Said Pauleson was Seen on Thursday attending to the Said Pereg: Pauleson was Seen on Thursday of the manor in company Ensuring the aforesaid date of [...] in the house of Thomas Ashleys Comp: with him [...] and [...] and Severall others.

The Said Thomas Ashleys wife (her husband being as [...] Indisposed) appeared and Said, that She and her husband had offered the Said Parlebion to go out of their house, but he would not.

Mc Conaway Jo:n Lumbers & Rob: ffronts Saith they Saw the Pereg: Parlebion in the Said Ashleys house to night and his wife, but did not hear neither of them bid him go out of [...] house.

The Said Pereg: Parlebion Saith that he was much in drink, and did not [...] danger he Run himself into, humbly begging Pardon for his fault.

Margin Notes:

Paragreen Parlebion Contrary to an order of Councill was Seen in Tho:s Ashleys house in Comp: w:th Said Ashley and his Wife & Severall others.

The witnesses stated that they knew of no other will made by Joan Edmunds, either in word or writing. The council ordered that both Edward Edmunds's and Joan Edmunds's last wills and testaments be approved, and that copies be given out when required.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 2 March 1702 [that is, 2 March 1703], presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and John Field, third in council.

By a council order dated 8 December last, Peregrine Parlebion, soldier, had been strictly forbidden from going into Thomas Ashley's house, into the company of his wife or having any correspondence with them. In defiance of that order, Parlebion had been seen on a Thursday after that date in Ashley's house in company with Ashley and his wife and several others.

Mrs Ashley, her husband being unwell, appeared and stated that she and her husband had asked Parlebion to leave their house but that he had refused.

Mr Conaway, John Lumbers and Robert Fronts stated that they had seen Parlebion in Ashley's house that night with Ashley and his wife, but had not heard either of the Ashleys ask him to leave.

Parlebion stated that he had been very drunk and had not realised the danger he was putting himself in, and humbly begged pardon for his fault.

Interpretations

The breach of the no-contact order placed Parlebion in a fundamentally different legal position from the original lewdness complaint, on which he had been acquitted. The order had remained in force after the acquittal, and its breach was an offence against the council's authority regardless of whether any lewd behaviour had occurred on this occasion. His drunkenness, offered as mitigation, did not alter the fact of the breach, and the council had explicitly reserved the right to enforce the order at its pleasure.

The conflicting testimony between Mrs Ashley, who said she had asked Parlebion to leave, and the three witnesses, who heard no such request, placed the council in a familiar evidential difficulty. If Mrs Ashley had genuinely tried to remove Parlebion, her position was one of compliance with the order being frustrated by his refusal. If she had not, she was equally in breach of the order herself, which prohibited her from being in his company as well as him being in hers.

Speculations

The presence of several other people in the house when Parlebion was found there suggests the occasion was a social gathering rather than a private meeting, which may have been Parlebion's way of testing whether the order would be enforced in a group setting. If so, the strategy failed, as the witnesses' presence meant the breach was directly observed and reported rather than remaining a private matter between the two parties.

Mrs Ashley's explanation that her husband was unwell and that she had tried to make Parlebion leave may have been an attempt to distance herself from any suggestion of renewed impropriety, given that Ashley's illness meant she was effectively alone with Parlebion and the other guests. The council's record of her statement without immediate comment suggests it noted the explanation without fully accepting it.

323

344

Upon mature Consideration.

It is ordered.

That upon the Said Pereg: Parlebions humbly Submitting himself, and Acknowledging his fault being in drink when he Entered [...] Said Ashleys house he be fined 45 to the R: Hono: Comp: and 5 more to [...] Church And the Ashleys wife alleging both She and her husband after bidding the Said Pereg: Parlebion to go out of their house offering Evidence of the Same, the Said Ashley be fined fifty Shillings to [...] aforesaid Evidence who Informed against him and [...] Said Parlebion, and to pay Charges of Councill Equally betwixt them.

And of Every future the Said Ashley his wife be Seen, or knowing to be in the Said Parlebions Comp: or not to go into her Comp: That the former order of Ten pounds Forfeitured be duly paid without Commiting any part thereof.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin John ffeild

Margin Notes:

Paragreen Parlebion Confessed he was in drink when he Entered [...] house & upon his humble Submission & Confes- sing [...] fault he be fined 45 to [...] Hon: Comp: & five Shell for being drunk &c: Tho:s Ashley fined 50 &c: and offer [...] in future they be Seen in Each others Comp: then the forfeiture of 50: to be duly paid as on a form: ord: of Coun:

After mature consideration, the council ordered that Parlebion, having humbly submitted and acknowledged his fault and pleaded drunkenness when he entered Ashley's house, be fined 45s 0d to the Right Honourable Company and a further 5s 0d to the church. Mrs Ashley, having alleged that both she and her husband had asked Parlebion to leave and offering evidence to that effect, was fined 50s 0d to those who had informed against her and Parlebion, and both parties were ordered to pay the costs of the council proceedings equally between them.

For any future occasion on which Mrs Ashley was seen or known to be in Parlebion's company, or he in hers, the former forfeiture of £10 0s 0d was to be paid in full without any remission.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and John Field.

Interpretations

The splitting of Parlebion's fine between the Company and the church reflected the dual nature of his offence. The breach of the council's order was an offence against the Company's authority, warranting a payment to its funds. The drunkenness that he pleaded as mitigation was a moral offence falling within the church's disciplinary remit, warranting a separate payment to church funds. The two components of the penalty addressed the two dimensions of the misconduct in a single order.

Mrs Ashley's fine, paid to the informers rather than to the Company or the church, was an unusual disposition that served a specific purpose. By directing the money to those who had reported the breach, the council created a direct financial incentive for members of the community to monitor and report future violations of the order. This transformed the enforcement mechanism from one dependent on official surveillance into one supported by private interest.

The reinstatement of the full £10 0s 0d forfeiture for any future breach, explicitly without remission, closed the avenue of mitigation that Parlebion had successfully used on this occasion. His plea of drunkenness had reduced his fine considerably below the £10 0s 0d originally specified, but the council's warning that no such reduction would be granted again removed that defence from any future proceeding.

Speculations

The fine of 45s 0d imposed on Parlebion, rather than the full £10 0s 0d forfeiture specified in the original order, suggests the council exercised significant discretion in calibrating the penalty to his submission and his claimed drunkenness. The gap between 45s 0d and £10 0s 0d was substantial, and Parlebion's willingness to submit immediately and acknowledge his fault was probably the decisive factor in securing the reduction. The council's explicit warning about future breaches was designed to ensure he did not conclude that submission was a reliable strategy for avoiding the full penalty indefinitely.

The equal division of court costs between Parlebion and Mrs Ashley, despite the asymmetry in their fines, suggests the council regarded both as equally responsible for the situation even though it treated their specific offences differently. Mrs Ashley's fine going to the informers rather than to public funds was a pointed reminder that her breach had a victim in the form of those whose duty it was to report it, which was a different kind of accountability from Parlebion's institutional fine.

324

345

The declaration of John Alexander against Mr: Jo: Kerr minister.

Jo:n Alexander Clark of the Court Declares upon oath That on Friday [...] 26 day of February last past, to the Best of his remembrance, about the hours of four or five of the Clock in the Evening, being Serving Goods at his office door within ffourt James, Mr Jo: Kerr the Minister [...] Chaplain Came to him and askt him if he would go in by [...] Sessions house, and drink part of a bowle of Punch, the Said Alexander replied, I thank you, but I have a little business to do, but I will doe to you in less then half an hours time, So when he had done what he designed, went to the Said Mr: Kerr into his Ledgings in the Sessions house, where he found with him Sam:t Maxwell Ser:t and Corporal Edward Corporalle who had a bowle of Punch before them w:th Bread out, And when it was all drunk the Said Mr: Kerr Sent his Black boy for another bowle of Punch to [...] Hoskisons (as he Suppose) and in the making of that Bowle of Punch, the Said Mr: Kerr began to discourse about the Govern:t bounds but no body made many replies thereto, blowing what all did him he was in his for [?] which Caused the Said Mr: Kerr Said that the Govern:t Stood up in the Church in time of Divines Service like a french Millgence proud Slave (and Drink rogue) when he ought to have kneeled downe to make his Confession, and moreover Said he had gotten the Coppy of a Letter that the Govern:t wrote to Captain Should Came to him Govern:t Indeed, And had Sent one thereof to the [...] of Embassy, and answer to the Bishop of London, for he Said was very particularly of them Specially of the Bishop of London, and then further Said that he paid to [...] the Govern:t, he with fourthm Paid was he he would be found out, when the next Ship Came from England, for the new Comp: would have more of their owne, Prosing for words much to that Effect. The Said Alexander Said Stated that the Govern:t had Spoke Treasonable words against the Queen of England, and was unsatisfactory therein to the Crowned with [...] more matters like he told against the Said Govern:t which none of [...] came [...] because took good notice of Seeing him in Such an [...] humour, (being then Somewhat in drink) which Caused the Said Alexander, Maxwell and Richard Leave the Said Mr: Kerr to rave by himself, And when the Said Mr: Kerr Came to Supper at the fforts Table, being not well pleased the Victuals, Said how you promising to make Stiff opposition against him, take a piece of this, and wrap it

Margin Notes:

John Alexand:r Declaration ag: Mr: John Kerr Minister.

The declaration of John Alexander against Mr John Kerr, minister.

John Alexander, clerk of the court, declared on oath that on Friday 26 February last, at around four or five o'clock in the evening, while he was serving goods at his office door within Fort James, John Kerr, the Company's chaplain, came to him and asked whether he would come to the sessions house and share a bowl of punch. Alexander thanked him but said he had a little business to finish and would join him in less than half an hour. When he had done what he needed, he went to Kerr's lodgings in the sessions house, where he found Sergeant Samuel Maxwell and Corporal Edward [...] already present with a bowl of punch and bread before them. When that bowl was finished, Kerr sent his slave boy for another bowl of punch to Hoskison's, as Alexander supposed.

While the second bowl was being made, Kerr began to speak about the governor, though nobody made much reply, knowing the mood he was in. Kerr said that the governor had stood up in church during divine service like a proud French slave, and a drunk rogue, when he ought to have knelt to make his confession. He further said that he had obtained a copy of a letter the governor had written to a captain, and had sent a copy to the bishop of London, of whom he spoke with particular regard, and had also sent one to the [...] of Embassy. He said the governor would be found out when the next ship came from England, as the new Company would have more of their own. Alexander stated that Kerr had spoken treasonable words against the Queen of England and other matters against the governor, though Alexander could not recall all of them precisely as he had taken note of Kerr's state, he being somewhat drunk at the time. This caused Alexander, Maxwell and Richard to leave Kerr to rave by himself. When Kerr came to supper at the fort table that evening, being displeased with the food, he said, offering a piece of something, take a piece of this and wrap it -

[The record breaks off.]

Interpretations

Kerr's accusation that the governor had behaved like a proud French slave during divine service was a compound insult combining religious impropriety with an ethnic slur directed at the governor's French origins. In a garrison where the conduct of divine service was formally regulated and where the governor's dignity was a matter of institutional importance, a public accusation of this kind by the chaplain was an extraordinary act. It struck at both the governor's personal honour and his fitness for office.

Kerr's claim to have obtained a copy of the governor's letter to a named captain and to have sent it to the bishop of London and another official pointed to an organised campaign against the governor rather than a spontaneous outburst. The bishop of London had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over English colonial chaplaincies, and correspondence directed to him would carry institutional weight. If Kerr had genuinely initiated such correspondence, the governor had reason to treat the matter as a serious threat to his position rather than mere drunken indiscretion.

Alexander's role as clerk of the court, combined with his willingness to swear a formal declaration against the chaplain, placed the institutional machinery of the court directly against Kerr. His oath gave the governor a legally admissible record of Kerr's words that could be forwarded to the Company alongside Kerr's own protestation, presenting both sides of the dispute for the Company's determination.

Speculations

The setting of the incident - a private bowl of punch in Kerr's lodgings, followed by supper at the fort table - suggests Kerr's behaviour was consistent across both private and public settings that evening, which made it harder for him to claim the words were entirely the product of drink spoken in confidence. The decision by Alexander, Maxwell and Richard to leave Kerr to rave alone rather than challenge him directly was probably motivated by a desire to avoid becoming entangled in the quarrel, but their departure also left Kerr's words without immediate rebuttal, which strengthened the case that nobody had provoked or encouraged them.

Kerr's prediction that the governor would be found out when the next ship arrived, and that the new Company would have more of its own, suggests he had information about or expectations of a change in the Company's leadership or policy that he believed would work against the governor. Whether this was genuine intelligence or wishful thinking on Kerr's part cannot be determined from the record, but it gave his accusations a forward-looking dimension that went beyond a personal grievance.

325

346

up in a clean piece of paper and Send it to the Hono: Comp: that they may See what a Clergy man is Served, to which the Said Alexander replied, what do you put upon me, So Docksey if you dont like [...] Bugs [...] you Stay Supped [...] Self to [...] [...] off words much to this purpose, but he Still kept on mutter- ing and Grumbling against [...] Govern:t & As Soone As Supper was over & Acquainted the [...] Govern:t with what the Said Mr: Kerr had Said. further Saith not.

Jo:n Alexander

Whereas Jo:n Oswald Surgeon of the Garrison made Complaint to the Govern:t and Bench that he told Mr: Kerr minister of the Said Island had Scandalized him, in telling the word [...] [?] [...] Perrier, Govern:t that he was a man often [...] Spoke, and because the Said Govern:t not to take any thing from him for if he had an opportunity he would [...] [...] Began him, which Completed the Said Oswald being over it, be Determined and that the Said Govern:t would be pleased to give his Affidavit on oath of what the Said Mr: Kerr told him touching this matter.

The Govern:t within being gave his oath to [...] afore- ments as followeth.

That Some time ago (which to the best of his Knowledge was when the last man of war was here) he told Said Mr: Kerr told this Deponent as abovesaid mentioned in the Said aforesaid Complaint.

The Said Mr: Jo: Kerr replyes that he will take his oath to the Contrary of what the Govern:t hath Sworne, pro protest as followeth.

Whereas Jo:n Oswald Surgeon of the Garrison of St Helena has preferred a petition to the Worshipfull Govern:t and Councill Concerning things of false and Scandalous the Said Mr: Kerr against all the proceedings, because he is a most passionate dancer in the matter of testimony in his Declaration, and Discharged words pronounced to Self, Replying Insolences in the publick Hall, and his Severall Insolent things, against the Honour & dignity of our Soveraign Lady Queen Anne. Jo:n Kerr

[...] Says Mr: Kerr to be fined for [...]. The Said Govern:t Says that the Case of men ought not to be abused in any oath taken Specially as he is being in place of Govern:t the Said Mr: Kerr ought to be fined.

Margin Notes:

John Oswald Comp:t [...] Mr: John Kerr minister.

Jo:n Kerr pro- [...] ag: Mr: John Os- wald Declaration

[...] Says Mr: Kerr to be fined for [...]

Alexander continued, stating that Kerr said the food should be wrapped in clean paper and sent to the Honourable Company so they might see what a clergyman was served. Alexander replied that he would not be put upon in such a manner, and words to that effect passed between them. Kerr continued muttering and grumbling against the governor throughout supper. As soon as supper was over, Alexander went and acquainted the governor with what Kerr had said. Alexander stated he had nothing further to add and signed his declaration.

John Oswald, surgeon of the garrison, complained to the governor and bench that John Kerr, minister, had slandered him by telling Governor Poirier that Oswald was a man who often spoke out of turn, and warning the governor not to take anything from him, adding that if he had the opportunity he would [...] him. Oswald asked that the governor give his sworn account of what Kerr had told him on this matter.

The governor swore that some time before, which to the best of his knowledge was when the last man of war was at the island, Kerr had told him exactly what was described in Oswald's complaint.

Kerr replied that he would swear to the contrary of what the governor had stated, and entered a protestation as follows: that Oswald's petition contained false and scandalous matters, that Kerr protested against all the proceedings as irregular, that Oswald had behaved as a passionate and intemperate witness, that he had pronounced insolent words in the public hall and had said several insolent things against the honour and dignity of Her Sovereign Lady Queen Anne. The protestation was signed by John Kerr.

The governor stated that Kerr ought to be fined for his conduct, on the grounds that a man in the governor's position ought not to have his oath abused, and that Kerr's behaviour towards him as governor warranted a financial penalty.

Interpretations

Alexander's immediate report to the governor after supper, rather than waiting until the next day or the next council sitting, suggests he understood the seriousness of what he had heard and felt an obligation to inform the governor without delay. His role as clerk of the court made him an officer of the council rather than merely a private witness, which gave his report both urgency and institutional weight.

Kerr's counter-accusation that Oswald had spoken insolent words against the honour and dignity of Queen Anne was a significant escalation. By turning a complaint about slander into an accusation of seditious speech against the sovereign, Kerr attempted to shift the burden of the proceedings onto Oswald and simultaneously invoke the gravest possible charge available in colonial law. Whether this was a genuine accusation or a tactical response to the pressure he was under cannot be determined from the record, but its effect was to make the dispute between Kerr and the governor one in which both sides were now making accusations that could result in serious punishment.

The governor's insistence that his oath ought not to be abused, and his call for a fine against Kerr, reflects the particular sensitivity of challenging a sworn statement made by the island's chief executive. In the legal and social framework of colonial governance, the governor's oath carried a presumption of veracity that Kerr's flat contradiction directly undermined. The fine was sought not merely as a punishment but as a formal reassertion of that presumption.

Speculations

Kerr's repeated use of formal protestations rather than direct engagement with the substance of the accusations against him suggests he was pursuing a deliberate legal strategy of challenging the regularity of the proceedings rather than contesting the facts. By consistently protesting against the process rather than defending his conduct, he preserved his position for appeal to the Company and the bishop of London without conceding any ground on the underlying allegations. This was legally astute but unlikely to improve his standing with the governor and council in the short term.

The accumulation of complaints against Kerr across several sessions - the governor's declaration, Hoskison's sworn account, Alexander's declaration and now Oswald's complaint - suggests a coordinated effort to build a comprehensive record against him rather than a series of spontaneous grievances. The governor's evident determination to document every incident in formal sworn testimony points to a calculated campaign to ensure that when the matter reached the Company, the weight of evidence would be overwhelming.

326

347

In the Various and malicious Accusations he denyes for all the world knows to [...] Contrary, and bears all due respect to the Throne of England, he suffers ought to do his Soveraigne, and flesh [...] proceedings Brings our positively of the truth of what he Said to Mr: George Hoskison and his wife, Soon after he Came to Said Island, In Saying he Came here a purpose to Ruine [...] french Rogues and Refuged. And the Said Govern:t desires the Said Mr: Kerr to bring the Evidence to prove what he has alleged against him.

Jo:n Kerr minister Saith that upon the [...] day of June my [...] [...] of our Lord [...] 1702 Pervedim [...] Parr Shun of [...] [...] [...] [...] Simonson Commander of his masters Ship tells [...] being who have an tast of the Worshipfull Stephen Poirier of the death of the Late King William of the Passed and Privy Council morning, for which the deponent was true and law written [...] and a great many others, which the deponent saw fitt to certify this matter, and to give faithfull evidence to Justice the truth of what the Deponent declares, betwixt the hours of Seven and twelve of [...] fforts the fforum, in the hall [...] at [...] fforts in the [...] [...] did fall the Deponent, was in private Conversation (as he being that Mr: Jo:n Oswald Surgeon by the Governor, being walking [...] the otherwise [...] Table promises, he might [...] [...] [...] [...] following.

1st That the Prayer book of the Church was an un- fignall family, and never did any good to England, & that the Sacrements of England did wrong, and fooling Klere other to be Queen of England, for the being a tyrant, and no head the Church [...] Bishops, And that the Servants has been a hunger there times for [...] to head [...] Army and [...] [...] the deponent also Swears that the Said Doctor [...] for was a Prince George, if they did not make him King, would go over to Denmark and down, for the Queen is a fool and the Said depot: refuses to give the rest of his Declaration till a- further hearing, And desires that the Said Jo:n Oswald may be Called and Sworne.

Jo:n Kerr

John Oswald Surgeon being Solemnly Sworne Saith that he was not present when the Worshipfull Govern:t Poirier and Cap:t Simonson met, neither did he be the private [...] for the discourse between Mr: Jo:n Kerr and the Govern:t all he knows in this matter, is that when the Lamentable of the Death of King William of blessed [...] was brought to the Govern:t upon this more [...]

Margin Notes:

The Gov: desires him to bring his Evidence to prove what he hath alleged ag: him.

Mr: John Kerr declaration ag: [...] Govern:

The governor denied all the various and malicious accusations against him, saying the whole world knew the contrary to be true, and that he bore all due respect to the throne of England. He stood firmly by the truth of what he had said concerning Kerr's statement to George Hoskison and his wife, shortly after Kerr's arrival on the island, that he had come there with the express purpose of ruining the French rogues and refugees. The governor asked Kerr to produce evidence to prove what he had alleged against him.

John Kerr, minister, then made a declaration stating that on [...] day of June 1702, in the presence of [...] Simonson, commander of his master's ship, and others, and in connection with the news brought to Governor Stephen Poirier of the death of the late King William and the Privy Council's morning proceedings, he had been present at Fort James hall between the hours of seven and twelve. He stated that during a private conversation he overheard between John Oswald, surgeon, and the governor, while walking near the fort table, Oswald made the following statements: first, that the prayer book of the Church of England was of no genuine value and had never done England any good; that the sacraments of the Church of England were wrong; that someone else ought to be Queen of England rather than the present queen, whom he called a tyrant and no head of the church; that the bishops were corrupt; and that Prince George, if not made king, would go to Denmark, for the queen was a fool. Kerr stated he declined to give the rest of his declaration until a further hearing, and asked that Oswald be called and sworn. The declaration was signed by John Kerr.

John Oswald, surgeon, being solemnly sworn, stated that he was not present when Governor Poirier and Captain Simonson met, nor had he been party to any private conversation between Kerr and the governor. All he knew of the matter was that when the news of the death of King William of blessed memory was brought to the governor -

[The record breaks off.]

Interpretations

Kerr's counter-declaration was a carefully constructed legal response. Rather than simply denying the accusations against him, he introduced a new and extremely serious charge against Oswald: that Oswald had spoken words against the Church of England, the queen and the constitution in a private conversation overheard by Kerr. The accusations he attributed to Oswald - that the prayer book was worthless, that the queen was a tyrant and no head of the church, and that Prince George should replace her - amounted to seditious and potentially treasonable speech of the gravest kind. By making these allegations, Kerr transformed himself from a defendant into an accuser and forced the proceedings to address Oswald's conduct rather than his own.

The reference to the death of King William as the context for the alleged conversation dated the incident to March 1702, when news of William's death in March of that year would have reached Saint Helena. The arrival of such news was a moment of political sensitivity in which views about the succession and the new reign of Queen Anne might have been expressed more openly than usual, which gave Kerr's account a degree of contextual plausibility even if its substance was disputed.

Oswald's sworn denial that he had been present at the meeting between the governor and Captain Simonson, and his denial of the private conversation Kerr described, directly contradicted Kerr's declaration on its central factual claim. The conflict between the two sworn accounts placed the council in the position of having to determine which man was lying under oath, which was itself a serious matter beyond the underlying dispute.

Speculations

Kerr's decision to withhold the rest of his declaration until a further hearing was a tactical move designed to extend the proceedings and maintain leverage over the outcome. By releasing only part of his accusations against Oswald, he kept both the council and his opponents uncertain about what further evidence he claimed to hold, which gave him a degree of control over the pace and direction of the inquiry. Whether he actually had more to reveal or was playing for time cannot be determined from the record.

The political content of the words Kerr attributed to Oswald - criticism of the Church of England's sacraments, denial of the queen's authority over the church and the suggestion that Prince George should take the throne - reflected real theological and political tensions of the period. These were not arbitrary accusations but positions associated with identifiable groups in early eighteenth-century English religious and political life, which made them plausible as charges while also making them extremely dangerous for anyone actually found to have expressed them.

327

348

was there and heard the Govern:t lament the loss of the late King Will:m and Said that it was happy if [...] Duke of Hanover had the Crowne, because he is a man able is capable to head the Army, And that if he were as a Prince [...] King, unless he were made a King he would Leave the Queen, and go and live in Denmark, And in another Conversation about Have- Deniall where the Said Cornwood was Called, Unsupporthand- Baston, the Govern:t Said that these things might be let alone for when he was alive no man durst Say so, Upon which the Depot: Said that he was both a good & a Justice to his King and religion, which the Govern:t granted, and the Said Depot: believes throughout this was in jest that he Talked in this matter.

Furthermore the Said Deponent declares that he being at Dinner by the [...] Fforts [...] [...] Hall with the Worshipfull Govern:t Poirier &c: having the the Same take notice of King Williams death, the mind to be Called the Govern:t what he Should do Concerning the praying & things William: or Queen Ann, to which the Govern:t Answered that he had no orders from his [...] [...] [...] about it, But Desired the minister to do in that matter as he thought good. Then the minister Said that as he prayed for King William being dead it would be found, also a minister for [...] [...] Ship, King William Being alive is about to be Abolished there- fore Desired the Govern:t advice also in the matter, to which the Govern:t Answered before that it might go as he thought good, then the minister asked the Govern:t whether he was obsessed on the Presence that King William was Dead, to which the Govern:t Answered that he had not him had no orders from his master in the matter, but would [...] [...] againe to do what he pleased, then the Govern:t Said that the major had thoughts & proof that he [...] the Kings death, and the truth of it was Possible be doubted. And the Govern:t told the minister as before that he might do as he thought good, then the minister Said his thoughts & most Convenient to let, Service alone untill they were more Sure, but the Govern:t would not Consent to that, So that after Continuing the discourse a little Longer, the Govern:t has a little aforesaid, then Said the minister of me went Quarrell without any reason, because he of that, What do you call me the oldest man, and the old Governour, and then he was in almighty passion and told the [...] minister that he Should never Eat at his Table any more, and after a great many passionate words might, but the minister went away with an order not to have any Service that day, then the Govern:t Called him the Deponent and the [...] Fletcher, and Caused on this [...] the minister did not Come to Church, that I would him the favour to read prayers, and in the prayer of the Queen him, Lord Clause given to be there.

Oswald continued, stating that he had heard the governor lament the death of King William and say that it would be fortunate if the Duke of Hanover had the crown, as he was a man capable of leading an army, and that if Prince George were not made king he would leave the queen and go to live in Denmark. In another conversation, the governor said that such matters might be left alone, as when King William was alive no man dared speak so. Oswald said that William had been both a good king and just to his religion, which the governor granted, and Oswald believed throughout that the governor was speaking in jest.

Oswald further declared that at dinner at the fort hall with the governor and others, following the news of King William's death, the governor was asked what was to be done about whether to pray for King William or Queen Anne. The governor replied that he had no orders from his superiors on the matter and asked the minister to do as he thought best. The minister said that to continue praying for King William, now dead, would be improper, and asked for guidance. The governor again said the minister might do as he thought best. The minister then asked whether the governor was satisfied that King William was truly dead, to which the governor replied that he had no orders from his masters on the matter and would leave the minister to do as he pleased, though the governor noted the major had thoughts and proof that the king's death was not to be doubted. The governor told the minister again to do as he thought good. The minister said it would be most convenient to suspend the service until they were more certain, but the governor would not agree to this. After the discussion continued a little longer, a quarrel broke out, the governor accusing the minister of quarrelling without reason and demanding to know why he was being called old. He fell into a great passion and told the minister he should never eat at his table again. After many angry words, the minister left with an order that there was to be no service that day. The governor then called Oswald and a Mr Fletcher, and because the minister had not come to church asked Oswald to read prayers, naming the queen in the appropriate place.

Interpretations

The governor's repeated response that he had no orders from his superiors on the question of whether to pray for the dead king or the new queen was not evasion but a genuine reflection of the administrative gap created by the sudden change of reign. Colonial governors depended on instructions from the Company and ultimately from the Crown, and in the absence of explicit orders about the forms of public worship appropriate to the new reign, the governor was genuinely uncertain how to proceed. His deferral to the minister's judgement was a practical response to that uncertainty, not an act of indifference.

The quarrel over whether to suspend divine service until the death of King William was confirmed reveals a real institutional problem. The minister's position - that it would be improper to alter the forms of service without certainty - was theologically defensible, but the governor's refusal to suspend service reflected a concern that any interruption of worship would itself be a public signal of uncertainty about the succession, which was politically dangerous in a garrison settlement.

Oswald's role in reading prayers in the minister's absence, named by the governor to perform this function, placed a surgeon in the position of conducting church services. This was an extraordinary step that illustrated how small and thinly staffed the island's establishment was, and how directly the governor controlled religious observance when the chaplain was unavailable or unwilling.

Speculations

The governor's remarks about the Duke of Hanover and Prince George, reported by Oswald as probably spoken in jest, were nonetheless the kind of words that could be made to look seditious if taken out of context. Kerr's attempt to use them as evidence against the governor was a mirror image of the governor's use of Kerr's own words against him, and both men were in some danger from the record each was trying to create. The mutual escalation of accusations suggests neither party was fully in control of where the dispute was heading.

The breakdown of the relationship between the governor and the minister over the question of prayers for the dead king, culminating in a furious quarrel and the minister being barred from the fort table, gave the subsequent accusations on both sides a personal bitterness that went beyond institutional disagreement. The original dispute about church services had created a personal rupture that neither man was willing to repair, and the formal accusations being exchanged in the council record were as much an expression of that rupture as they were genuine legal proceedings.

328

349

Doctor Tillatons Sermons to read, but [...] minister Came himself and performed his office and prayed for [even him] Likewise Comp: Interceded by the Govern:t what he Ever the minister had ever abused him, Built by Curing me rogue and villain, and a man of great doing, And Declares that he has often to my no [...] table detriments, [...] I believe it proceeded from [...] Right of Malice for which Scandalous Aspertions, God Almighty forgive him.

Jo:n Oswald.

The Govern:t declares further, Since it is my mis- ture to be obliged to Vindicate Innocence against Such a Sernicious and wicked man.

It is worthy to be observed of others, that these persons may come the Racket of Mr: Jo: Kerr, that his Mistplying of Malice has been, for as far is, So Some two thousand Leagues (as himself doth declares), and appears by Mr: Hoskisons and his wifes Affidavit, to a Ruine a man who he hath never Seen before, and to humble himself as he hath this time, that my Lord Bishop of London as well as our [...] in [...] matter have been a good Speaker, and not bothered and to Come So [...] to persecute, and to Continue Such a man.

It is true (besides in his Flaterous argument) he hath done what he Should to Commit the highest treed of his wicked designe, writing and tearing quilts & Contrary the Kings [...] [...] Conversations into Even treasonable orders as [...] [...] [...]

The Letter wrote to Cap:t Jo:n ffoulis then deputy Govern:t it is known to all the world that Jo:n my wife told without Told it was our usuall Custome to work to the Boy in the [...] Garrison, and Desires to Say it firmly Expected a boy which he intend to Educate to be his minister, and also Says that in- pretty of time might be a Bishop of London. The Govern:t to be in Gall before to the Worshipfull Brethren in [...] the Country the Said occur as followeth.

S

It hath pleased the Almighty to grant my wife a happy Deliverance yesterday of [...] a [...] Lately no made, but be Sure it [...] [...] [...] be neither Bishop of London nor Colonel in [...] [...] Kings Army, However your Copy [...]

Margin Notes:

The Gov:t Declares further ag: Doc:tr Kerr.

The Gov:t. Letter to Cap:t Ffoulis Dep:ty Govern:r

Oswald continued, stating that he had been asked to read from Doctor Tillotson's sermons, but that the minister came himself and performed his office and prayed for the queen. The governor also asked Oswald whether the minister had ever abused him, and Oswald declared that Kerr had called him a rogue and villain and a man of base conduct, and that this had caused him real harm. He believed it proceeded from sheer malice, and for those scandalous aspersions he prayed God Almighty to forgive Kerr. The declaration was signed by John Oswald.

The governor then made a further declaration, stating that since it was his misfortune to be obliged to vindicate his innocence against so pernicious and wicked a man, it was worthy of note that Kerr's malice had extended some two thousand leagues, as Kerr himself had declared, with the purpose of ruining a man he had never met before his arrival on the island. This was evident from the affidavits of Hoskison and his wife. The governor observed that the bishop of London and others had been well spoken of in the matter, and questioned how such a man could come to persecute and continue to harass him.

The governor further declared that Kerr, beyond his flattering arguments, had done what he could to advance his wicked design, writing letters and distorting ordinary conversations into treasonable constructions.

A letter written to Captain John Ffoulis, then deputy governor, was cited. It was known, the governor said, that Kerr had told Ffoulis's wife that it was his usual custom to take a boy from the garrison and educate him to become a minister, and that in time such a boy might become bishop of London. The governor then produced his own letter to the worshipful brethren in the country, which read as follows.

"It has pleased the Almighty to grant my wife a happy delivery yesterday of a [...]. Be assured he shall be neither bishop of London nor colonel in the king's army. However your copy [...]"

[The record breaks off.]

Interpretations

The reference to Doctor Tillotson's sermons is significant. John Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury until his death in 1694, was one of the most widely read Anglican preachers of the late seventeenth century and his published sermons were a standard resource for lay reading of prayers in the absence of a minister. The governor's readiness to use them as a substitute for the minister's own preaching shows both the practical arrangements available in the chaplain's absence and the governor's familiarity with the materials of Anglican worship.

The governor's letter to Ffoulis, cited as evidence against Kerr, shows the dispute being traced back through the island's recent history to a time when Ffoulis was still deputy governor and alive. The letter's sardonic comment that his newborn child would be neither bishop of London nor colonel in the king's army was a direct mockery of Kerr's reported ambitions for his protégés, and its inclusion in the council record was intended to demonstrate that Kerr's grandiose claims had been a subject of ridicule among the island's senior officials from an early stage.

Kerr's stated intention to travel two thousand leagues to ruin a man he had never met, if accurately reported by Hoskison and repeated by the governor, was the most damaging single allegation in the entire proceedings. It implied premeditated malice of an extraordinary kind and was clearly the centrepiece of the governor's case against him.

Speculations

The governor's decision to produce his private letter to Ffoulis as evidence suggests he had retained copies of his correspondence precisely for situations where his conduct or intentions might be challenged. The letter's tone - sardonic and dismissive of Kerr's pretensions - was consistent with the governor's public stance, and its production served to show that his hostility to Kerr was not a recent reaction to personal attack but a longstanding and considered judgement.

The broken state of the text at this point, combined with the missing continuation of the letter, leaves the governor's full argument incomplete. Given the pattern of the preceding entries, however, the letter was almost certainly followed by further sworn declarations and possibly by Kerr's response, in what had become a sustained exchange of formal accusations that the council record was struggling to contain.

329

350

The Said Mr: Kerr did Interrogate [...] Said Mr: Hoskison if She was present at [...] time, She Says no, but was Sitting at the table when, She heard him Say as [...] her disposition.

The Said Mr: Kerr did Interrogate George Hoskison whether he heard the Governours Name mentioned, when he was talking w:th him, who Answered no, not to the best of his remem- brance, & yet faith that when the Said Doctor Kerr and he was talking, he Supected he meant the Govern:t but is not Certaine.

The Said Mr: Kerr Saith my Publick Hall before Severall Persons that he has not brought the matter between the Govern:t and him in Question and had not he granted a Warrant against him to Doctor Oswald.

Margaret Sich w:do brought this day her deed Husbands Last Will and Settlement in order of Sworne, the Same proved which was Accordingly done by the oath of John Siches Last, James Rider, Matthew Barratt and Trained Rurling for the Will & Testament, made oath that the Said one now produced was [...] Siches Last Will and Testament of Jo:n Sich free plant:r [...] as aforesaid, and that they knew of no other made by him Either in word or writing.

It is ordered.

That the Said Label Last will and Testament be received and approved of, and Copyes given thereof when demanded.

The Said Mrs Sich also desired that Henry Coales and James Rider might be Sworne to appraise the Estate of her deed Husband, who accordingly were, and R- Likewise that She not to Conceale any part thereof from them.

George Hoskison Church warden for this present year Informed the Governour that Thomas Coales had [...] [...] having a Black wench of his Jacknailer to Cutt him, Lies [...] [...] a Black wench of his [...] who thereupon was Sumoned to appear before us this day in order of being Examined.

Margin Notes:

Mr: Kerr declares he has not brought the matter in Question between [...] Govern: & upon this had he granted a War: from to Doc:t Oswald

John Siches Last Will & Testament Recd & approved of.

Henry Coales & Ja: Rider Sworne to ap- praise of S:r Siches State.

Geo: Hoskison Comp:t ag: Tho: Coales for being a Black wench a [...] Jacknailer to Cutt him, So with [...] other [...] Let him for w:th [...] [...]

Kerr cross-examined Mrs Hoskison, asking whether she had been present during the conversation in question. She replied that she had not, but that she had been sitting at the table when she heard him say what she had described in her deposition.

Kerr then cross-examined George Hoskison, asking whether the governor's name had been mentioned during their conversation. Hoskison answered that it had not, to the best of his recollection, but that he had suspected at the time that Kerr meant the governor, though he was not certain.

Kerr then stated publicly in the hall, before several persons, that he had not brought the matter between himself and the governor into question, and that he would not have done so had the governor not granted a warrant against him at Oswald's request.

Margaret Sich, widow, brought her late husband's last will and testament to be proved. John Sich's will was proved on the oaths of James Rider, Matthew Barrett and Trained Rurling, who swore that the document produced was John Sich's last will and testament and that they knew of no other made by him, either in word or writing. The council ordered that the will be received and approved, and that copies be given out when demanded. Mrs Sich also asked that Henry Coales and James Rider be sworn to appraise her late husband's estate, which was done accordingly, and she swore that she would not conceal any part of the estate from them.

George Hoskison, churchwarden for the current year, informed the governor that Thomas Coales had procured a slave woman belonging to [...] Jacknailer to cut him [...], and that he had also [...] a slave woman of his own [...]. Coales was accordingly summoned to appear before the council to be examined.

Interpretations

Kerr's cross-examination of the Hoskisons was a significant procedural moment. By establishing that George Hoskison had not actually heard the governor's name mentioned during their conversation, and that his attribution of the words to the governor was an inference rather than a direct statement, Kerr undermined the central plank of the governor's case. Hoskison's admission that he had merely suspected Kerr meant the governor, without certainty, was the kind of qualification that would have weakened his sworn account considerably if the matter ever reached the Company for review.

Kerr's public statement in the hall that he had not initiated the proceedings, and would not have raised the matter had the governor not first issued a warrant against him at Oswald's request, was a reframing of the entire dispute as one of self-defence rather than aggression. By placing the origin of the formal proceedings with the governor rather than with himself, Kerr sought to present his counter-accusations as responses to provocation rather than as an independent campaign.

The probate of John Sich's will, with four named witnesses swearing to its validity, illustrates the council's continued management of routine estate matters alongside the extraordinary proceedings against Kerr. The same session that produced the most contentious set of accusations in these records also disposed of a straightforward probate and the appointment of appraisers, reflecting the council's obligation to handle all administrative business regardless of what else was before it.

Speculations

Hoskison's concession under cross-examination that he had not heard the governor's name spoken by Kerr, combined with his insistence that he had suspected it was the governor who was meant, left his testimony in an ambiguous state that neither side could fully claim. The governor's case rested on the inference being obvious and inevitable; Kerr's defence rested on the inference being unproven and the words having been misunderstood. The council's failure to record a formal resolution of this point suggests the matter was left open for the Company's determination rather than decided locally.

The complaint against Thomas Coales, brought by the churchwarden at the same session, points to a case involving a slave woman and some form of bodily harm that the damaged text does not allow to be fully recovered. Given the pattern of earlier cases in these records, the involvement of a slave woman and a free man in a complaint brought by the churchwarden suggests a moral or physical offence rather than a purely economic dispute.

330

357

The Said Thomas Coales denys the Crime desireing Proof.

The Said Jenny Saith that on monday was a Sennight when the Last Ship Came into the road, about four of a [...] Clock in [...] after- noone She being Standing at Mrs Seals door, the Said Thomas Coals wife Came to her and askt her if She would go into their house who According to her request did, and went up Stairs into [...] Supper Roome, where She told not him long before [...] Mr: Coales askt her if She would drink a dram, who Said she no She did Care for any, replied but thanked him, however She filled him and [...] goblet- free, which She Accepted of and drank, to the Said Thomas Coales who who replied I wont lodge you no where, but here getting his hand to her petty Coats, for it is my wife deserts [...] Should, No replied [...] Said Jenny you Shantt, Yes by god Says he Sutter- Bred would have pulled her petty Coats up, whilst his wife hearing and Came went below Stairs back, Roome, But her Jott Clear of him and his Browne Stairs then went home, who told her master what [...] Said Thomas Coal offered to do to her.

The Said Thomas Coales and his wife Both Sayes the Said Black Jenny hath declared almost nothing but lies.

It is ordered

That [...] Said Black wench named Jenny be Whipt on her naked body at [...] whipping post for Lying Such a Scandall on a white Man, having no Evidence at all against him.

George Hoskison and Henry Frances Execut:rs of the Last wife and Settlement of Mr: Jo:n Edmunds decd, desire that Hatton Sterling and his wife be Sworne to declare what he heard her Say Considering the disposal of the Estate now of Mr: Edm: Last will & bequeathed.

Hatton Sterling Sworne Saith that he heard the Said Mrs Anne Edmunds Say before her Last Will and Testament was Sealed and Signed, that She desired none of her goods Should be Sold state, a Publick out price, you may- be Said their may be Seven years before long Jordan name of her good those [...] of Henry etc: might [...] [...] Top at a Publique [...]

Margin Notes:

The Black Wench to be whipt for Raising a Scandall on a white Man.

Geo: Hoskison and Henry ffrances Execut:rs cat [...] Mr: Jo:n Edmunds desires of Hatton Sterling [...] [...] might be Sworne &c: helping Concerning Mrs Edm: Last Will & Testam:

Hatton Sterling Sworne Says of the [...] be Said their may be [...] Almained desires [...] Henry etc: might [...] name of her good those [...] [?] at a publique [...]

Thomas Coales denied the charge and asked for proof.

Jenny stated that on the Monday a fortnight before, when the last ship came into the road, at around four o'clock in the afternoon, she was standing at Mrs Seal's door when Thomas Coales's wife came to her and asked her to come into their house. She went accordingly and was taken upstairs to the supper room. Coales asked her whether she would drink a dram, and she declined with thanks, but he poured one for her and she accepted and drank it. Coales then said he would not take her anywhere else but there, and put his hand to her petticoats, saying his wife deserved it. Jenny told him he should not, to which he replied with an oath that he would, and attempted to pull up her petticoats. His wife then came back downstairs and Jenny freed herself and went home, where she told her master what Coales had attempted to do to her.

Coales and his wife both stated that Jenny had declared almost nothing but lies.

The council ordered that Jenny be whipped on her naked body at the whipping post for lying such a scandal on a white man, there being no evidence against him.

George Hoskison and Henry Frances, executors of the last will and testament of John Edmunds deceased, asked that Hatton Sterling and his wife be sworn to declare what they had heard regarding the disposal of the estate under Edmunds's last will and testament.

Hatton Sterling, being sworn, stated that he had heard Mrs Anne Edmunds say, before her last will and testament was sealed and signed, that she desired none of her goods to be sold at public auction, and that there might be seven years before [...] Henry and others might [...] at a public [...].

[The record breaks off.]

Interpretations

The council's order to whip Jenny for raising a scandal on a white man, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, illustrates the absolute evidential disadvantage faced by slaves in proceedings against free white men. Jenny's account was detailed and specific, naming the location, the time, the presence of Coales's wife and the sequence of events, but the flat denial of both Coales and his wife was treated as sufficient to displace it entirely. The punishment was directed not at the alleged assault but at the slave's act of making the accusation, which was itself treated as the offence.

Mrs Edmunds's instruction that her goods not be sold at public auction reflected a common testamentary preference for private disposal over the open market, which tended to produce lower prices and public exposure of a household's intimate possessions. The instruction placed a constraint on the executors that limited their ability to realise the estate quickly, and the sworn examination of Hatton Sterling suggests a dispute had arisen about whether the executors were bound by a wish expressed before the will was signed rather than incorporated into its formal terms.

Speculations

The presence of Coales's wife during part of the incident, noted by Jenny as the moment that allowed her to escape, raises the question of whether the wife's return was accidental or deliberate. If she had heard what her husband was doing and came back to prevent it, her subsequent denial alongside her husband placed her in the position of protecting him at the cost of her own credibility. Alternatively, her presence throughout may have been part of an arrangement, as the initial invitation to Jenny had come from the wife rather than from Coales himself.

The council's summary dismissal of Jenny's account, without any examination of the circumstances in which she came to be alone with Coales in the supper room or any consideration of why she would fabricate such a specific and verifiable account, suggests the outcome was determined by the racial hierarchy of the evidence rather than by its content. The whipping served as a public deterrent against future complaints by slaves against free men, regardless of their factual basis.

331

358

Whereupon It is ordered.

That the Said Executors dispose of [...] Said Mrs Edmunds goods According to her desires, that we think it would be more profitable for the Legatees, if they were disposed of by [...] [...]

[signature] Tho: Goodwin John ffielt

Is:d S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 9 day of March 1703 At Fort James.

B Step:n Poirier Govern:d Pres:t Tho: Goodwin dp:ty Gov:r Pres:t Jo:n ffeild Ensign

Robert Addis & Joseph hopp Execut:rs of the last Will and Testament of Michael Morris free planter lately deceased, brought and presented the Said Will in order of Sworne Michael Morris the Same proved which was Accordingly done by the oaths of Last Will & Testam: Jo:n Stiller and Edward Crosby who made oath that the Said Reced & approved Will now produced was the Said Mich:r Morriss Last Will of. and testament, and that they knew of no other by him made Either in word or writing.

It is ordered.

That [...] Said Mich:l Morriss Last will and Testamt now produced be reced and approved of, and Copyes given when demanded.

The council ordered that the executors dispose of Mrs Edmunds's goods according to her wishes, as the council considered this would be more profitable for the legatees than a public sale.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and John Field.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 9 March 1703, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and John Field, ensign.

Robert Addis and Joseph Hopp, executors of the last will and testament of Michael Morris, free planter, lately deceased, brought and presented the will in order to have it proved. John Stiller and Edward Crosby swore on oath that the document produced was Michael Morris's last will and testament and that they knew of no other made by him, either in word or writing. The council ordered that the will be received and approved, and that copies be given out when demanded.

Interpretations

The council's direction that Mrs Edmunds's goods be disposed of according to her expressed wishes, rather than by public auction, resolved the question raised by Hatton Sterling's testimony in the previous session. The council treated her pre-signature instruction as binding on the executors, even though it had not been formally incorporated into the will's written terms. This reflected a pragmatic approach to testamentary intent that prioritised the deceased's evident wishes over strict procedural formality.

John Field's designation as ensign at this sitting, rather than simply as third in council as in previous entries, confirms that his military rank had been formally recognised alongside his council appointment. The combination of a military title with a council position was consistent with the pattern seen throughout these records, where garrison officers and civil administrators were frequently the same individuals.

Speculations

The rapid succession of probate proceedings across these final sessions - the wills of John Sich, the Edmunds couple, Michael Morris and others all proved within a short period - may reflect a period of elevated mortality on the island, possibly from disease, rather than coincidence. The concentration of deaths among named free planters and council members in the closing months of 1702 and early 1703 points to conditions that were unusually lethal even by the standards of a small colonial settlement.

332

359

Whereas Ralph Gates Sol:r being on duty at Bankes with another Soldier left his post, and that day before he Should have been relived, who being this day Examined Saith he was not well, but Thomas Morley who was with him Saith he did not hear the Said Gates Complaine of being not well as he alledges he was.

It is therefore ordered

That the Said Ralph Gates Ride the wooden horse one hour [...] annex [...] to Each legg at [...] Next Relief day and to be tyed neck and heels at [...] head of [...] Company one houre next Musterday of [...] Garnisons.

Whereas John French Jun:r of [...] Said Island Presented his Petition to us Setting forth therein that Elizabeth the wife of Jo:n Johnson Sol:r Said Divorced, raised, and Spread a most Scandalous, shameless and groundless report Concerning Sarah French the wife, Namely, that when [...] Body of [...] Said Sarah French was Cutopen and put into her Coffin She was found to be an Hermaphrodit, and had two Signe and members of both Sexes, which the Said Eliz:r Johnson made affidavit to above to [...] Said too, and moreover that the Said Eliz: Johnson Spake upbraided as was as Slandered him with [...] Improus and Impudent Aspersion of having an Hermaphrodite to his wife [...] which She has most [...] only and Untruly defamed the Dead and [...] living. Wherefore desires that the Said Eliz:h Johnson might be Examined, and that She might receive Such an Exemplary Signism, as may Cause her to bridle her tongue in the future and to molesty and hinder others from Commiting the like offence.

Whereupon the Said Eliz:h Johnson was Called and being asked what She could Say, made answer that what She had reported was nothing but what is as followeth. That being Sworne Saith that when She helped Leah Bertrant (who nursed [...] Said Jamest [...]) to lay her out, and put her into the Coffin, She Saw [...] Signa of a mans yard about [...] Length of her little finger a little below her Secrets, and Some time after She asked Leah Berta- what She thought of [...] Said John Frenches wife, why Say She, I think She was both [...] and then, so no one Say any thing abo[ut]

Margin Notes:

Ralph Gates to Ride [...] Wooden horse for Leaving his post when on Duty &c:

John French Sen:r ag: Elizabeth [...] [...] [...] of John Johnson for Raising & Spreading abroad most false Shameless and groundless Reports of his Deceased Wife Sarah French.

Ralph Gates, soldier, being on duty at Banks Fort, had left his post before he was due to be relieved. Being examined, he stated that he had been unwell, but Thomas Morley, who had been with him, stated that he had not heard Gates complain of being unwell as he claimed. The council ordered that Gates ride the wooden horse for one hour with [...] tied to each leg at the next relief day, and be tied neck and heels at the head of the company for one hour at the next garrison muster day.

John French junior presented a petition stating that Elizabeth, wife of John Johnson, soldier, had raised and spread a scandalous, shameless and groundless report concerning his wife Sarah French, namely that when Sarah French's body was cut open and placed in her coffin she was found to be a hermaphrodite, having the physical characteristics of both sexes. Elizabeth Johnson had sworn to this account and had moreover upbraided and slandered French himself with the same impudent aspersion. French stated that Johnson had most falsely and unjustly defamed both the dead and the living, and asked that she be examined and receive an exemplary punishment sufficient to make her bridle her tongue in future and deter others from committing the like offence.

Elizabeth Johnson was called and asked what she could say in the matter. Being sworn, she stated that what she had reported was as follows: that when she helped Leah Bertrant, who had nursed Sarah French, to lay her out and place her in the coffin, she saw a sign of a male member about the length of her little finger a little below the body's private parts. Some time after, she asked Leah Bertrant what she thought of John French's wife, to which Bertrant replied that she thought she was both [...], and that no one should say anything about [it].

[The record breaks off.]

Interpretations

Gates's punishment combined two distinct forms of military penalty. The wooden horse, already seen in these records in the Edwards case, addressed the offence against garrison discipline in the same manner as before. The additional punishment of being tied neck and heels at the head of the company at the next muster was a separate humiliation designed to be witnessed by the whole garrison assembled, making the public dimension of the penalty more prominent than in the Edwards case. The combination of the two punishments reflected the seriousness of abandoning a post, which left a fortification unmanned regardless of the reason given.

The complaint brought by John French junior on behalf of his deceased wife's reputation illustrates that defamation of the dead was treated as a cognisable wrong on the island, actionable by a surviving family member. The specific allegation - that Sarah French had been found to be a hermaphrodite - was not merely a personal insult but a claim about her physical nature that, if believed, would have retrospectively cast doubt on the validity of her marriage and the legitimacy of any children. The legal and social stakes of such a report were therefore considerable beyond the immediate offence to her memory.

Elizabeth Johnson's sworn account rested on what she claimed to have seen personally while laying out the body, which placed her in a different legal position from someone merely repeating a rumour. Her oath gave her statement formal weight, but it also meant that if the account was found to be false or exaggerated, she was exposed to a charge of perjury as well as slander.

Speculations

The involvement of Leah Bertrant as the nurse who had cared for Sarah French and as a participant in laying out the body makes her a critical witness to the truth or otherwise of Johnson's account. Her reported response to Johnson's question - that she thought Sarah French was both [...] - suggests she had drawn the same conclusion as Johnson, or at least had not contradicted it at the time. Whether Bertrant would maintain that position under oath before the council was the question on which the outcome of the complaint was likely to turn.

The fact that Elizabeth Johnson had sworn to her account publicly, and that the report had spread through the community, suggests the matter had become a subject of general discussion before French brought his formal complaint. His decision to seek an exemplary punishment rather than merely a retraction points to a desire to restore his family's reputation in a community where the report was already widely known, which a quiet settlement would not have achieved.

333

360

Question Concerning her, I will deny it, because if I Should declare any things that ought not to be, no body would employ me to nurse them any more.

The Said Leah Bertrant being Sworne Saith that She never Saw any thing of it that Mrs ffrenck was like any other woman, and doth deny what [...] Said Eliz:th Johnson hath declared, She told her, and avers that [...] Said Mrs: french would not lett her [...] the Chamber pot to her, During the time of her Sickness, whilest She had any Strength to help her Selfe, And that the means Mrs ffrenck was not like another woman being dead, further Saith not.

Eliz:th Lansdowne being Sworne Saith that whilst the Said Mrs ffrenck lay Sick, the Said Leah Bertrant Came over to her house and being in Some discourse Said Betty Mrs ffrenck is not like another woman, no Said I, why, because Said She, She has the Signe of a mans yard on the upper part of her Secrets, Doth believe that Says I for I have heard that She has had Severall Children, why would She not, But micross [...] Chamber pot to her, then replyed the Said Leah Bertrant, because Says this Deponent may be She was ashamed.

After mature Consideration

It is ordered.

That according to [...] Said Gunner Frenches request the finall decision hereof be referred to [...] Jury as their Next Quarterly Sessions being monday next.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin John ffeild.

Margin Notes:

The finall decision of this matter Referrd to [...] Jury next Quart: Sessions.

Bertrant stated that she would deny the matter because if she declared things that ought not to be said, no one would employ her to nurse them any more.

Leah Bertrant, being sworn, stated that she had never seen anything of the kind and that Mrs French was like any other woman. She denied what Elizabeth Johnson had said she had told her, and stated that Mrs French would not let her bring the chamber pot to her during her illness while she still had strength to help herself. She further stated that the means by which Mrs French was not like another woman related only to her condition after death. She had nothing further to say.

Elizabeth Lansdowne, being sworn, stated that while Mrs French lay sick, Leah Bertrant had come to her house and said in the course of conversation that Mrs French was not like another woman. When Lansdowne asked why, Bertrant said she had the sign of a male member on the upper part of her private parts. Lansdowne said she could not believe it as she had heard Mrs French had had several children. Bertrant replied that perhaps she had been ashamed to let her bring the chamber pot to her because of it.

After mature consideration, the council ordered that the final decision of the matter be referred to a jury at the next quarterly sessions, which was the following Monday.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and John Field.

Interpretations

Bertrant's initial admission before being sworn - that she would deny the matter to protect her livelihood as a nurse - was a remarkably candid statement of self-interest that her subsequent sworn denial did little to overcome. Her frank acknowledgement that her testimony would be shaped by economic necessity rather than truth gave the council a direct insight into the limits of her reliability as a witness, and Elizabeth Lansdowne's testimony, placing specific words in Bertrant's mouth that directly contradicted her sworn account, compounded that unreliability further.

The conflict between Bertrant's sworn denial and Lansdowne's sworn account of what Bertrant had said to her placed two oaths in direct contradiction. The council's referral of the matter to a jury rather than resolving it immediately suggests it regarded the evidential conflict as one that required the deliberative process of a jury rather than a summary council determination, particularly given the gravity of the original allegation and the formal request by French for an exemplary outcome.

The detail that Mrs French had refused Bertrant access to the chamber pot while she retained any strength to help herself was offered by Bertrant as evidence that she had no opportunity to observe anything unusual. However, Lansdowne's account of what Bertrant had actually said during the illness inverted this argument, suggesting Bertrant had drawn her conclusions precisely from what she had observed during that period.

Speculations

Bertrant's candour about her motivation for denial, made before she was sworn, was perhaps an attempt to signal to the council that she was being honest about her position even while preparing to give a formally dishonest account under oath. Whether this was calculated or simply unguarded is impossible to determine, but it left her in the worst possible position: having admitted she would lie for economic reasons, and then having lied, with a witness able to contradict her on the central point.

The referral to a jury at the following Monday's quarterly sessions, coming so quickly after the current sitting, suggests the council wanted the matter resolved before it could generate further community discussion. The speed of the referral was unusual compared with the delays seen in other cases in these records, and may reflect a judgement that the longer the allegation remained formally unresolved, the more damage it would do to both French's reputation and the community's stability.

334

361

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednes- =day the 31 day of March 1703 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirierr Gov:r Pres:t Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty [Gov:] Pres:t Jo:n ffeild Ensigne

Rob:t Gurling orphan aged fifteen years or thereabouts Came before us and desired that he might have Liberty to Choose his Brother Richard Gurling to be his Guardian and to take Care of his Estate.

It is ordered

That the Said Robert Gurlings request be granted him and that Richard Gurling his Brother take good Care of his Estate And that Mr: Luskin [...] Said Rob:t Gurling Execut:r deliver his Estate unto the Said Richard Gurling, and to discharge from that trust.

Henry Francis brought and delivered an Acco:t of the Stock and Estate of Jonathan Beals two orphans [...] was Examined w:th the last years Acco: which did appear that they Stood Indebted to [...] Said Henry Francis the Sum of fourteen pounds for the years boarding.

It is ordered.

That the Said two orphans live and dwell w:th the Said Henry ffrancis the year Ensuing at [...] Rate of Twelve pounds [...] Annum, Considering their Estate to be very Small and that he Learne and Instruct them to Reade and write true English

Margin Notes:

Rob:t Gurling desires of he might Choose his Br: Rich:d Gurling to be his Guardian which was granted.

Henry Francis did an Acco:t of the Stock and Estate belonging to Jonathan Beals Orphans.

Henry Francis to take Care of the two Orphans at 12: [...] Annum & Learne them to Read and write.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 31 March 1703, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and John Field, ensign.

Robert Gurling, an orphan aged around fifteen, came before the council and asked permission to choose his brother Richard Gurling as his guardian to take care of his estate. The council granted his request and ordered that Richard Gurling take good care of his brother's estate, and that Mr Luskin, as Robert Gurling's executor, deliver the estate to Richard Gurling and be discharged from that trust.

Henry Frances brought and delivered an account of the stock and estate of the two orphans of Jonathan Beal, which was examined against the previous year's account. It appeared that the orphans stood indebted to Henry Frances in the sum of £14 0s 0d for the year's boarding. The council ordered that the two orphans continue to live with Henry Frances for the following year at a rate of £12 0s 0d per annum, in consideration of their estate being very small, and that Frances teach and instruct them to read and write in proper English.

Interpretations

Robert Gurling's appearance before the council to choose his own guardian, rather than having one appointed for him, reflects the island's practice of allowing orphans who had reached a sufficient age to exercise a degree of choice in their own guardianship arrangements. At fifteen, Robert was old enough to have a considered preference, and the council's readiness to grant his request without apparent scrutiny of Richard Gurling's suitability suggests the family relationship was itself treated as sufficient qualification.

The discharge of Mr Luskin from the executor's trust, following the delivery of the estate to Richard Gurling, was a formal release of personal liability. Without it, Luskin would have remained technically responsible for the estate even after handing it over, which would have exposed him to claims arising from Richard Gurling's subsequent management.

The arrangement with Henry Frances for the Beal orphans combined boarding, care and basic education in a single annual payment. The reduction from the actual debt of £14 0s 0d to a prospective rate of £12 0s 0d per annum reflected the council's acknowledgement that the orphans' estate could not sustain the higher figure, and the addition of literacy instruction as a formal requirement of the arrangement gave Frances an obligation beyond mere physical maintenance.

Speculations

The debt of £14 0s 0d accumulated over the previous year, against a new rate of £12 0s 0d, suggests Frances had been providing care at a cost that exceeded what the estate could support, either because he had charged more than the going rate or because the orphans' needs had been greater than anticipated. The council's setting of a fixed rate going forward was probably intended to prevent further debt accumulation while keeping the orphans in a stable household where they were already established.

335

362

Robert Leach brought and delivered an Acco:t of [...] Stock and Estate of his three Brothers and Sister, which being Examined it did appear that they Stood Indebted to Walter Ledward the Sume of Eleven pounds Seven Shillings and Six pence for nine Months Boarding. And that the Said Rob: Leach Stood Indebted to them the Sume of one Hundred and Six pounds Six Shillings and Six pence for yams Hoggs &c: he had out of their Estate, to be Turned into Cattle which was thought would be more for their Advantages.

It is ordered.

That the Said Robert Leach have his younger Brother the year Ensuing, and that he Cause them to be taught and Instructed to read and write Good English, for which he is to have Seven pounds per An: And that She pay Eight [...] Interest to his Brothers and Sister for [...] more Reside [...] Monthover them.

Orlando Bagley brought and delivered an Acco:t of the Stock of Cattle belonging to Governour Sellings Children which was Examined with [...] former years Acco: wherein it did appear there was but very little Increase the year past, and Considering that there is but very little to be depended that his Grown for them to more againe.

It is therefore ordered.

That all the Said Childrens Cattle be Sold at a Publick out Crye, and Converted into money for their use.

Marg:t Sich w:do brought and delivered an Inventory of her deceased Husbands Estate, which Barbell Rider and Henry Coals appraised thereof, made oath was appraised to the Best of their Skill and Judgment, likewise the Said [...] made oath She had delivered all her deed Deeds his Said Estate unto them. It is ordered

That [...] Said Inventory be received and approved of, and Copyes given when desired.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin John ffeild

Margin Notes:

Rob: Leach brought an Acco: of Stock and Estate of his three Brothers & Sister.

Co:d Rob: Leach to carry his younger Brother to & to read [...] he is to have [...] Annum and to pay [...] Interest [...] &c: for [...] Money he Over them.

Orlando Bagley ought an Acco:t of Govern:t Chil- [...] Cattle a little to Increase [...] and fendeng but a little Increase.

Said Childrens Cattle to be Sold at Publique out Cry.

John Siches Inventory Reced and approved of.

Robert Leach brought and delivered an account of the stock and estate of his three brothers and sister. On examination, it appeared that they stood indebted to Walter Ledward in the sum of £11 7s 6d for nine months' boarding, and that Robert Leach himself stood indebted to them in the sum of £106 6s 6d for yams, hogs and other items he had taken out of their estate, which was to be converted into cattle as this was thought to be more to their advantage.

The council ordered that Robert Leach take care of his younger brother for the following year and cause all the children to be taught to read and write good English, for which he was to receive £7 0s 0d per annum. He was also ordered to pay 8 [...] interest to his brothers and sister on the money he owed them.

Orlando Bagley brought and delivered an account of the stock of cattle belonging to the children of Governor Selling, which was examined against the previous year's account. It appeared that there had been very little increase over the past year and that there was little prospect of improvement. The council ordered that all the children's cattle be sold at public auction and converted into money for their use.

Margaret Sich, widow, brought and delivered an inventory of her late husband's estate, appraised by Barbell Rider and Henry Coales, who swore it had been appraised to the best of their skill and judgement. Mrs Sich likewise swore that she had delivered all her late husband's deeds and estate to them. The council ordered that the inventory be received and approved, and that copies be given out when desired.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin and John Field.

Interpretations

Robert Leach's debt of £106 6s 6d to his brothers and sisters' estate, arising from yams, hogs and other produce he had taken from it, was a substantial sum relative to the other financial transactions in these records. His position as both the account-keeper for the orphans' estate and a significant debtor to it created an obvious conflict of interest, which the council managed by converting the debt into an obligation to maintain cattle on the estate's behalf rather than requiring immediate cash repayment. This arrangement kept the productive assets within the family while acknowledging the debt without pressing for payment that Leach probably could not have made.

The decision to sell the children of Governor Selling at public auction rather than continue to manage them through Orlando Bagley reflected a judgement that the cattle had failed to generate sufficient return under the existing arrangement. Converting an unproductive asset into cash gave the children a more reliable and liquid form of wealth, though it ended the possibility of future increase through breeding.

The appointment of Barbell Rider alongside Henry Coales as appraisers of John Sich's estate introduced a new name to a function that Coales had performed repeatedly across these records. The consistent use of the same small group of trusted free planters for appraisal work points to a limited pool of individuals the council regarded as competent and disinterested enough for the role.

Speculations

The conversion of Robert Leach's debt from cash into a cattle obligation, rather than a straightforward repayment order, suggests the council was aware that pressing for immediate payment would have been futile and might have destabilised the arrangement entirely. By allowing Leach to discharge his debt through stewardship of the estate's cattle, the council preserved a practical solution while creating a formal record of his obligation that could be enforced if the arrangement broke down.

The very small increase in Governor Selling's children's cattle over the previous year, noted without explanation, may reflect poor pasture conditions, disease among the herd or neglect by Bagley. The council's decision to sell rather than investigate the cause suggests it had lost confidence in the arrangement and preferred a clean resolution to a further year of uncertain management.

336

363

Island S:t Helena

At a Consultation Held on Thurs- day the 1 day of Aprill 1703 At Fort James.

Step:n Poirierr Govern:t Pres: Tho:s Goodwin dp:ty Gover: Jo:n ffeild Ensigne

Whereas according to a Proclamation Issued out the Inhabitants of [...] Said Island meet together in [...] Church yesterday on Easter Monday for [...] Nominations and Choice of Parish officers to Succeed [...] Present Church Wardens and overseers of the high wayes, Who brought unto us this day four persons nominated for Church wardens and four persons for overseers as afores: that we might make Choice of two persons in Each office to Succeed the aforesaid who are as followeth.

Mr: Carne ) Rich: Girling ) Church Wardens for [...] West division

Jo:n Alexander ) Sam: Desfountaine ) Ditto for the East division

Jonas Dickton ) Leon: Idunt ) overseers for the East division

Jo:n Bagley ) James Greentree ) Ditto for the West division

It is ordered

That John Alexander and Richard Gurling be appointed Church Wardens for this present year, and that Leonard Hunts and James Greentree be appointed overseers of the high wayes the Said year, and that they have [...] the Rules & Methods delivered them as usuall.

[signature] Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

John Alexand:r & Richard Gurling appointed to be Church Wardens for this present year & Alexander & Hunt & Ja: Greentree to be Overseers of the high ways.

A consultation was held at Fort James on 1 April 1703, presided over by Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin and John Field, ensign.

In accordance with a proclamation issued for the purpose, the inhabitants of the island had met together in the church the previous day, Easter Monday, to nominate parish officers to succeed the current churchwardens and overseers of the highways. They brought to the council four nominees for churchwarden and four for overseer, from whom the council was to choose two for each office. The nominees were as follows.

For churchwarden: Mr Carne and Richard Gurling for the west division; John Alexander and Samuel Desfountaine for the east division. For overseer of the highways: Jonas Dickton and Leonard Hunt for the east division; John Bagley and James Greentree for the west division.

The council ordered that John Alexander and Richard Gurling be appointed churchwardens for the current year, and that Leonard Hunt and James Greentree be appointed overseers of the highways for the same year, and that all four receive the rules and methods delivered to them in the usual manner.

The consultation was signed by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The Easter Monday assembly, held in the church and open to all inhabitants, was the formal mechanism of parish self-governance described in the churchwarden's warrant issued on 4 July 1702. Its operation here confirms that the warrant's provisions were being followed in practice, with the free inhabitants nominating candidates and the council retaining final selection from among them. The division of nominations by east and west division shows the island's geography was formally recognised in its parish structure, with each division entitled to representation in both offices.

The council's selection of one candidate from each division for each office - Alexander from the east and Gurling from the west as churchwardens, Hunt from the east and Greentree from the west as overseers - suggests a deliberate policy of geographic balance rather than a choice based purely on individual merit or preference.

Speculations

Richard Gurling's appointment as churchwarden, coming just one day after the council had approved his appointment as his brother Robert's guardian, placed him in two positions of public responsibility simultaneously. His rapid elevation to both roles in a single week may reflect a genuine assessment of his reliability, or it may simply reflect the limited number of suitable candidates available in the island's small free planter community.

337

364

Book cover

338

365

Document Name and Date
St. Helena Records 1699-1701

Dimensions
(height x width x depth) (cm)
40cm x 26.5cm x 6cm

No. written pages:
363

No. blank pages:

Spine and cover
GOOD CONDITION
RECENTLY REBOUND

Inside pages
GOOD CONDITION

Time taken to photograph
(hours)
5 hours

Additional comments
THERE ARE TWO PAGE 333 WITH
DIFFERENT CONTENT